Counter-terrorism

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

This secondary legislation has been brought forward to implement measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The measures were debated by the House very recently and the primary legislation was enacted only on 12 February. During Parliament’s consideration of the legislation, there was widespread recognition of the threat from terrorism and broad support for the measures in the Bill. The instruments bring to life two of those important provisions. In passing the legislation in February, the House accepted the need for these measures.

I should inform the House that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered both the instruments we are debating. I place on the record my appreciation for the forbearance that was shown by the Chair and members of the Committee in considering the instruments outside the normal time scales. The Committee cleared the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, but drew the attention of both Houses of Parliament to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015. I shall return to the issues that were highlighted by the Joint Committee later in my contribution.

It may help the House in its consideration of the instruments if I briefly outline what the Government seek to achieve by them and why we have brought them forward at this time. The regulations have been brought forward in respect of part 5 of the 2015 Act, which is concerned with reducing the risk of people being drawn into terrorism. During the recent debates on the primary legislation, there was a very informed debate on the duty that is imposed by section 26 of the Act, which is known as the Prevent duty. The regulations are crucial to the effective implementation of the new duty.

The purpose of the regulations is threefold. First, they amend schedules 6 and 7 to the 2015 Act to add Scottish bodies to the list of authorities that are subject to the Prevent duty and to those that are listed as partners to local authority panels, which are required to be in place by section 36. Those panels form part of the Channel programme—the deradicalisation programme—in England and Wales, and Prevent Professional Concerns in Scotland, which are programmes designed to provide support to those who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.

Secondly, the regulations make a number of amendments to the Act that are consequential on adding those Scottish bodies. In particular they ensure that Scottish further and higher education institutions will have the same requirement to have particular regard to the need to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom while complying with the Prevent duty as their counterparts in England and Wales. It has always been the Government’s intention that provisions in part 5 of the Act would apply to bodies in Scotland. We have consulted Scottish Ministers, and they are supportive of adding Scottish bodies to the duty.

Thirdly and finally, the regulations will bring into effect guidance issued under section 29(1) of the Act for specified authorities in carrying out the Prevent duty. The guidance sets out the detail of what that duty will mean in practice for authorities subject to it, and seeks to explain the steps that should be taken to best secure compliance.

The House will recall that the Government introduced an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the guidance will only take effect following Parliament’s approval. During the passage of the Bill, a formal public consultation on the draft guidance took place, and hon. Members will have read the summary of responses referenced in the explanatory memorandum. More than 1,700 responses were received during the consultation, and another 300 people were reached over the course of five events held in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The responses enabled a thorough revision to take place, and the results of that revision are now before the House.

There are two versions of the guidance: one for authorities in England and Wales, and a separate one for authorities in Scotland. Following discussions with the Scottish Government, the Government decided that separate guidance that specifically addresses the particular circumstances of Scotland would be more helpful than trying to address those circumstances through one set of guidance. The Scottish guidance has also been subject to consultation through a targeted process undertaken by the Scottish Government.

Hon. Members will have noted that neither document addresses the issue of managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions. How universities and colleges balance the Prevent duty with the need to secure freedom of speech and have regard to the importance of academic freedom is an extremely important issue that requires careful consideration. On account of that, the Government amended the legislation to ensure that institutions pay particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech when complying with the Prevent duty. As I made clear during the passage of the Bill, that freedom is important in challenging extremist views and providing almost an antidote to some of the extremism that might take place were it not for that challenge. We shall use the time before the duty commences to produce further guidance on managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions, and it will be for the next Government to bring that to Parliament early in the next Session for the approval of both Houses.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the context of human rights legislation, and particularly the Human Rights Act 1998 and the charter of fundamental rights, which is increasingly being brought in by the European Court of Justice, does the Minister believe that these proposals, and many aspects of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, will survive against those in the human rights lobby who are determined to put human rights ahead even of the prevention of terrorism?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, I am confident of that. Obviously, we considered the implications of the Human Rights Act when the primary legislation was taken through this House. That does not necessarily mean that it will not be subject to legal challenge—we have legal challenge for all forms of legislation—but we are confident about the way the measure has been brought forward, and it touches on the competency of member states in national security issues. I recognise the long-standing and consistent approach that my hon. Friend has highlighted, and I am sure he will continue to highlight it to ensure that we get legislation in the right place and properly consider human rights challenges and other issues in that regard. I welcome his intervention.

As for the guidance itself, it is essential that it is accurate and workable for all institutions. It is not the Government’s intention that the duty in respect of higher education and further education institutions should commence for those sectors until guidance on speakers and events has been published. This, as I have explained, will of course be for the next Government to carry through.

It is important to take the opportunity to remind the House of the purpose of the new duty and its importance. The emergence of ISIL and the number of people—particularly vulnerable, young people—who have misguidedly travelled to Syria and Iraq present a heightened threat to our national security. The intelligence agencies tell us that the threat is now worse than at any time since 9/11. It is serious and it is growing. The threat has changed and so must our response.

As part of that response, we need to continue to combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism, and to prevent people from being drawn on to that path. The Prevent duty will ensure that such activity is consistent across the country and in all bodies whose staff work on the front line with those at risk from radicalisation.

[James Brokenshire]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the work of community groups in his constituency. Some incredible people and organisations are standing up against terrorism, highlighting the peaceful nature of the Islamic religion and challenging some of the ideological underpinning that has been perversely twisted by those who support ISIL and other terrorist and extremist organisations. It is the work of community, family and people in the locality and the neighbourhood that is making a real difference in standing together and confronting and combating pernicious ideology. This is a generational struggle. Bringing forward the guidance and the Prevent duty underlines the important responsibility we all have—government, community, family and individuals—to stand together to ensure that a clear and robust message is given. I know that good work is taking place in Cardiff and in many other parts of the country to do precisely that. I welcome the opportunity to put that on the record this afternoon.

I would like to turn now to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 introduced temporary exclusion orders, which enable the Secretary of State to disrupt and control the return to the UK of certain British citizens suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activity abroad. TEOs also enable the Secretary of State to impose certain requirements on individuals on their return to the UK.

The House will recall that the Government introduced two stages of judicial oversight of this power during the passage of the Bill. The first stage requires the Secretary of State to seek permission from the courts prior to imposing a TEO or, in exceptional circumstances, to seek such permission from the courts retrospectively. The second stage provides a statutory review mechanism to enable the TEO subject to challenge the imposition of the order and any obligations imposed on their return to the UK. That judicial oversight was introduced in response to concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House, and was welcomed during consideration of the amendments made in another place.

The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 are required to implement this judicial oversight in England and Wales. The instrument introduces the court rules for temporary exclusion order proceedings in the High Court and appeals to the Court of Appeal, which are essential to ensure we are able to operate the appropriate safeguards for this power. I have already mentioned that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported this instrument and drawn it to the attention of the House.

The Government have acknowledged the issues raised by the Joint Committee and committed to updating the rules by an amending instrument as soon as practicable. That amending instrument will be made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, and I can assure the House that the process for doing so is already under way. However, as the Government made clear in their response to the Joint Committee, we do not consider that the drafting errors acknowledged render the rules invalid or inoperable. The court rules are required in order to implement the important judicial oversight of TEOs in England and Wales.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend can probably guess that I am about to ask a question similar to my last one about judicial oversight, the charter and human rights legislation. I am sure he recognises that there is a potentiality, if not a certainty, that these matters will be challenged, particularly the exclusion orders. Does he not think that there is still time to consider imposing a restriction on those who have repudiated allegiance to the UK to prevent their returning to the country?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend tempts me into a broader debate that extends beyond the statutory instruments and deals with preventing from returning to this country people who have engaged in activity contrary to the interests of this country. This issue was considered at length in this House and the other place, and it was determined that TEOs were the appropriate mechanism, considering our international obligations and the issues he highlighted of legal challenge and ensuring an effective mechanism. We judge that the TEOs provide this, but we recognise the potential for challenge. Indeed, we have built in an oversight process through the scrutiny of the judiciary.

I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that the rules are based on those used for similar preventive measures, such as terrorism prevention and investigation measures, some asset-seizing legislation and closed material proceedings, and therefore are based on the experience and judicial oversight applied to those rules. I hope that gives him some assurance of the careful consideration we have given to the rules.

[Sir William Cash]

I raised this question precisely because of my concerns about how the judiciary is effectively subordinated to the European Court of Justice, which overrides not only our Supreme Court but this Parliament. On matters concerning TPIMs, control orders and the rest of it, the Minister knows that people who should never have been allowed out have continued their stay.

[James Brokenshire]

I can assure my hon. Friend that TPIMs are robust and that we have taken steps to ensure their legal compliance. That was considered when they were introduced and during the passage of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. I fear that I am straying from the statutory instruments, but I recognise his challenge and assure him that our consideration of the rules reflected our experience of similar orders and some of the operational legal practice that the rules intend to operate.

The regulations are needed to implement effectively the Prevent duty across England, Wales and Scotland, which ultimately will help the Government and law-enforcement agencies to keep the country safe from terrorism, and the court rules govern proceedings that are essential to ensure appropriate safeguards for the TEO. With those comments, I hope the House will be minded to support the instruments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I know that when we discussed the primary legislation around the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, it was reported that the chief economist at the Home Office did say what I suggested, so the Minister has not refuted the statement I made. We now know from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that there has been recognition that the Prevent agenda matters and needs to be supported.

Yesterday, of course, the Home Secretary went even further, talking about introducing a counter-extremism strategy, although I understand that such a strategy has not been published and there is not much detail about it. Today, however, the Home Secretary has made several claims. She first promised to work with communities in a way that different parts of different communities around the country have been requesting for some time. She promised that she would be very clear about distinguishing between Islam and Islamic extremism. All that is very welcome and, I have to say to the Minister, about time too.

The guidance in front of us does not, however, go as far as it should in meeting the pledges the Home Secretary made yesterday, but I do want to say some positive things about it. As the Minister knows, the original guidance was put out to consultation over the Christmas recess period, and I think improvements have been made to it. The document is less prescriptive throughout, so it can plausibly be said to be introducing the risk-based approach that the Government said they wanted from the outset. I welcome, too, the introduction of a clear set of commitments on what the Home Office will do to support the implementation of the Prevent agenda. This has been clearly lacking, I think, since the Prevent agenda was re-launched in 2011.

Let me briefly mention Scotland. It is good to see the inclusion of the Scottish organisations. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the consultation with the Scottish Government and the inclusion of the various Scottish organisations, but I should like to ask him a question. There is separate guidance for the Scottish organisations, but I understand that it was not issued for full consultation. The Minister said earlier that there was a targeted process for the consultation. Will he explain what he meant by that?

[Sir William Cash]

Would the hon. Lady be good enough to tell us to what extent, if any, she has taken the opportunity to discover the views of the Scottish nationalists on this question? Has she had any indication of their views? They are not even here, but I am sure that she can provide us with a fairly good guess as to what they might think. We did hear Alex Salmond suggest the other day that they would be putting their foot down on matters that they thought were important to Scotland, in their own terms.

[Diana Johnson]

During the Bill’s passage, as the hon. Gentleman will know, members of the Scottish National party made a great deal of fuss about the involvement of the Scottish Government in consultation about the public institutions in Scotland that would be affected by the Prevent agenda. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the level of consultation that had taken place with the Scottish Government. I may be presuming too much, but perhaps the absence of members of the Scottish National party this afternoon means that they are fully content with what is being proposed. Obviously we must wait and see, but there is no one here to put an alternative case.

Let me now deal with some of the areas in which the revisions of the guidance have not addressed some of the shortcomings that I considered to be present in the first draft of the document. I believe that they have been raised both here and in the other place, and also in the responses to the consultation. The Minister said that there had been more than 1,700 responses, which is a very large number.

The first of those areas is the definition of extremism, which remains unchanged in the guidance. It is still defined as, basically, “an opposition to British values”. The failure to define extremism is central to other problems that the Prevent agenda encounters, as was recognised in the 2011 Prevent review. Front-line professionals do not properly understand what extremism is. There is considerable evidence of that poor understanding. A survey conducted for the Department for Education in 2011 revealed that 70% of schools felt that they needed more training and information in order to build resilience to radicalisation. That was picked up repeatedly in the consultation responses, and it is also a clear issue in relation to the Prevent agenda. We know that only 20% of the people who have been referred to the Channel programme have been accepted. The overwhelming majority are incorrectly referred, because front-line professionals have misunderstood the nature of the issues involved.

It was a failure of the Government not to fulfil the commitments made in the 2011 Prevent review to improve front-line understanding of extremism, and it is disappointing that they are repeating their mistake by failing to include in the guidance either a detailed explanation of what constitutes extremism, or an explanation of how a risk assessment for extremism should be conducted. In Committee, I gave the analogy of child abuse: we will combat the issue only when we fully recognise it for what it is.

The failure to define extremism properly also means that the guidance fails to live up to the promise that the Home Secretary made yesterday to distinguish clearly between Islam and Islamic extremism. The definition of Islamic extremism is limited: an Islamic extremist is described as someone who is angry with the west and resents western intervention in wars in Muslim countries. The guidance talks of a “them and us” rhetoric. That ignores the fact that the majority of the victims of Islamic extremists are Muslims, and the fact that those who are most likely to encounter it in the United Kingdom are Muslims. There is still nothing in the guidance about intra-Islam sectarianism, such as involving Wahhabis, Salafists and those with other views that have been specifically connected to ISIL, in particular Salafism. There is no discussion of that important matter in the document. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 was supposedly a response to that rising threat from ISIL-related terrorism. Does the Minister think more can be done in recognising that intra-Islamic sectarianism is not properly addressed in the guidance?

Those British people who have been leaving the UK to join ISIL are not generally joining a war against the west. They are joining a war against other Muslims, mainly Shi’as. This document should recognise the changing nature of this threat, and the need to recognise the degree of sectarian division related to groups such as ISIL within the UK.

In addition to this thematic problem within the guidance, I want to highlight some of the practical issues. The consultation highlighted confusion over what exactly was expected of non-Prevent-priority local authorities. Given that the Government seemed to be confused about exactly what a Prevent-priority area is, I am not terribly surprised that this is not addressed properly in the revised guidance. There is existing confusion about the role of central Government and the division of responsibilities within central Government. For example, how exactly is the burden of oversight shared between the body specifically charged with inspection of implementation—for example, Ofsted for schools—the Government Department with responsibility for that public body, for example the Department for Education, and the Home Office? What about the role of Departments, such as the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government, in sharing good practice?

Several different bodies raised concerns about this in the consultation. It will be helpful if the Government publish a clear strategy as to how they will help promote best practice in relation to Prevent. Some of the obligations on certain bodies are unclear. Neither the guidance, nor the Minister in the other place yesterday, have been clear as to exactly what is expected of a nursery or childminder in terms of their responsibilities under Prevent. So I ask the Minister again today to set out exactly what this guidance means in practice for a childminder.

An issue raised in the consultation, which I also raised during the passage of the 2015 Act, was why the only NHS bodies to be included in the guidance are hospital trusts and foundation trusts. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 many more services are now going out to the private sector. Are those private companies going to be covered by the obligations under Prevent? Why are clinical commissioning groups and other commissioning bodies not included? General practitioners at the front line may come across people who are vulnerable and who may perhaps have mental health issues; should GPs also be under some of the Prevent duties set out in the guidance, and if not, why not? On the health and wellbeing boards that the Government established, I assume that because they are part of a local authority, they also have a Prevent duty.

On the provisions for universities, I am glad the guidance is less prescriptive than before. The new guidance has dropped the requirement that all academic presentations have to be submitted and vetted two weeks in advance, which was both absurd and unworkable. However, it is bizarre that the third paragraph of the guidance relating to universities states that further guidance will be issued to cover extremist speakers on campuses. As the Minister will be aware, that was one the most contentious issues. Yesterday the Minister in the other place did not seem to be able to explain why this was or how the issuing of updated guidance would work. I heard what the Minister said about the new guidance being a matter for the next Government, but I wonder whether he can answer the following questions. First, does he think the requirement for all speeches and presentations to be submitted two weeks in advance will be included in the new guidance?

Secondly, can the Minister explain how the external speakers guidance will be implemented? Will it require a separate statutory instrument and, therefore, approval by Parliament? Will the rest of the document have different implementation guidance from the external speakers guidance? Will there be a separate consultation?

[Diana Johnson]

That is very helpful, and I thank the Minister for his straightforward response.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced that compliance with the Prevent agenda would be a requirement for universities in order that they may sponsor international student visas. Will the Minister explain whether this is Government policy that will actually happen, or whether it is a Conservative party pledge for the election? I am drawing this distinction because I understand that the coalition Government are not speaking with one voice on counter-terrorism issues these days, and I want to be clear about whether that is Government policy or not.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady has alluded to questions that might arise between the Conservative party and the Liberal party on terrorism. Would her party be in favour of putting terrorism on a par with or ahead of human rights? We have heard suggestions recently that human rights should trump terrorism.

[Diana Johnson]

That question opens up a whole new debate. We are dealing here with two specific statutory instruments. I know that there has been some tension in the coalition, particularly in the Treasury, with the Chancellor delivering his Budget and a separate Budget being delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I wanted to be clear about whether this particular proposal was Government policy or just Conservative policy. I was seeking guidance on that.

The focus on external speakers could create the risk that we ignore internal extremists. Where in the guidance is the specific reference to that threat? What would happen if a university’s Sunni society was agitating against the university’s Islamic or Shi’a societies? Have the Government considered the implications of such a situation for a university’s best practice?

While we are talking about universities, I also want to ask about the IT requirements. The guidance seems to imply that all universities should introduce the filtering of internet access through the university. Can the Minister explain the degree of filtering that would be involved? Is he confident that software exists that can do the job accurately? In the past, the platforms most commonly associated with extremism have been Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Would students be prevented from accessing YouTube? Does the Minister expect this provision to apply in accommodation provided by the university, such as halls of residence or other housing provided to accommodate students? Can he confirm that the provision will not extend to a requirement for universities to collect data on internet sites accessed by their students?

We know that the Oxford and Cambridge unions, both of which are private institutions that have a history of giving a platform to high-profile racists and extremists, are excluded from the terms of the guidance. Why did the Government choose not to specify in either the Bill or the Prevent guidance that those organisations should be covered by the duty?

There are measures in the guidance that we very much welcome. We recognise that it has been significantly improved since the draft guidance was published over Christmas. Most importantly, we recognise that it is an extremely important document. Counter-extremism is a vital part of our counter-terrorism strategy. But there are some flaws, which I have identified, that show that the Government are playing catch-up at the end of this Parliament for neglecting counter-extremism for their first four years. Because of that, we are not where we should be today.

I wish briefly to discuss the second statutory instrument before us, which sets out the procedural rules of judicial hearings in relation to temporary exclusion orders. Thanks to the Opposition, the 2015 Act contains judicial oversight for TEOs. I welcome the provisions in the Act and in these regulations today, which will enable judicial proceedings to hear sensitive and confidential information. It has always been the Opposition’s position that strong powers, such as TEOs, require strong checks on this power, and these regulations will enable those strong checks. Of course, the need to protect sources and sensitive information will impinge on the operation of the courts, but, as we have seen with control orders and subsequently TPIMs, that does not mean the courts cannot provide an effective check on Executive power. We think these regulations will be able to do that. We would add a slight caveat: the regulations are complex, as are the proceedings they are covering. We hope the Government will commit to keeping them under review and will be prepared to come back to this House with amendments if issues do arise during court proceedings that require the passing of further legislation.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the couple of interventions I made on the Minister and on the shadow Minister, I returned to a point I made in the lead letter in The Sunday Telegraph of 8 March. Following its lead of the previous week, I said that we were talking not about just an accident, but about a failure of legislation in dealing with the question of human rights and the charter of fundamental rights in relation to all the matters we are now discussing and to the whole problem of counter-terrorism. The Minister has had a pretty hard time from me over the past couple of years on this subject, but I wish to say to him that I acknowledge that difficult issues are clearly involved here. I am not denying that for a minute. But many of us were deeply disturbed when in a recent discussion—I cannot give the precise details but I am paraphrasing—the question arose as to whether taking action against terrorism would have human rights consequences. In that instance, the human rights lobby indicated that human rights should prevail.

I find that view completely impossible to understand, not least because the first human right is the right to be secure—the second, and equal, human right is the right to life. We have only to consider what happened in the case of Lee Rigby or in the case of the terrible murders that have been taking place in parts of the middle east to realise the difficulty that such a view represents. On the simple proposition that human rights does not trump terrorism, we have to be absolutely clear. I am very glad to see a slight nod from the shadow Minister, because she knows that this is true. But the trouble is that there is a tremendous amount in these documents—I will not make a long speech on this, but will simply get it on the record. We discussed judicial oversight in relation to an amendment when these matters were before the House of Commons. I cannot remember whether the amendment was defeated or withdrawn, but it then went into the House of Lords and it was that shambolic debate that we recall. Judicial oversight has now come in. My point is about the substance of the issue: if judicial oversight is part and parcel of these issues before us today, then on the basis that the judges have to obey the law and the law does invoke the question of human rights, be it under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act, or the more difficult and invasive charter of fundamental rights, which is justiciable by the European Court of Justice, we have got a real problem on our hands in dealing with terrorism. The reason why many people whom we have tried to deport—in some cases for more than a decade—were not deported was to do with human rights. Everybody should be in favour of human rights, but there are questions over how they are applied and what the procedures and thresholds are.

I conclude with this thought: we have not got it right. As I said in that letter in The Sunday Telegraph, tinkering with control orders, TPIMs and the rest of it might go some way to dealing with the problem but it will not resolve the issue if people can launch a challenge in the courts based on human rights or the charter of fundamental rights. They will not be deported and they will not be dealt with.

In the Prevention of Terrorism (No. 2) Bill that I introduced in 2005, I proposed that we should override the human rights laws to ensure the security of the citizens of this country. I said that habeas corpus was absolutely fundamental. All people who are accused of a crime, whether of terrorism or anything else, are entitled to a fair trial and due process. If we have those two things, and we override the Human Rights Act and the charter, we are in a position to deal with the problems, to satisfy the requirements of fair and judicial process and to ensure that the people have a proper trial.

My final thought is on this question of whether terrorists can get away with what they do. We know that there are many sleeping terrorists, so we are talking about a question not of if there is some form of terrorism, but of when. We should remember that the charter of fundamental rights, which came in under the Lisbon treaty, is much more difficult to deal with than the Human Rights Act, because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. In the context of the judicial process as a whole, it is imperative to recall that those on both Front Benches during the Lisbon treaty debates wanted to exclude that charter.

In one of his last statements to the House, Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, said that we had an opt-out from the charter. We in the European Scrutiny Committee took evidence on that matter. Lord Goldsmith, who analysed and negotiated the arrangements in the Lisbon treaty, gave evidence. Sadly, those arrangements did not work and we are now finding that the European Court of Justice is continuously getting involved in applying the charter on a case-by-case basis. My concerns about the charter remain in relation to terrorism. Unless we resolve that, we will not be able, either under these orders or other terrorism legislation in general, to provide the security and stability that the people of this country deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

I was pleased to hear the words counter-terrorism towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s oration. We are all reassured.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am tempted to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but, in the interests of time, I will not.

In his opening remarks, the Minister underlined the widespread recognition, on both sides of the House, of the need to combat the threat of terrorism. That recognition, I am sure, exists well beyond the House, among people of all faiths and none, and nowhere more so than in my constituency where I have a strong Muslim community. It is a tragedy for communities, for families and for the young people themselves who get sucked into the tyranny of the so-called Islamic State. Certainly those in my local Muslim community are quick to point out that that is an abuse of words, because Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state.

We need to be clear and to take care in our response to the threat of terrorism that we do not exacerbate the problem by reacting in a way that further alienates some sections of our communities. The risk of that has been made clear to me during my recent visits to mosques in my constituency by the very people who feel passionately that we need to resist the threat of terrorism. We also need to be careful not to respond in a way that puts undeliverable responsibilities on our institutions, and it is to that point that I will speak briefly, raising concerns about the guidance regarding higher education that apply equally to the section on further education.

Universities, like all public organisations, have clear responsibilities under the Human Rights Act to ensure freedom of expression, but universities have unique additional responsibilities. I am pleased that the Minister acknowledged that in his opening speech, when he spoke about the need to balance the struggle against terrorism and the implementation of the guidance with the responsibility to maintain academic freedom and the opportunity for debate in our institutions of higher education. I am pleased also that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), he made it clear that the guidance would not take effect until the guidance on speakers is approved, not simply published as he said in his opening remarks—clearly, it was a slip of the tongue. It is reassuring that approval of the further guidance is needed before the rest takes effect.

The Minister will know, because I have mentioned it before, that 29 years ago, in my previous career in the universities sector, I drafted a code of practice on freedom of speech for the university of Sheffield. That was required in every university across the country under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, introduced by the then Conservative Government, with the aim of ensuring that universities maintained that commitment to freedom of speech. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Act imposes on universities a duty to ensure that use of their premises

“is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with…the beliefs or views of that individual”.

We considered that when we debated the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, now the 2015 Act, but I think it remains unclear—I hope the consultation will produce some clarity—how the requirements of the 1986 Act sit alongside the responsibilities in paragraph 105 of the guidance.

[Sir William Cash]

Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that there is an absolute right to freedom of speech in all circumstances? Does he place any limitation on it?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I am not asserting that. The right of freedom of speech is conditional in a number of ways. We have put in place legislation against incitement to racial hatred, for example. It is a question of how to get the balance right.

My point is that we need to avoid conflicting legislation, and there is a potential conflict between the guidance and the 1986 Act. For example, what position would a university be in if an action were brought by a third party to challenge a decision made under the provisions of this guidance on the basis of the university’s responsibility under the 1986 Act? Unless there is absolute clarity when the final guidance is published, universities may find themselves in a time-wasting and expensive legal quagmire, which apart from anything else sits uncomfortably with the Government’s views on unnecessary red tape.

My second concern relates to the general duty placed on universities to act against what is described as non-violent extremism, and it echoes a point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. Non-violent extremism is defined in the guidance as:

“opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance”.

It is absolutely right to describe those values as fundamental to our society, but they are meaningful only if they allow space for those who do not share them. Clearly, as I said a moment ago in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), society does impose limits—for example, on incitement to racial hatred—but such limits have created crimes defined by this Parliament. The difficulty here is that we are giving our universities a responsibility to ban activities which are not themselves illegal, where the act of banning them may be seen by some to be in conflict with the very values that we are trying to protect.

We treasure our universities as the institutions that need to be able to debate our fundamental values. It was for that reason that the then Conservative Government included provisions on freedom of speech in the 1986 Act. We need to take great care when we legislate on these issues, and I fear that the guidance as it stands leaves too many unanswered questions.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

On the first point that the hon. Lady raised, as I said in answer to another question, we will have to look at the investigative capacity that needs to be available to the inquiry panel, but under Operation Hydrant, Chief Constable Simon Bailey will work to ensure that there are appropriate links between the inquiry and the police investigations. What is important is that nothing falls between the various exercises and that information is shared appropriately between the investigations and the inquiry panel.

On the second point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about language. It is important that we use the language of survivors or, in some cases, of victims and survivors. There is another element in respect of language. Sometimes people refer to “historic” cases of child abuse. Many of these cases took place in the past, but for those who suffered them, they are not historic—they live with them every single day. I say to the House and to all outside who comment on this matter that we should be very careful about the language we use. We should not use inappropriate terms that are hurtful and that could cause harm to individuals.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arriving at the right solution to the heinous, dangerous and difficult situation that she has been faced with. May I say on behalf of those of us who campaigned for a 2005 Act inquiry to be applied to this matter because of our experience of other 2005 Act inquiries that she has done exactly the right thing? May I also say what a good move it is to ensure that Ben Emmerson stays as counsel to the inquiry? This is a tremendous move in the right direction and I am certain that my right hon. Friend is completely right.

UK Borders Control Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

Let me share a chilling thought with the House. The United States had both the suspects of Wednesday’s Paris atrocity on its travel ban list, but the two French citizens who are the suspects were freely able to come to and go from the United Kingdom should they have so wished. That is one of the consequences of our lack of control over our borders, in stark contrast with the control that the United States has over its borders.

The principal attribute of a sovereign country is its ability and rights to control which aliens, that is non-citizens, can visit or stay and which cannot. That is the issue that the Prime Minister has correctly highlighted in his various speeches on immigration during the course of this Parliament. On 14 April 2011, he said that

“for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That’s the largest influx of people Britain as ever had…and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country. Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare—though those have been serious…but social pressures too.”

He went on to talk about those social pressures and issues relating to integration. The Prime Minister referred to 2.2 million extra people coming to this country between 1997 and 2009, and it is against that background that the Conservative party manifesto for the last general election said that

“immigration today is too high and needs to be reduced. We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by British citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.”

That led to the pledge.

What are the latest figures? They show that between June 2010 and June 2015—that is, over the course of this Parliament—we will have a net increase of migration into our country of a further 1.1 million. Roughly speaking, that is some 200,000 people a year for the first three years, 250,000 people last year and a similar number this year. That means that over the course of the five years of this Parliament, the rate of increase will be even greater than the rate of increase that was so rightly criticised by the Prime Minister in his speech in 2011 and that led to his concerns being reflected in the Conservative party manifesto. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent reaffirmation in his speech on 29 November that he is determined to try to get net immigration down below 100,000 a year—in other words, to the tens of thousands.

It is worth considering a brief history of what has happened. The treaty of Rome in 1957 set out free movement for economically active people—in other words, for people who were working or self-employed. Everybody thought it was perfectly reasonable that someone who had a job could go and undertake it in another country within what was then the European Community comprising a much small number of nations. In the early 1990s, that right was extended to the non-economically active. Worst of all, article 8 of the treaty on the European Union conferred rights as European citizens on all those holding individual nationality of an individual member state. Against that background, this Government and this Parliament are severely constrained in what they are able to do about this matter unless we change the law along the lines set out in this Bill.

Clause 3 states:

“Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 is hereby repealed.”

That section, which is entitled “Persons exercising community rights and nationals of member States”, says:

“A person shall not under the principal Act require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom in any case in which he is entitled to do so by virtue of an enforceable Community right or of any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.”

It then goes on to explain how that will be implemented. Interestingly, although most of section 7 was passed into law on 20 July 1988, section 7(1) was not passed into law until 20 July 1994—six years later. I suspect that that is because the Government of the time realised in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when we had Prime Minister Thatcher in charge, that the implications of implementing it in full would potentially be very significant. Let us remember that at that stage net immigration into the United Kingdom, including immigration from the European Union, was running at about 37,000 a year. Now, over 120,000 people a year are coming in just from other countries within the European Union. In my submission, we need to ensure that the people who are currently given a privileged position under section 7 have that removed from them so that each case can be treated on its merits, as I think the public would wish.

The problem is that because of European law and the judgments that are passed by the European Court of Justice, even groups that we thought were exempt from the provisions of section 7 are now being included. In the case of Chen, for example, the United Kingdom initially made provision to allow the primary carers of European economic area residents—self-sufficient children —to seek leave to enter or remain under paragraph 257C to 257E of the immigration rules. In that case, it was ruled that those people were entitled to come in anyway. Whatever has been passed by the European Community has been extended in its impact, making it more difficult for us to be able to take control of our own borders.

Clause 1 reasserts the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in determining which non-UK citizens may enter our country and the circumstances in which non-UK citizens may be required to leave the United Kingdom.

Clause 2, which is entitled “Regulation of entry by non-UK citizens”, says:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Acts, or of any other Act or Order, Regulation or Directive, the United Kingdom retains the exclusive right to regulate entry by non-UK citizens to the United Kingdom and to determine the circumstances in which non-UK citizens may be required to leave the United Kingdom.”

I have referred already to clause 3. Clause 4 deals with registration certificates. Obviously, we must have some system of ensuring that people who are in this country who are not United Kingdom citizens are able easily to demonstrate their right to be in this country. That is why clause 4 states:

“From the date of the coming into force of this Act and notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972, any non-UK citizen resident in the United Kingdom without the authority to remain in the United Kingdom provided by a current visa, visa waiver, residence permit or other official document must apply for a registration certificate to confirm their right of residence in the United Kingdom.”

The clause goes on to set out how that would work. Certificates would be issued and administered by the Secretary of State, and the content of the forms and the grounds on which applications could be granted or refused would be prescribed by the Secretary of State.

The model that I used for those provisions is what is currently contained in the UK visas and immigration legislation, under which one can apply for a registration certificate. There is no requirement for a European economic area or Swiss national exercising treaty rights to fill in an application for such a registration certificate, but they are encouraged so to do because they can then demonstrate that they are entitled to be in the United Kingdom. Clause 4 would operate on that basis, except that under my Bill it would be mandatory for somebody to apply for a registration certificate and hold such a certificate.

As an aside, one can see what a farcical situation we have reached. The Government have said that they are concerned that a large number of people with criminal convictions from other European Union countries are coming into the United Kingdom, so I was encouraged when I saw that the application form for a registration certificate says under section 10:

“Please provide details as requested below of any criminal convictions you may have both in the UK and overseas.”

There is provision to set out all that detail. It is in the national interest that we should know whether people applying to come into this country have criminal convictions. There has been a series of well-publicised cases where people with previous criminal convictions have committed further crimes in the United Kingdom, which has caused outrage.That was fine, until I noticed that the form went on to say:

“However, please note that should you fail to provide this information this will not result in the rejection of your application.”

That is written in because the European Union will not allow us to require such information. This is just another example of the farcical situation that we are in at present, where we do not have control over the people entering and leaving our country.

Under clause 4, the registration certificate system would require people to fill in the form accurately and give information about their previous criminal convictions, in exactly the same way as anybody who wishes to go to the United States of America has to obtain a visa. If it is all right for the United States, why is it not all right for the United Kingdom, which is an attractive place to visit? People are not deterred from visiting the United States by such a requirement, and they would be no more inhibited from coming to our country if we had such requirements. The Bill would ensure that as far as possible people would be able to stay in the United Kingdom if they wanted to, provided they had registration certificates.

There is no point in issuing a command without having a sanction, so clause 5 states that anyone who is present in the United Kingdom after 31 December 2015 without legal authority or without having applied on or before that date for a registration certificate shall be guilty of an offence, as would anybody who entered or attempted to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority after that date. Clause 6 sets out the penalties. Under the current regime, there are no effective penalties against those who come into our country and we do not know how many such people there are.

In March 2014 I asked the Home Office for its

“most recent estimate…of the number of illegal immigrants employed in the UK; and what change there has been in this number since May 2010.”

The Minister for Security and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) answered:

“HM Government have not made any estimate of the number of illegal migrants currently employed in the UK. Given the clandestine nature of illegal migrants, any estimation is, by definition, extremely difficult and prone to considerable uncertainty.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2014; Vol. 578, c. 740W.]

He then went on to explain all the wonderful things the Government are doing.

On 7 April I asked the Minister

“how many illegal workers whose employment has been the subject of penalties pursuant to section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (a) have been deported and (b) are still in the UK.”

He replied:

“We are better placed than ever to identify and charge those working illegally…It would not be possible to provide the information requested without linking immigration case outcomes to our data on civil penalties issued on employers. This would incur disproportionate costs.”—[Official Report, 7 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 116W.]

That was another completely useless response from a Government who are apparently trying to regain control over our borders, which has my full support, to ensure that the only people living here are those we really want to live here. As part of that process, of course, we need to know who those people are.

Where does one go for information about how many people are here illegally? One source of information is the Government’s December 2013 publication, “Sustaining services, ensuring fairness: Government response to the consultation on migrant access and financial contribution to NHS provision in England”. It estimates that, at any one time in England, there are about 2.5 million overseas visitors and migrants, of whom about 450,000 are from the European economic area, 1.4 million are from outside the EEA, 65,000 are ex-pats and 580,000 are irregulars,

“including failed asylum seekers liable to removal, people who have overstayed their visas and illegal immigrants”.

The Government document estimates that there are 580,000 people here who should not be here, and it goes on to explain the significant burden they are placing on the national health service in various ways and how they are not contributing as they should be.

That is the scale of the problem. There may be well over 500,000 people in this country who have no right to be here whatsoever. The Bill would, in a sense, flush them out, because if they did not have British citizenship, a residence permit or the right to stay here, they would be guilty of an offence.

I have raised before in this House the issue of what the Government are doing to enforce the provisions that make it illegal to be here without authority. I have been told that there is no need to introduce new legislative requirements, such as those in clauses 5 and 6, because section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 is clear that people who are in breach of the provisions can be prosecuted. Section 24(1) on “Illegal entry and similar offences” states:

“A person who is not a British citizen shall be guilty of an offence punishable…with a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or with imprisonment for not more than six months, or with both, in any of the following cases:—(a) if…he knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave; (b) if, having only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he knowingly either—(i) remains beyond the time limited by the leave; or (ii) fails to observe a condition of the leave; (c) if, having lawfully entered the United Kingdom without leave…remains without leave beyond the time allowed”,

and so on.

In the context of the very large numbers of people thought to be in the country illegally, one might think that we would exercise effective sanctions against them. I was therefore extremely disappointed, although I must tell the Minister that I was not that surprised, to find that in 2013 the number of defendants convicted for offences under section 24(1) in all cases of people overstaying their time limit for leave—there may be hundreds of thousands of them—was two in the magistrates court and four in the Crown court. There was only one conviction in the magistrates court and one in the Crown court under section 24(1)(b)(ii) for failing to observe leave conditions.

At the moment, even the existing law is not applied. People in this country illegally and in breach of their obligations are not prosecuted or proceeded against, which is nothing short of scandalous. That is another reason why the Bill would provide a fresh starting point. Everybody not here legally would have the opportunity to leave, to seek to regularise their position by applying for a certificate or to face the consequences of failing so to do.

If we won back control over our own system, we could require people coming into the country to provide fingerprints or DNA samples. At the moment, that matter is governed by the Eurodac regulations. I have done a lot of work on migrants crossing the Mediterranean, landing in Italy and finding their way into other parts of Europe. In Italy, they are often not processed at all: their fingerprints are not taken, so nobody knows that they have ever been in Italy, which means that they can ultimately present themselves in another country in the European Union and seek asylum. Some asylum seekers or migrants try to fight the system and refuse to give their fingerprints—the Italian authorities say they do not take their fingerprints because they refuse to give them—so I suggested that if such people do not want to give their fingerprints, we should take a sample of their DNA, but I was told that that would be illegal under the Eurodac regulations. This is crazy: what harm can there be in people seeking asylum supplying their DNA, particularly if they do not want to give their fingerprints?

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will perhaps recall that a short time ago, I presented the United Kingdom Parliament (Sovereignty and Jurisdiction over Borders) Bill, which contains a provision that would deal with any difficulties that we have in respect of immigration policy by bypassing the European Court of Justice and using the hallowed formula, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. All the regulations and provisions that would otherwise prevent us from getting proper control over our borders would be wiped away by taking that very simple step. What astonishes me is that that formula would return governance to this country. I hope that he will bear that in mind.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not only have I borne that formula in mind; I have incorporated it into the text of my Bill in clauses 2 and 4. Clause 4 states:

“notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972”.

[Sir William Cash]

Superb.

[Mr Chope]

I am delighted that the Bill will have the even more enthusiastic support of my hon. Friend. I agree with him that there is no point in pretending that we can sort this problem out without distancing ourselves from all the European Union regulations. That is why I have drafted the Bill in a way that reasserts the sovereignty of this Parliament over the borders of our United Kingdom.

I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could carry on for a bit longer, not least to point out some of the practical shortcomings of the worthy proposals that the Prime Minister made in his speech on 29 November, but I will not do that and will instead sit down, having proposed the Second Reading of the Bill.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

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

Earlier today we heard about an appalling attack on the office of a magazine in Paris. Twelve people are reported to have been killed, and a number injured. We do not yet have full details of the attack, but I reiterate the Prime Minister’s comments in the House earlier today, and we stand with the French people at this time for freedom of speech and democracy, and against terror. Our thoughts and sympathies are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims.

Last month we also saw deadly and callous attacks in Sydney and in Peshawar, Pakistan, where it beggars belief that terrorist gunmen should carry out the horrific and targeted murder of children at a school. In 2013 we saw the first terrorist attacks on the streets of Britain since 2005, when Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by Islamist extremists, and Mohammed Saleem was stabbed to death by a far right extremist. There can be no doubt that the terrorist threat we face is grave and relentless. It is a threat that takes many forms and causes suffering in many countries.

I have always been clear that we need to keep our terrorism laws and capabilities under review, and ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to do their job. That is why the Bill is so important. As I told the House on Second Reading, Parliament must have sufficient opportunity to consider the Government’s proposals, and I believe that the House has had that opportunity. We have had full and frank debates on the measures in the Bill, and the timetable has allowed us to consider all the amendments that were tabled. The Bill, and the powers within it, have benefited from robust scrutiny by the House.

We are agreed on the need for these powers. I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for their constructive approach throughout. I pay tribute to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debates in Committee and on Report, and, in particular, to a number of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Each has brought considerable knowledge and expertise to the proceedings, but all contributions have ensured that our debates have been enlightening and valuable. I thank the members of the Panel of Chairs who presided over the Committee of the whole House, and the officials, Officers and staff of the House, and those in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, who have enabled the House’s expedited consideration of the Bill.

In the past two days, we have again had a full and detailed discussion of the Bill on Report, with many excellent contributions from all parts of the House. The Bill will strengthen our existing powers, so that we can disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight, and to control their ability to return here. It will enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those in the UK who pose a threat, and it will help us to confront the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism.

During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have considered the powers in part 1 of the Bill relating to temporary restrictions on the travel of those seeking to engage in terrorism-related activity overseas, and on those suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad who wish to return to the UK. We have considered the safeguards that should circumscribe the use of the powers.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the amendment I moved yesterday regarding the question of jihadists of British origin who decide that they wish to return to the United Kingdom, even though they have repudiated allegiance to it and sworn allegiance to another state or entity. Will my right hon. Friend at least be good enough to say that she would be prepared to consider the amendment when the Bill goes to the House of Lords?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that there will be those who wish to return to the United Kingdom. The measures we are taking on the temporary exclusion orders are about ensuring that those who wish to return and have been involved in terrorism-related activity may return on our terms. They will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

On other matters, in particular safeguards, as the Minister for Security and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) made clear to the House yesterday, in the light of the views of David Anderson QC, as well as of many right hon. and hon. Members, the Government have committed to look very carefully at judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion order power. We will return to this issue in the House of Lords.

The House has also debated the duty on a range of authorities, as at part 5, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. If we are to counter poisonous extremist ideology and prevent vulnerable people from becoming radicalised in the first place, we must ensure that we have the necessary provisions. I appreciate the considerable interest that has been shown in how the duty will work in practice, and trust that the draft guidance, on which we are currently consulting, has helped to address the concerns raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members.

We discussed the nature of the privacy and civil liberties board, which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I reiterate the point made by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who has responsibility for modern slavery and serious and organised crime, that we are consulting on this proposal at present and it is right that this consultation should conclude before the final detail of the board is agreed.

The House is aware that the need for this legislation is significant and pressing. Our security and intelligence agencies tell us that the threat we face from terrorism is now more dangerous than at any time before or since 9/11. The appalling conflicts in Syria and Iraq continue, with ISIL solidifying its hold on much of the region. More than 550 people from the UK who are of interest to the security services are thought to have travelled to the region since the start of the conflict, and we estimate that about half of those have returned. Some have become disillusioned and simply wish to reintegrate into British society, but others pose a significant threat and in recent months the police have arrested and prosecuted a number of these people. The Bill will help us to counter that threat.

The powers in the Bill should be used only when it is necessary and proportionate, and their use will be subject to the appropriate level of safeguards and oversight. The Bill represents a considered and targeted approach that strikes the right balance between civil liberties and security, but we must not delay. The threat from terrorism is ever present and evolving. We are in the midst of a generational struggle, and we must ensure that the police and the intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe. The Bill will help them to do that, and I commend it to the House.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

It is a pleasure to be here in this new year to deal with this important Bill. I mention the new year because, although we are now in 2015, this is effectively still 2014 for the Minister and me, as we are dealing with the matters that we dealt with just before Christmas in almost the same format, having had the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House and Report here now.

We have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments that have a reassuring similarity to the matters that we discussed before Christmas—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are almost identical, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) suggests. I am confident, given the concerns that have been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and the points that were fully debated before Christmas, that the Minister and his very able Whip, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), will have had an opportunity to reflect on these matters over the Christmas period and to understand that there is real concern not only among Labour and Conservative Members but among Liberal Democrat Members about some of these matters.

Let me start by repeating some of the givens for those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is a given for us that the terrorism threat remains high. It is also a given for us that the exclusion provisions are a valid and useful addition to the armoury of terrorism prevention, and that they have our support. I must place on record, however, the fact that there are those among the population at large who feel that the provisions go too far. For example, we have had representations from Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and others expressing concern about the measures. I believe that the measures are proportionate, but today’s new clauses and amendments are aimed at strengthening that proportionality, providing judicial oversight and ensuring that we adopt a constructive approach to the difficult and challenging issues that the Government have to deal with.

We share the Government’s policy objective of supporting the prevention of terrorism, as the terrorism threat is high. The Government’s own assessment shows that some 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and the surrounding areas in recent months, and that 50% of them have sought to return to the United Kingdom. We do not know what status they want to return under. Some might have forsaken terrorist activity; others might be returning to engage in further recruitment exercises. We do not know their status, and there is a real need for the assessment that the Government propose. The Home Secretary’s report to Parliament on the joint terrorism analysis centre’s assessment of the threat level, produced independently of Ministers, acknowledges that the level is still severe and that a terrorist attack is highly likely, although there is no evidence to suggest that one is imminent. All Members need to be cognisant of the increased threat following the assessment by JTAC in August. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has indicated that the assessment of the Metropolitan police, on behalf of the UK police, is that five terrorists a week are now travelling, and that up to 250 are returning. The Government need to address that issue.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and new schedule 1 aim to introduce balance to the Government’s proposals, to ensure judicial oversight of these key issues. New clause 1 has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and me, and it seeks to ensure that the temporary exclusion orders can be introduced in the form that the Government want.

New clause 2 proposes conditions A to E. Condition A states that the Secretary of State must reasonably suspect that

“the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”.

Condition B states that the Secretary of State should reasonably consider that the issue of the order

“is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”.

Condition C is

“that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.”

Condition D is

“that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.”

Condition E relates to the Secretary of State believing that action should be taken.

New clauses 1 and 2 mirror what the Government have already said. We have tabled new clause 3 because we believe that a court needs to agree to the Secretary of State’s application for a temporary exclusion order. It would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the court to ensure that the conditions in new clauses 1 and 2 had been met. Under new clause 3, the court would have to consider the Secretary of State’s application. It may do so

“in the absence of the individual”

about whom the application is being made. It may also do so

“without the individual having been notified of the application”

and

“without the individual having been given an opportunity…of making any representations to the court”.

This would provide judicial oversight of the Secretary of State’s application to put in place a temporary exclusion order.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a substantial threat, although he says that we do not know exactly what it is or what the status is of the people who might wish to return. In respect of the right of abode, does he think it is appropriate that a person should be allowed to come back here if they have formally renounced their allegiance to the United Kingdom and purported to give allegiance to another state or territory and if they are known to have the intention of committing jihadist acts of violence?

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech in support of his own amendments in due course. These are difficult questions, and we might be straying into the area of deprivation of citizenship, which we discussed when considering other legislation last year. The Bill and our proposals would provide judicial oversight of decisions to exclude made by the Secretary of State. The issues of right of abode and citizenship are difficult, because if an individual retains British citizenship but is undertaking the type of activity the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, mechanisms are in place in the Bill and other legislation to take effective action to ensure that that is addressed in a legal framework. It is difficult to say that an individual cannot have a right of abode, because that makes them, in effect, stateless, and therefore the problem remains one for the UK passport holder, but it is not a problem within the UK. We need to reflect on that extremely carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling his amendments, which have a similar hue to ours, in that we are trying to put in place judicial oversight. Given the concerns that have been raised since we discussed the Bill in Committee, I hope the Minister will again consider our new clauses. They would create a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order, as there is currently no judicial process before one can be awarded. The new clauses have not come out of the blue; they have arisen because of real concerns following the Prime Minister’s initial announcement in August that he would introduce this legislation. Those concerns have come from a number of authoritative sources. We discussed these matters prior to Christmas, but it is worth repeating the concerns.

David Anderson QC is tasked by the Government with being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and both at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement and in evidence given on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights he has raised big sceptical objections to the proposed TEOs against suspected jihadist fighters. He told the Joint Committee:

“The concern I have about this power—the central concern about it—is where the courts are in all of this…if the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM”—

the other legislative tool the Government currently have—

“she has to go to the court first, and if the court thinks she has got it wrong, it will say so...one will want to look very carefully to see whether this is a power that requires the intervention of the court at any stage, or whether it is simply envisaged as something that the Home Secretary imposes…if you are abroad when this order is served on you, it is a little difficult to see in practical terms how a right to judicial review could be exercised.”

Those are key issues, because what the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said is that under the TPIM legislation designed by this Government, the Home Secretary has to go to court to get a TPIM before one can be imposed on an individual. A TPIM restricts severely an individual’s movement in the UK and imposes a range of conditions on that individual. The TEO will have the same legislative impact, in that it will severely restrict an individual’s movement. As I said, that restriction might well be perfectly valid—it may well be in the interests of terrorism prevention and be a positive measure to protect British citizens—but it needs to have judicial oversight to ensure that an individual is able to challenge it without the right of judicial review. I agree with David Anderson QC and I want the Government to respond today to his concerns, as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members.

[Sir William Cash]

I have looked through the minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Wednesday 26 November and I can find no reference, either in the questions asked or the answers given by the reviewer, to the text of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness and, in particular, article 8(3). That was not even raised, and I do not think it is possible to have a coherent discussion about the nature of either the right of abode or the implications of what we have just been discussing without making reference to the convention. No reference was made to it there whatsoever.

[Mr Hanson]

Let us look at those issues in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a contribution and the Minister will respond. I am trying to focus on our new clauses, which are about putting in place a reasonable level of judicial oversight. I have cited what the independent reviewer said because when the Prime Minister launched this policy those concerns were stated outside this House much more severely and harshly than they were when the independent reviewer appeared before the Joint Committee. The point he makes is that the Government’s defence at the moment is that there is an opportunity for judicial review, which is an expensive, long and time-consuming process and which may not be able to be exercised from outside the jurisdiction of UK shores. Under the TPIM legislation, Ministers have to go to a court, whereas under the TEO proposals, as currently put forward, they will not. Our main proposal in the new clauses is to put in place a regime that mirrors that of the existing TPIM legislation. This is not a new, fanciful procedure; it is one the Government have drawn up, as it mirrors their proposal, and I hope they will consider it seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. and learned Friend and I have crossed swords on this matter on a number of occasions over the past 15 or 20 years—since he made his maiden speech. With regard to his assertions about the common law, does he believe that the common law would be sustainable in the context of the charter of fundamental rights, because that would refer questions of family life and other matters to the European Court of Justice? How could the common law survive on that basis?

[Mr Grieve]

The biggest threat to the common law is the statutes we pass in the House that undermine it. The principles of the common law are crystal clear in respect of the right of a British-born citizen and the Queen’s subject to reside in their homeland. Parliament, if it so wished, could undermine that. That has always been the problem with the common law. It is one of the reasons why we have such things as Magna Carta and habeas corpus, because the common law was insufficient. Indeed, I must say to my hon. Friend that it is one of the reasons why we have the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and why in fact those are additions to the common law that I happen to think can be on their own, while by no means perfect—I do not wish to be drawn further down that route—very valuable. However, the common law principle is clearly there, and when there is a common law principle, the important point is that we should interfere with it only very cautiously, particularly when it is so clear.

I want to make some progress and not to be diverted. The point at issue for the national whose passport has been removed and who will be made subject to this process is that they could be left in a very vulnerable condition in the location in which they find themselves. That is why I think judicial oversight would be so valuable for the Government, were they to accept it, because it would allow the reassurance that, in taking an action that in my view is reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and on which I wholly support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister, there will not be untoward consequences that would bring that action into disrepute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman talked about the exclusion of the courts, and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said much the same from the Front Bench, because it is implicit in what he is proposing that the courts would have to be involved, but clause 2 states:

“Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects”,

“Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers”

and

“Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers”.

In each case, what evidence is there that the courts would be excluded? If there is a requirement to comply reasonably with certain conditions, it is open to the courts to have that challenged by judicial review. I am glad to see the Minister nodding. I do not understand the argument.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman and I are never likely to reach agreement on these issues. There are honest disagreements that arose in the previous Parliament, where we had sharp differences of opinion. I respect his point of view; I hope he respects mine. Judicial review is not the right way of trying to avoid the courts’ involvement. To cite David Anderson again in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, what good is it to someone in Turkey to try to bring judicial review? It is a sorry argument.

I am not saying that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is putting forward a sorry argument, but rather that the Government are doing so when they say, “There’s no need for the courts to be involved. There’s always judicial review.” In practice, it would be extremely difficult for such a process to take place. If the amendments were defeated and the Government’s measure went through, and if I were asked whether it would be better for judicial review to stay in, of course I would say yes, but it is no substitute for what we are trying to achieve.

Earlier today there was a point of order about Magna Carta, and in June we will celebrate 800 years since its inception. I have some comments and some reservations which I hope to express when Magna Carta is debated. I remind the House of article 39, which states:

“No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of the land.”

That has some relevance, as does article 40, which states:

“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.”

Those are good points, despite my reservations about the barons at the time. I do not think my ancestors were around then.

There is not the slightest doubt that if the Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they would not only support, but would have proposed, the sort of amendments that we have tabled. When the Division is called, hundreds of Members will come in to vote without hearing the debate and, unfortunately, the inevitable will happen unless Liberal Democrats follow what, given his interventions, I take to be the position of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). He knows that we have the utmost respect for him. I hope the right decision will be taken. If not, at least there is the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

The issue might go to the unelected House of Lords and it might be up to them to resolve an issue that this House should take care of today, but whatever happens I hope we make progress and that at the end of this process there will be some form of judicial oversight of temporary exclusion orders.

[Sir William Cash]

I am concerned, and have been for a long time, about the apparent not indifference to but unawareness of the danger facing citizens of the United Kingdom if jihadists of the kind I will describe in a moment—my amendment 22 provides a definition—return to the UK and commit horrible and appalling atrocities similar to that which we witnessed in the case of Lee Rigby. I ask hon. Members to think about what they would say if one of their constituents were murdered in that unbelievably atrocious manner. I also ask them to consider whether there are people among the many hundreds—some suggest thousands—who have already gone abroad who may wish to return under cover of their jihadist activity and perpetrate and perpetuate their activities in our own homeland of the United Kingdom. If such murders and atrocities were committed, would our constituents and the British public as a whole think it right that those people had a right of abode here? I think that most of the British public would say that if the circumstances defined in my amendment were complied with, they would not want those people to return to the United Kingdom.

One then turns to the question of whether those people’s human rights and the issue of statelessness are such that they should override those considerations. I am profoundly concerned and disturbed to hear some colleagues suggest that a person’s right of abode, so-called human rights and the need not to be rendered stateless are so overriding that they should prevail even in the circumstances I have described and even following the atrocities that I fear could occur.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his support, but I happen to know from discussions I have had that many other Members very much agree with the sentiments expressed in my amendments. I sincerely trust that, whatever happens—I have yet to decide whether I will press my amendment to a vote—the matter can be looked at again in the House of Lords.

I have heard on many occasions, both from Front Benchers and others, about the evidence that the Joint Committee on Human Rights received from Mr David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism. I have looked at those proceedings, but nobody asked any questions about the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, which lies at the heart of the issue. In September I heard Mr Anderson and others, some of whom are present, on the “Today” programme, strongly asserting the arguments that have now been made on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether they have reflected on the implications for the British public if we do not take proper measures to exclude the right people, by which I mean those who are pronounced jihadists and who, if they were to return, would by all accounts be likely to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities I have mentioned.

When the Prime Minister made his statement on 1 September 2014, I was concerned, having just heard so many contributions on the radio, about the importance attached to people not being made stateless and so forth, and about their human rights being of such overriding importance, irrespective of the impact they might have on the public or of individuals being murdered in atrocious circumstances. I asked the Prime Minister:

“On the matter of statelessness and preventing British terrorist jihadists from returning to the United Kingdom, has my right hon. Friend been briefed that, under article 8 of the United Nations convention on statelessness, domestic legislation in certain countries may render a person stateless where he has acted inconsistently with his duty of loyalty, has behaved in a way prejudicial to the interests of the state or has declared allegiance to another state and shown evidence of repudiation of allegiance? Does he not accept that that is exactly where we are now, and that it would be extremely important to get that right so that the Leader of the Opposition”—

who had made some derogatory remarks to the Prime Minister on that—

“understands that the matter can be made clear?”

The Prime Minister replied:

“My hon. Friend makes a good point, which shows exactly why we need to discuss and examine this issue further. The reason why everyone will want us to examine this is that it absolutely sticks in the craw that someone can go from this country to Syria, declare jihad, make all sorts of plans to start doing us damage and then contemplate returning to Britain having declared their allegiance to another state. That is the problem that we need to address, and my hon. Friend will be useful in doing so.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 34.]

Well, his hon. Friend will continue to be useful in that respect, because I think that it is very important that we properly examine in this debate not only potential atrocities but the legal basis on which arguments are presented both for and against such orders.

I have corresponded with the Minister for Security and Immigration. If he was good enough to listen, he might want to intervene because I am about to refer to our correspondence. I am failing in my attempt, so perhaps his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), could give him a nudge. [Interruption.] That is very good of him. I just want to let the Minister know that I am about to refer to correspondence between me and the Department.

I wrote to the Minister, and had a reply. I will not go into every aspect of it, but I found that I had to write to him again on 15 December. His letter alleged that the convention on the reduction of statelessness did not really apply, but I made a point about article 8(3). The beginning of article 8(1) of the convention—bear in mind that the United Kingdom has signed it—clearly says:

“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.”

However, article 8(3) goes on:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1…a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality”.

Some states have and some have not gone along with the arrangements, but the article goes on to give the basis on which a state may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, and that is very much in line with the proposed new subsection (6A) in my amendment 22. It is clearly founded on the exclusions from the provisions of article 8(1).

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, it certainly is, but it is also subject to the question of what is the appropriate rule of law. The law—for example, on the right of abode, and in relation to the question of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971—is what Parliament has decided is appropriate for the circumstances at the time. However, times have moved on and the circumstances are different. I have heard lawyers—I am one myself, and a former shadow Attorney-General—talk over and over again about the rule of law without asking this question: what is the rule of law based on? What circumstances does it apply in, and is it still relevant? We amend Acts of Parliament the entire time. This Bill and temporary exclusion orders are a new step forward, and they are a change in light of current circumstances. Looking across the Chamber, legislation relating to Ireland as it was in the days of the troubles was part and parcel of changes made at that time, and changes have been made to that legislation since. The answer is: liberty, yes, 100%, but not in circumstances where those who are prepared to perpetrate atrocities are allowed to get away with it.

[Mr Winnick]

Surely the rule of law must imply and mean in practice that no one’s liberty should be taken away except by the courts.

[Sir William Cash]

There are very sound reasons why the Secretary of State should have the right to determine these questions, as she does in many other cases. I have already made the point that at every stage in conditions A to D the Secretary of State may take only such action that she “reasonably” considers appropriate under the circumstances. The Bill already takes account of the possibility of judicial review.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to conditions A to D, which refer to the Secretary of State “reasonably” suspecting or considering something. Amendment 22 states that

“the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met”.

Provided evidence to whom or to what?

[Sir William Cash]

Provided evidence to those who will be making decisions about terrorism-related activities. It is not just about providing evidence to the court, which I think is implicit in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting; it is about providing evidence about the facts described in the amendment. It is not necessary for the case to go to court, and the amendment leaves out the word “reasonable” in this context for that reason. If the Home Secretary provides evidence that is based on the person in question having repudiated their allegiance to the United Kingdom, and if that person has provided evidence of their allegiance to the new state by virtue of their actions and statements, that is enough in itself. That individual has done those things, and that is the evidence in question.

The legislative framework of this measure has already been mentioned, and I say to the Minister and my colleagues—some of whom I thoroughly disagree with on these matters—that it will be extremely difficult to exclude the operation of the charter of fundamental rights in applications of the kind likely to arise under the Bill. That is a serious problem because it will mean that under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, the charter of fundamental rights will apply. That has already been made applicable—the European Scrutiny Committee has established that without a shadow of doubt, over and against the continuing belief, which has now been abandoned, that that charter does not apply to the United Kingdom. The charter of fundamental rights will apply, as will the Human Rights Act 1998. In those circumstances, the question of whether decisions will be taken by the British courts is a matter of extremely grave doubt; in fact, I would go further and say it is an impossibility. On the basis that the charter of fundamental rights does apply, if a decision were to go to the courts as in the Opposition amendments, it would be decided by the European Court of Justice under matters covered by the charter. That is a fatal objection. If the measure were to be carried out notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972 it would be another story, but that is not what the amendments would do.

In conclusion, these are grave issues with great sensitivities, beliefs, convictions and principles at stake. There is an honest disagreement, to say the least, between myself and other Conservative colleagues, and I think we should put the British subject first, by which I mean those liable to be affected by jihadist atrocities, and not put forward the generalised view that the human rights lobby would prefer. This matter is too serious and too dangerous. It is not just about allegiance in its own right, but about a physical danger to the British public.

[Mark Field]

Unlike many of my colleagues I am more sympathetic to the Government’s position than others, although I respect the deep concerns felt across the House about broad issues of civil liberties. I have less concern about the temporary exclusion order being down to Executive authority, and in many ways the accountability of any Minister to come to the House and justify their actions counts for quite a lot.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) referred to the protection only of judicial review. If it were still down to old-fashioned Wednesbury principles I could accept that, but judicial review is now a rather broader body of law than was perhaps the case in the 1940s. It is now pretty substantial, which provides enough comfort—at least to my mind—for us to go down that route, rather than requiring the oversight that would come through David Anderson QC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I see. That is a different point from the one I was addressing, so I apologise to my hon. Friend. Either way, I want the Bill adjusted for greater judicial oversight.

My hon. Friend is not as anxious as I am about the temporary exclusion orders in clause 3. I would not be as anxious as I am if the expression “temporary” related to a period far shorter than two years. To me, a temporary exclusion order means a matter of months, at the most, and possibly only days and weeks. Once one moves from days, weeks or a few months, one moves into something other than temporary, which bolsters the arguments behind the need for judicial supervision. I do not like the word “permission” in new clause 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), but I do not think we should be frightened of judicial supervision. By “judicial supervision”, I mean getting to grips with the substance of the case, not judicial review, irrespective of the fact, as my hon. Friend accepted, that judicial review is a bit meatier and has more teeth than when it started. I share the concerns of many hon. Members, therefore, that although the Home Secretary—particularly this one—will be entirely well motivated, we should not allow her or her Ministers to persuade us that their motives trump our concerns about the absence of judicial oversight.

[Sir William Cash]

Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I give way to a fellow member of the former shadow Attorney-General’s club.

[Sir William Cash]

The old cabal.

I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would be good enough to answer this simple question: does he believe that the charter of fundamental rights could not get involved in this process? If so, what would his answer be?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. This is not about citizenship. This is a temporary exclusion order. I have said in the House on many occasions, and indeed in evidence to Select Committees, that individuals will not be rendered stateless. They will not be left unable to return to the UK for an indefinite period—they must be issued with a permit to return within a reasonable period of time if they apply for one and attend an interview if required to do so. Quite simply, the power ensures that the Secretary of State is able to control the return of certain individuals suspected of terrorism-related activity abroad and appropriately manage the threat that they pose once they have arrived back in the UK. Obviously, they will be excluded for a time during which the permission may be granted—indeed, they may choose not to return during that time—but the power is framed in that manner and does not link into the broader issues of statelessness that are of concern to some Members and have been addressed more recently in the Justice and Security Act 2013, for example.

[Sir William Cash]

Would the Minister be good enough to explain why there is no condition applied for a temporary exclusion order where the individual has clearly repudiated allegiance to the UK, has adopted jihad and has sworn allegiance to an organisation such as ISIL? In those circumstances, how could we possibly not want to exclude such a person?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to my hon. Friend’s amendments later, but the test is

“that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”

and

“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom”

to put the measure in place. I argue that the circumstances or scenario that my hon. Friend describes are potentially captured within the terms of the existing definition. However, I will return to his specific points in due course.

In the framework that we have adopted here, the individual’s passport would be revoked and they would be placed on a no-fly list, but their daily activities would not be disrupted in the same way as, for example, a TPIMs subject. This measure must be considered in that context. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) highlighted the temporary nature of this; it is a two-year order that is capable of being renewed. As I have sought to describe, it is an issue of temporarily excluding during a period when someone may have made a request to return. The Bill clearly sets out the measures that would operate in those circumstances. Indeed, if deportation is envisaged the Secretary of State must, as clause 6 makes clear, issue a permit for return.

Turning to the amendments advanced by—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I promise that I will come back to my hon. Friend’s points, but I would like to get to the Opposition Front-Bench amendments. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a temporary exclusion order. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the TPIMs Act. As the Home Secretary stated in Committee, as the Minister with responsibility for national security it is right that she, not the courts, imposes an order of this kind. This is a discretionary power which will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact.

Several Members have shared their views on the matter of oversight of this measure. I think a distinction is being drawn, and I will come on to the other amendments tabled in the group. It must be clear that, with responsibility for all other national security and counter-terrorism matters, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a temporary exclusion order is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat that we face. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined in Committee,

“to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1208.]

We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power, and I reiterate that a temporary exclusion order does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK. The in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. That is the approach we have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I have clearly recognised the issues highlighted by David Anderson and by right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The hon. Gentleman should take reassurance from my statements.

Amendments 21 and 23, which are in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), seek to create additional circumstances under which a temporary exclusion order may be imposed. I recognise the intention behind the amendments, and of course the Government agree that anyone who has pledged allegiance to another state or territory and repudiated their allegiance to the UK should be handled appropriately. However, the measure before the House has been carefully crafted with the specific conditions that I have highlighted. Indeed, the amendments appear to go significantly beyond the measure and would mean that an individual could be made subject to a temporary exclusion order without the Secretary of State reasonably suspecting that they have been involved in terrorism-related activity abroad; without the Secretary of State reasonably considering that the imposition of such an order is necessary to protect members of the public in the UK from the risk of terrorism; and, crucially, without the Secretary of State believing that the individual is located outside the UK, which goes against the heart of the temporary exclusion power.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is seeking to advance an argument that is perhaps more about addressing statelessness and citizenship, which strays beyond the ambit of the Bill and the temporary exclusion order. We have previously corresponded on the issue in the context of the scope of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness. We perhaps differ on the interpretation of some of the detail, but the Bill has been appropriately framed and allows the Secretary of State to act clearly to ensure national security by taking action against those persons whom she reasonably suspects are involved in terrorism-related activity outside the UK, which goes to the heart of the measure.

[Sir William Cash]

The Minister frames his response in a reasonable manner but, in line with the international convention on the reduction of statelessness, which is relevant to this measure and to which David Anderson did not refer when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is an act of treason when a person repudiates allegiance. Such repudiation is not just a theoretical, academic act under an ancient 1351 enactment; it is the repudiation of allegiance to the state. When someone repudiates that allegiance and adopts an allegiance to another state, it is treason. Surely, by their self-denial and repudiation, they have denied themselves the right to the liberties that have been referred to continually by all my colleagues who have said that we must insist on the common law and on the liberty of the subject. Such people repudiate it themselves.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have on the need to ensure that we are acting appropriately to address the threat of terrorism and the dangers and harm that may be caused by jihadists who have travelled abroad and who may wish to return to this country. This measure is about precisely that, which is why it is framed in this manner and why we have legislated for prosecutions to be brought where people return to the UK after committing acts abroad that would justify prosecution in this country. I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, but our judgment is that the Bill properly reflects that and gives the appropriate power.

With those comments, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

May I make a little more progress?

In July, we announced a range of other measures, including the creation of a new cross-Government FGM unit to work with criminal justice agencies, children’s services, health care professionals and affected communities. I hope that, together, these measures, including the changes to criminal and civil law, will help to tackle this appalling practice.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mrs May]

I have been very generous in accepting interventions. If I am going to accept my hon. Friend’s intervention, I should first accept that of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes a point not just about FGM but more generally about refuges. Before Christmas, the Government announced the availability of a further £10 million for refuges as a recognition of the valuable work they do, particularly in relation to women who are leaving a domestic environment where they have been subject to domestic abuse. On female genital mutilation, it is important to ensure that the young people involved are aware of what they are able to do in order to escape this danger. It is also important that we send out very strong messages from this place, and generally, about the fact that it is a criminal act that we are not willing to accept in this country, and that we will make every effort we can to ensure that we eradicate the practice.

[Sir William Cash]

I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for this incredibly important provision and the manner in which it has been handled in the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who is away at the moment, is chairman of the all-party group on FGM, of which I am also a member. We wonder whether it will be possible to insert in Committee arrangements ensuring that where the court makes an order it should protect a girl against not only the commission of but the risk of commission of a genital mutilation offence. I will deal with that when, I hope, I speak subsequently in this debate. Will my right hon. Friend be interested in listening to those arguments?

[Mrs May]

I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend says about this later and the detail that I am sure he will fill in. We are addressing the whole question of the risk that an individual may face from female genital mutilation in the new offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM. It is important that those who have responsibility for these young girls and are aware of what might be happening recognise that they need to do something to ensure that the individual is not at risk and is not put through FGM. I look forward to hearing the arguments that my hon. Friend will advance later in relation to his point.

Part 5 of the Bill includes another child protection measure in making it an offence to possess so-called paedophile manuals—material that contains practical advice on how to commit a sexual offence against a child. It beggars belief that such things actually exist, but regrettably the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, a command of the National Crime Agency, has seen a number of examples. That being the case, it is right that we act to outlaw the possession of such material. In doing so, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has campaigned assiduously on the issue.

If there are other gaps in child protection legislation, we are determined to take the necessary action to safeguard those at risk of harm. That is why last month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we will amend the Bill to make it an offence for an adult to communicate sexually with a child. Many hon. Members have supported the campaign by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I pay tribute to them for highlighting this gap in the law.

Before leaving this part of the Bill, I confirm that we will table amendments in Committee to strengthen the protection afforded to the victims of domestic abuse. As the House knows, over the summer the Home Office ran a consultation seeking views on whether a specific offence was needed to criminalise coercive or controlling behaviour in intimate personal and family relationships, and 85% of respondents agreed that the law in this area needed to be strengthened. With over 1 million calls for assistance to the police each year for domestic abuse-related incidents, but only 78,000 prosecutions, it is clear that the criminal justice response to domestic abuse is woefully inadequate. The new offence will provide an additional charging option where there is a pattern of non-violent controlling conduct, the cumulative impact of which can be no less traumatic for the victim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It is a matter not just of the legal framework, but of making sure that the law is enforced. We must ensure that the law is strong enough and that prosecution authorities, the police and authorities at every level, including schools and other organisations, are properly aware of the seriousness of the crime and of the risks to young girls in this country, and are prepared and ready to take action to tackle this awful crime.

[Sir William Cash]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the problems has been that front-line workers are uncertain when they may report matters? That is the objective with which I will deal in my remarks later. Will she give a sympathetic hearing to that approach?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will certainly do so. I am happy to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. We, too, have spoken about the issues surrounding mandatory reporting not only of female genital mutilation, but of child abuse more widely. There is a strong case for making sure that professionals across the board are aware of the serious damage being done to young people as a result of these awful crimes.

We welcome the proposals to strengthen the law on domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Women’s Aid and Paladin, which have campaigned for the strengthening of the law so that it recognises the cumulative impact of different forms of psychological abuse, as well as physical abuse, and the way that that can trap women in particular and men in abusive relationships, causing huge harm to them, their families and the children. We look forward to discussing the clauses in detail.

On protection for children, I pay tribute to Action for Children for its campaign to strengthen the law on child cruelty, and to the campaign by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and by Lord Harris, who argued, with our support in the other place, that the Bill should include a new offence of sending a sexual message to a child.

As an overall response to the scale of serious crime, however, the Bill does not yet go far enough, because crime is changing and serious crime is a grave and growing problem. Over the decades there has been a welcome fall in the number of high-volume crimes, including most theft offences, domestic burglaries and car crimes, but the number of many of the most serious crimes is going up. Reported rapes continue to rise at about 30%, yet new figures show that the number of arrests has gone down by 8%. Arrests as a proportion of recorded rapes have dropped from 90% to 63% in the past few years. That is completely unacceptable. Violent crime is also increasing, but prosecutions and convictions are falling.

On sexual offences, the Home Secretary sometimes refers to a Yewtree effect and historical offences, but that is not the case, because the latest figures show that the majority of the increase in reported sexual offences has occurred in the previous 12 months. Reported child sex offences are perhaps one of the most troubling areas of all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am aware of the time constraints, so let me simply say that I very much welcome the Bill, particularly the part that deals with female genital mutilation. I am intrigued, too, by the Bill’s provisions relating to the possession of paedophile manuals, which are to some extent based on the Protection of Children Act 1978. I was involved with that Bill between 1977 and 1978, and it was passed only because the Prime Minister’s wife—the Prime Minister at the time was Jim Callaghan—insisted that if he did not allow the Bill to go through, she would not speak to him for six months. In fact, he made sure on Report that it did go through.

I am glad to observe that we are building on that, but I am very concerned about the parts of the Bill that deal with female genital mutilation, although Members will have an opportunity to table amendments in Committee. At present, the court may make an order in relation to the commission, or the protection of a girl against the commission, of a genital mutilation offence. Some members of the all-party Committee—including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who will speak in the Committee—will be tabling amendments, because we strongly believe that there is a case for dealing with the circumstances in which the risk of the commission of a genital mutilation offence arises.

Because the order made by the court is aimed at prevention of the offending conduct, it must be prospective, and must be founded on an appropriate gauging of risk. None the less, the inclusion of the words “at risk” in the relevant paragraph would have the benefit of indicating to front-line workers—this is the practical aspect—that the provisions permit them to seek the court's intervention once a risk of commission has been identified. We need to consider that carefully, because, as was made clear by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee—only two successful prosecutions have been made since the 1980s. We are focusing on the prevention as well as the commission of the offence.

Many front-line workers have been reluctant to take safeguarding action or initiate alerts for fear of being accused of targeting minority communities or raising an alarm when some of the acts preparatory to the commission of the offence have not been completed, but there are indications that the putative victim has been placed “at risk” of commission of the offence. That reluctance has led to a decrease in the number of opportunities for prosecutions, and has left many young potential victims without the necessary protection. We believe that the addition of the words “at risk”, accompanied by non-exhaustive statutory guidance for front-line workers on the threshold for intervention—which could be introduced either by means of a statutory instrument or under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—would increase effectiveness, and would give front-line workers the confidence that would enable them to take robust preventive action.

We are trying to anticipate the actual commission of the offence. The communities involved often come from parts of the world where it is a ritual that is part and parcel of their culture, so it is very important for us to act at the right time if we are to tackle the problem effectively. In that context, the “at risk” element is as important as the commission of the offence.

I will leave the other arguments to the Committee, but that is the essence of the argument that will be deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me start with William’s story. I have changed his name to protect his identity. He is in his late 50s and his wife does not know that he was abused. He believes it would ruin his relationship if she found out. You could not wish to meet a more polite, intelligent and endearing gentleman. He does not look like a gentleman: he has tattoos, his face and skin are weathered, and he is quite dishevelled. William came to see me four months ago to tell me what had happened to him as a child. In 1970, he had been placed in Knowl View residential school in Rochdale, a place for youngsters with behavioural problems. The initial ethos was caring and supportive: the hitting of children was frowned upon and children were to be listened to.

As William pointed out to me, that ethos did not last very long. Within weeks of him arriving, he was being abused, both by teachers and by fellow pupils. Physical and sexual abuse was meted out on a daily basis. From the age of 13, he was bullied and abused, both physically and sexually. Sobbing, he explained to me how he was pleased when a younger boy who was more attractive was placed in the school, because that child became the focus of attention. One day, Cyril Smith tried it on with him, but one of the good teachers saved him. Obviously, at the time, William did not know that Smith was part of a paedophile network operating at the school. It was just one of the networks to which Smith would belong in his long paedophilic career.

William eventually escaped by running away and he has spent the rest of his life working on fairgrounds, an articulate, smart lad whose life chances were limited by his abusers. Needless to say, he is sad and wants justice. Only time will tell whether Greater Manchester police will deliver that for him.

Let me turn to John, who came to my office a few months ago. He suffered a similar fate at Knowl View school. He attacked one of his abusers and ended up going to prison. Years later, he sat in my office seeking help to find accommodation because he was homeless. Abuse had destroyed John’s life.

It is for those people—William and John—that we are here today. They are the survivors. As children, they suffered horrendous abuse. Now, as adults, they are determined to share their stories and bring the abusers to justice.

That desire to get to the truth about child abuse, however, has not been universally shared. We now know that from at least the 1970s up to the present day, there have been not only people in positions of power who have sexually abused children, but powerful people willing to cover up that abuse and obstruct justice. People were more concerned about their own careers and protecting the system than they were about the lives that were being shattered. From the systematic abuse by Jimmy Savile, which has been well documented, to the continual abuse committed by Cyril Smith, which Matt Baker and I have detailed, it is clear that there was a culture of acceptance of child sex abuse by the powerful and well connected.

Amazingly, that attitude seems to have been well known at the time. Indeed, I was recently shown an episode of “Spitting Image” that was produced and aired in June 1987. The sketch mocks Conservative youth unemployment policy by joking that the Government had been very good at

“getting to grips with youngsters”

through their “rent boy scheme” The joke was on the Conservative policy, but it was also on the boys who were raped and abused by politicians.

In addition, we have seen the shocking spectacle of a former Whip, Tim Fortescue, openly telling the BBC that the Whips in the 1970s would help MPs to cover up scandals, including incidents with small boys. It seems that the culture of child abuse around politics was an open secret, yet nothing was done and children continued to be abused.

This problem was not confined just to politics and broadcasters. There are many instances, which I and others have documented, of the police ignoring child sex abuse. Let us not forget that this is the agency charged with keeping children safe, yet there was systematic ignorance by the police of the abuse that was going on.

During my own investigation, Cyril Smith was found to be the subject of multiple police investigations, all of which were dropped. There are many examples of retired police officers offering powerful testimony to me and my staff about past investigations of child abuse. They were shut down once it was apparent that high-profile politicians and other establishment figures were involved. They include Operation Circus, which focused on what was known as the Piccadilly Circus “meat rack”, where men would pick up adolescent boys for sex. Cyril Smith was among the powerful politicians spotted here taking boys back to a flat in north London. Questions must be asked about why those investigations did not continue.

Last Sunday, events took an even more sinister turn and there were allegations that sexually abused children had been murdered and that they involved people with a connection to this House. As shocking as those claims are, I am wholly convinced that we should take them seriously. When responding to the Wanless and Whittam review of missing files at the Home Office, the Prime Minister described those who believed in child abuse cover-ups as “conspiracy theorists”. My view is that those comments were extremely insensitive and I think he will regret them in the months and years ahead. I have to admit that some of the claims that sometimes surround child abuse in that period can seem extreme, but from what I have seen and heard it is not hard to conclude that there was a paedophile network at Westminster during that period. The network organised child abuse and conspired to protect each of its members from exposure. Cyril Smith was certainly a part of it.

Earlier this year, I told the Home Affairs Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan. That revelation helped lead to the Wanless and Whittam review and to the establishment of the overarching inquiry, but not everybody was pleased with the idea that I might challenge Lord Brittan. The night before my appearance before the Committee, I had an encounter with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). After the 10 pm vote, he drew me to one side outside the Chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day. He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death, as he was unwell.

I understand that people are cautious about naming parliamentarians, but I think that people who might know about child abuse allegations should answer questions, whatever their position. We should not shy away from that.

I move on to the inquiry itself. It is fair to say that we are in a bit of a mess. First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily blame the Government or, indeed, the Home Office, but it is clear that mistakes have been made. What the Home Office permanent secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday is quite revealing. He said that the Home Office had not appreciated the emotional nature of the inquiry when setting it up and appointing the chair. I was pleased to hear the permanent secretary say that this is now one of the top three priorities for the Home Office.

I do not want to dwell too long on false starts and the progress that still needs to be made. Too much time has been lost already. On the chair, however, I understand that the Home Office is now considering 100 names. Clearly, the process will not be quick and I do not think it should be rushed, but we need to get the right person in place. To do that, it is clear that we need more scrutiny and transparency of the appointment process. I am still confused and disturbed by the role of the Home Office in drafting the letter from Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary. On the new chairperson, it is important for the Home Office not to have any involvement in any letter to or agreement with the Home Secretary—it should stay well out of it.

It is now clear that we cannot have another chair with significant links to people who might be investigated in the course of this inquiry. I am pleased that the permanent secretary has said that they are looking “further afield” and considering people from outside a narrow Westminster circle.

The other thing that is clear is that there needs to be a much greater role for survivors. I started my speech with two stories about survivors, to remind the House that this inquiry should always be focused on them. I am sure that meeting groups and representatives will redouble the Home Secretary’s efforts to make sure that the inquiry gets to the truth. It is not enough, however, simply to meet survivors—the Home Office needs to listen to them, too. For example, I understand that at a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote on whether the inquiry should be a statutory one. I am given to understand that the vote was unanimously in favour. May I ask the Minister whether these views are really being taken on board?

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On the question of having a statutory inquiry, I take it that the hon. Gentleman means an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. We had considerable experience of trying to get such an inquiry on Mid Staffordshire: I had to campaign almost unimaginably hard to get one under the 2005 Act. The reason for having one is simply that evidence can be given on oath and there can be a proper inquiry; anything less would simply not be adequate. Indeed, the Attorney-General will need in some way to be brought in to ensure that the very important people who might be involved in all the investigations are aware that the inquiry is being undertaken at that level.

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his valuable intervention, which should inform the inquiry and its work.

I know that the new chair of the inquiry, when eventually appointed, will have some scope to alter the terms of reference. It is especially important to concentrate on the geographical scope. If I have learned one thing from studying child abuse networks, it is that there are lots of connections that are difficult to spot or to understand. I am worried that drawing arbitrary boundaries that stop us from looking at Scotland and Northern Ireland might prevent some connections from being made and some lessons from being learned. In Northern Ireland, I am particularly thinking of Kincora boys’ home and the alleged involvement of the security services. I want the new chair to consider the geography of the terms of reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

That is entirely the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale made. It is not in the interests of any one of us who is in politics or in Parliament to stand by while suspicions and allegations of child sexual abuse involving politicians, dead or alive, are ignored. We need to root out this cancer. A child sexual abuser who happens to have been a politician is no less of a vile criminal than Jimmy Savile, a rogue priest or any other subject of the overarching inquiry. Those who think that we would want to cover up the involvement of other politicians in this abuse need to understand that this cancer tarnishes all of us and needs to be cut out. We have more incentive than many to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, however uncomfortable the findings may be.

[Sir William Cash]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for their persistence in this matter. It is a remarkable example of how results can come from determination. He might be interested to know that it was Jim Callaghan who, as Prime Minister, insisted that the Protection of Children Bill reached its Report stage, against the background of considerable covert opposition. I was involved in that Bill in 1977 on behalf of the former Member of Parliament, the late Cyril Townsend. Jim Callaghan told me that his wife had said that if he did not get the Bill through as Prime Minister, she would not speak to him for six months.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and one that I have heard him make before. He is a veteran of taking an interest in this issue and ensuring that a spotlight is placed on these horrendous crimes. That was more difficult back in the ’70s and ’80s, when there was what I call the “Oh, it’s only Jimmy” mentality. What we now recognise as vile crimes against vulnerable children were swept under the carpet. It was assumed that that was just what went on and people did not want to rock the boat, for all sorts of reasons. It was harder for people to stand up and point the finger in the ’70s and ’80s than it is now. We should pay tribute to those people who, under whatever duress, brought such matters into the open.

It would have been better and easier if the overarching inquiry had started two years ago. Some of us wrote to the Prime Minister soon after the Savile revelations broke to say, “This is going to be really important. This is going to lead to a serious undermining of confidence in the child protection system in this country, and all sorts of allegations about cover-ups will start to come out.” The floodgates had been opened. The only compensation of the Savile case is that it raised the profile of child sexual abuse and emboldened victims to come forward who for years and decades had been told to go away and forget about it, and had been treated almost as the perpetrators, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, rather than the victims that they were or the survivors that they are. If the inquiry had got under way before the floodgates opened, I think there would be more trust that the Government and politicians were taking a lead and wanted to uncover it all, but alas that did not happen.

I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, who stuck her head above the parapet and agreed to hold the overarching inquiry that we called for in July, appreciating—almost uniquely—just how important and necessary it was. No less than any of the gang of seven and the rest of us who are interested in this issue, she wants to get to the truth and leave no stone unturned. She wants justice to be done for the survivors and to ensure a child protection system that is fit for purpose in 2014.

However, there has been an unfortunate train of events. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were both excellent candidates to chair such a high-profile inquiry, but circumstances conspired for them to lose credibility in the eyes of survivors. In many respects, one could not win. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has huge experience in child abuse inquiries and the family courts. She had a connection with a Government Minister—her brother—back in the 1980s, and decided that that would overshadow the great experience that she could have brought to the inquiry. I think that was unfortunate. Fiona Woolf had no connections with the family courts and seemed to have no baggage or agenda, but, alas, she too was not able to carry the inquiry forward. We should not see that as a deliberate intention to try to undermine or rig the inquiry; they were two, honourable heavyweight candidates, but unfortunately, because of the delicacy and sensitivity of this issue, they were not able to continue.

It is vital to get on with the inquiry and, as the Home Secretary announced, in the absence of a chair the panel must get the work under way. We heard from the permanent secretary at the Home Office that a new candidate is unlikely to come forward until the new year, and the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve, will be asked to give them a confirmatory hearing. That person—or perhaps persons, as we may need dual chairs—must be allowed to get on with the job. If they cannot, the inquiry will never happen, and we must hold this inquiry.

This overarching inquiry is important for three reasons. First, we must put into historical context exactly how such things were allowed to happen, and learn when things changed and improved. Children are much safer in 2014 than they were in 1964, ’74 or ’84. Did the advent of the Children Act 1989 or the shocking high-profile revelations about the north Wales care homes in the 1990s make society take child abuse more seriously? We must put into context all those different things, which are confusing people with almost weekly revelations of new historical child sex abuse inquiries.

Secondly, the inquiry is necessary to give the survivors a voice at last, ensure that they are listened to, and discover whether the perpetrators are still out there—we know that abuse is still going on, hopefully in a lesser form than it was previously. After decades of not being listened to, people still feel raw. I have met many survivors, and the Home Affairs Committee held a private meeting with survivors who are palpably still traumatised by experiences many decades ago. Survivors must be listened to and feel that they are being listened to, and they must be able to achieve some sort of closure at long last.

The third reason the inquiry must get on with its work is that we must consider whether all major institutions in this country that have significant dealings with children and young people have instituted child protection policies and practices that are fit for purpose in 2014 to deal with modern-day perpetrators of abuse. Rotherham was the tip of the iceberg; there will be more Rotherhams I am afraid, and unless we have assurances and can restore confidence in the public that child protection systems in this country are fit for purpose, people will continue to be worried on behalf of their own children and friends. The inquiry will be vast. Its nature means that it will have to go anywhere and everywhere it needs to go, and it may take many years. That is the nature of the beast that we are dealing with, and it is a beast indeed.

[Tim Loughton]

That is right. We must recognise the enormous pressure that the police services are under to look into historical cases of abuse. Many victims, quite rightly, have bravely been emboldened to come forward, having sat on the issue and been repulsed over many years. I realise that a huge amount of distrust and scepticism from survivors surrounds the inquiry, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it is not helpful simply to write them off as conspiracy theorists. During my time as children’s Minister, and subsequently, I met many survivors. They are very raw and there are great sensitivities. It is also difficult to determine who speaks for what is inevitably a disparate group. Some say they would like a judge to head the inquiry. Some say that a judge is the last person they would want. Some say they would prefer to wait a further two, three or six years to get the inquiry right before we start it. Others say we need it now because we need closure now. We must also not forget that there are current victims who need to be helped by the implications of an overarching inquiry.

There are conspiracy theories coming from a very different direction. I received a letter—I should think other hon. Members received it as well:

“I am not one of your constituents. Until last Friday I was only very dimly aware of your existence as an MP, but last Friday evening you appeared on ‘The World Tonight’ and ‘Newsnight’ to discuss the resignation of Fiona Woolf. In both programmes, you repeated allegations about the late Jimmy Savile which you appear not to have verified or investigated in any way.”

There are people standing up for Jimmy Savile, saying that he has been misrepresented in some way. There are extraordinary theories going around, which is why we need an inquiry to get to the truth.

In conclusion, what action should be taken going forward? The whole inquiry could have been handled better. The survivors should have been consulted earlier, before the processes and structures were set up, but we are where we are and we need to move forward and get the inquiry going.

First, we need to get on with appointing a chair, or possibly dual chairs. There will be circumstances where certain people being investigated as part of the overarching inquiry will be known to a chair. It is impossible, frankly, to get somebody with the calibre to chair such an inquiry who has no knowledge of all sorts of people who may have been on the periphery. If that does happen, perhaps they could step aside temporarily and an alternative chair could come in for the part of the investigation which involved somebody with whom they may have had a connection. We must remember, however, that these are not trials of criminals now. This is an overarching inquiry and it is for other police investigations to nail down perpetrators and bring charges.

Secondly, I have got to the stage where I believe the inquiry needs to be chaired by a judge, or judges. Many judges have turned down the invitation, which is not surprising. It is a poisoned chalice. We may have to go overseas to find somebody who does not have connections and baggage. It will perhaps be difficult to find somebody with the knowledge of the way the systems have worked in this country to lead the inquiry, but this is not the Oscar Pistorius trial. This is not a one man or one woman show; it is a panel of experts which includes, at the behest of many of us who went to see the Home Secretary, the survivors. The survivors should be represented at the heart of the panel to ensure that their perspective is included.

Thirdly, it is possible that the inquiry will have to become statutory. The Home Secretary has, perfectly reasonably, cited the Hillsborough inquiry as a very good example of an inquiry where everybody—bar one, I think—came forward with the information required of them. She has promised full co-operation from all Government agencies and Departments including, I would hope, the intelligence services, but we have got to the stage where the inquiry may need to be put on a statutory basis.

[Sir William Cash]

The Hillsborough inquiry was about a dreadful event. This is much more widespread: it goes deeper and involves criminal issues. I entirely agree with the direction my hon. Friend is taking. I am absolutely certain, from all my experience as shadow Attorney-General and in my previous incarnation as a lawyer in these fields, that it is absolutely essential not only to have an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry but to have it led by a judge who can evaluate all the circumstances.

[Tim Loughton]

I feared my hon. Friend was about to say that Hillsborough was a terrible inquiry. No, it was a good inquiry about a terrible event and I think he is probably right. This is a huge, many-headed hydra that will go into many Departments and include documents and information from the intelligence services and others.

Fourthly, we must recognise that we have a good panel of experts. Questions have been asked about the way certain members of the panel were appointed. That was up to the Home Secretary, with advice from her officials. The gang of seven and others were invited to make any suggestions helpfully. I made some suggestions. Some of the people I suggested had been recommended by other institutions. Some of the people I suggested have not made it on to the panel. Some people think that, because they have been suggested by MPs, they must therefore be tainted. Please recognise that we have a good panel of experts from a wide variety of disciplines who bring great skills to the panel. To think that any one of them, let alone the eventual chair or chairs, could in any way, in such a high-profile inquiry with such a spotlight shining on them, sweep something under the carpet or try to divert the inquiry’s deliberations is just not realistic.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We do not want people to be stuck in British prisons when they should be facing trial and justice abroad. It would not be fair on victims of crime if we denied them justice because we did not have the procedures in place to ensure that people faced the courts. We do not want British families to be left without justice. We do not want the UK to be a safe haven for dangerous criminals.

It was right that the arrest warrant should have been reformed. We have supported the reforms that have been passed by this Government and have backed further reforms in Europe. The European Commission has concluded that

“it is essential that all Member States apply a proportionality test, including those jurisdictions where prosecution is mandatory.”

The Polish Parliament has taken through legislation that follows those principles.

Crime does not stop at the channel. That is why it is right that we should have the chance to show our support, right across the House, for the measures today.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady concede that the European Union is not a sufficient basis on which to make such judgments? What about countries such as Turkey, Canada, Australia and the United States? What is so special about the European Union that the arrest warrant should apply specifically to it, rather than to the rest of the world?

[Yvette Cooper]

The point is that the European Union provides us with opportunities to be able better to fight crime and get justice for British citizens and citizens right across Europe. It is good that we can ensure that our police forces can co-operate more effectively with other police forces across Europe, whether they are dealing with trafficking, drug smuggling or child protection. There are so many crimes that cross borders and so many criminals who cross borders that we think it is a good thing to be part of Europe and to have the opportunity to work more closely with other European countries to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have made it absolutely clear, and I will repeat it again for the sake of any doubt, that the Government did not have to be bound by any vote in this House on the European arrest warrant. There was no legislative requirement. We were very clear—

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We were very clear that the only measures that needed legislative motions in this House were those in the regulations. We would be bound by the vote on those regulations as a vote on all the other measures in the package of 35. As I have said, this is the sixth debate we have had on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I will give way to my hon. Friend who indicated that he wished to intervene before she did.

[Sir William Cash]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I accused her and the Government last week of chicanery, which, put another way, means relying on legal quibbles to try to achieve an objective. The fact is—I am sure she will accept it—that these issues involve the application of the European charter of fundamental rights. In that context, is she now going to tell us that the charter of fundamental rights does apply to the United Kingdom?

[Mrs May]

I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend that I suspect he knows more about legal quibbles, and has more experience of them, than I do. I have to say to him that the view the Government take on the charter of fundamental rights is the same view. We are consistent in that view: we consider it to be declaratory only and we do not consider that it applies to the United Kingdom. I know he has a different view on this, but that is the consistent view the Government have taken on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for giving the House this opportunity to discuss the European arrest warrant. I know that others claim we discussed it last week, but frankly the proceedings then were totally shambolic. Bearing in mind the fact that the Home Affairs Committee published its report on this matter on 29 October last year, in which it called on the Government to ensure that Parliament had as much say in this process as possible, it is a huge disappointment that it is only now—12 days before 1 December, the date on which we have to opt in—that Parliament has a real opportunity to discuss these matters.

I am an admirer of the Home Secretary and of her work on the landscape of policing. When she leaves her office when Parliament ends on 30 March, she will be able to point to the real changes she has made in that area. I have to say to her, however, that this has not been the Home Office’s finest hour. We had a real opportunity last week to give Members the chance to discuss the European arrest warrant, but that was not possible because of the shenanigans surrounding the motion and the vote.

[Sir William Cash]

The Home Affairs Select Committee has done a splendid job, but will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the fact that the Justice Committee—not to mention the European Scrutiny Committee—has played a pivotal role in ensuring that we have at least examined these matters?

[Keith Vaz]

I was just about to say that. I do not want this to sound like self-congratulation—[Hon. Members: “Oh yes you do!”] Oh, all right—I do! I concede that point. To have united the three Chairs of the Select Committees and all their members, given their different politics and personalities, is a unique achievement for any Government. I am minded to join those on the two Front Benches in the Division Lobby to support the motion, if only to see the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in the same Lobby at the same time—I am not sure who will get there first—but I shall not be voting tonight. I am sure that my extra vote would not count for much anyway, given that the motion will be passed, but this is the only way I have of expressing my exasperation at the insufficient time we have had to discuss these matters or to look in real detail at the European arrest warrant.

The Home Secretary is right to say that there have been changes since we started last year, but those changes do not go far enough to deal with the kinds of issues that were raised in the Select Committee by several Members, including the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), all of whom came and talked about specific examples.

I am not against the principle of the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have made a powerful case in support of that principle. The problem lies in the practicalities involved and the difficulty in exercising any control—we have none—over jurisdictions in other countries. Poland has been mentioned. We have had more European arrest warrant requests from Poland—2,400—than from any other country in Europe. The Home Secretary says that Poland is changing its legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and, I must say, rather refreshing, because I agreed with every word he said—it was common sense from start to finish.

Earlier this month I visited my constituent Colin Dines, a retired recorder and a man of impeccable character. He was issued a European arrest warrant in 2010 after being accused of a tendentious, tenuous involvement in a telecoms fraud in Italy. He has never been interviewed by the Italian authorities, which would at least have given him a chance to clear his name, and he has never been given the opportunity to present evidence showing his innocence. The key Italian suspects were all acquitted a long time ago.

Despite the incompetence of the Italians and the manifest innocence of my constituent, he has languished under the threat of prison for four and a half years. The case limps on with no resolution in sight, with Colin stuck in legal limbo. It has cost his family an enormous sum of money. Colin suffered a stroke just days before he was due to be surrendered to face either an Italian jail or possibly house arrest, and that was the only reason why the warrant was temporarily suspended.

That case brings shame on British justice, but it is not an isolated case—they are all too frequent. Do not take the word of a politician on that; listen to this country’s most senior criminal judge, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. He has stated publicly that the problems are systemic because fast-track European arrest warrant extradition assumes common standards of justice across Europe. We all know that is a sham, whether it is the Greek or Italian systems, let alone the post-Soviet systems in place in central and eastern Europe.

We all agree in this House that EU extradition is vital to fight crime, so a rather false choice is being put up—the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton summed that up rather well. The truth is that what we object to is the scattergun approach under the European arrest warrant, which devastates the lives of too many innocent people. Let us remember what this House was set up to do: defend innocent people from bullying by arbitrary rulers. If we believe in British justice, we cannot allow that to continue—not for the price of returning a few criminals, or even many criminals. I would like to hear from all those who have been making that very utilitarian argument how many innocent people should be sacrificed for the return of 10 or 20 criminals, because that is the false choice that they are putting up.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, basically, the reason the Government are giving in to these proposals is that they have an inclination towards, if not an obsession with, making sure that we stay within the framework of European law as it is prescribed rather than looking at the fundamental changes that are needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Of course we want law and order and security—that goes without saying. The question that we are faced with at last, despite the shambles of last week, is whether we are effectively bending the knee to European dogma, the charter of fundamental rights and the European Court of Justice.

The reason I shall vote against the motion is simple: I put the issue of miscarriages of justice ahead of the other issues that have been addressed. I ask the Government the following questions. What about fair trials? What about political and judicial corruption in some European countries? What about habeas corpus? What would hon. Members think if they or their families were subjected to the miscarriages of justice that we have heard about today? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for his tenacity and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for what they have said.

As I said earlier, what is so special about the EU in respect of these questions, when Turkey may well become a hotbed of terrorism? What about the rest of the world?

This issue smacks to me of the case of Liversidge v. Anderson in the 1940s, which related to emergency regulation 18B. It became clear that what was really at stake was the question of the state versus the individual. Eventually, after four years of agonising, the courts accepted that there had been a massive miscarriage of justice. I believe that such cases will become increasingly common when we accept the irreversible—other than through the repeal or amendment of the European Communities Act 1972—commitment to these procedures.

If we were confronted with a Bill containing these measures, it would go through all the stages of consideration and could be amended. We are denied that because the measures are contained in European regulations. We are conceding sovereignty over a significant area of criminal law to European institutions. The key role of interpretation will pass from the UK Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice. The Spanish discovered recently in the Melloni case that the European arrest warrant can undermine the human rights protections in their own constitution.

I raised the question of the EU charter of fundamental rights with the Home Secretary. I remind her that the matter has already been adjudicated on by the courts. It is implemented under section 3 of the 1972 Act. That section must be amended to adjust that imposition on the UK, its Parliament and its courts.

There is the question of this being a pan-European system. Law and order and public safety have been the common themes put forward by the Government, as though they should override all other considerations, such as the sovereignty of Parliament and the protection of the rights and civil liberties of the individual. Under the enactments that we have made on behalf of the voters who send us here, we do not send our Members of Parliament to Brussels.

The EAW is a mutual recognition measure. It relies on a parity of standards of justice that does not exist universally. The lack of that parity of standards would become even more pronounced if the EU expanded to include countries such as Albania. The EU itself reported on the unacceptable levels of corruption in the Albanian justice system as part of its pre-candidature due diligence.

The changes that were made to the European arrest warrant in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 have yet to be proven. We do not know what would happen in cases such as those of Turner, Symeou, Dark and Mann, and the case of Ashya King came after the reforms. That was the case I referred to the other day, in which a poor child suffering from a brain tumour was separated from its parents, who were put in handcuffs under this outrageous miscarriage of justice.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, but surely the point about the Ashya King arrest warrant is that it was issued by the British authorities. If my hon. Friend is going to complain about the issuing of an arrest warrant by a British authority, he has to look at the whole British justice system. That mistake surely had little to do with the European arrest warrant and was due to the British authorities.

[Sir William Cash]

I also respect my hon. Friend, who sits on the European Scrutiny Committee, but my point is simple: the British authorities, in line with a continuing stream of human rights consciousness such as the Human Rights Act, the charter and the rest of it, were insufficiently vigilant. The case should have been rejected. That is the problem—the pervasive atmosphere of compliance with those things, and the European arrest warrant is part of that attitude.

I will go further and say that in their handling of this process, the Government have completely failed to honour their repeated undertakings that they would enable Parliament to vote on the entire package of measures that they propose to rejoin. So much has been said so well by so many Members, but I wish finally to say this. Rejoining the measures in question without proper and explicit parliamentary consent would be lawful, just as it would be possible to go to war, for instance, without explicit parliamentary consent. However, the Government should reflect on the fact that we are standing up for the individual who is affected and victimised by this miscarriage of justice. The vote is going to go against us today, we know that, but in taking this course of action the Government will have exercised their prerogative Executive powers by merely sending a letter. As I said to the Home Secretary last week, that undermines the democratic legitimacy of their decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman may know that I was in a debate the other day on, I think, Radio 5 Live. One of the people representing the police on these matters said that the European arrest warrant would “save us the bother” of having to go through an extended extradition procedure. Those were the words he used—it would “save us the bother”. That is what worries me.

[Geraint Davies]

My understanding is that the statistics show that extradition now takes an average of 49 days, but it took a year before we were in the European arrest warrant system. The hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind the fact that each criminal would spend an extra 45 weeks in Britain without that system. There would be no transfer of information, so we would be a safe haven for criminals and have more and more foreign criminals. We are already at risk, and that in turn would put British people at greater risk. These enormous risks to life and limb should not be tolerated because of people’s particular political angst over Europe, and particularly those who—I do not include the hon. Gentleman in this—are driven by fear, prejudice and concern about UKIP breathing down their political necks. We should put the safety of people in Britain first.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has already gone through the farcical pantomime that we experienced last Monday when the Home Secretary—who has now endorsed today’s motion, which is similar to that in the Lords—would not allow a wider debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stone would ideally like to have gone through all 35 measures, but we should at least have had a debate in the round. Only the generosity of Mr Speaker, who pointed out that we were considering specifically 11 measures and not 35, although he would allow discussion of the European arrest warrant, would have enabled us to talk about it had the debate gone ahead.

It is extremely important to talk about the European arrest warrant and all the other measures. Somebody might own a house in the UK and be charged in Spain, and we might want their assets to be confiscated here; or we might want a list of convictions to be passed on so that sentences can be carried out properly in other countries in the light of previous convictions. We might want a supervision order so that UK citizens can be bailed in the UK rather than having to stay abroad, or a prisoner transfer so that people can serve custody at home. All those things are good for Britain. People from UKIP might not think that such measures are good for Britain, but they protect British people by enabling them to serve their custody in Britain, and ensuring that our jails are not clogged up with foreign criminals.

I am concerned about some of the politics of this, and that the fear and cowardice of the Home Secretary in not confronting the House of Commons with the 35 measures directly was born out of fear of UKIP. We basically have a party born of the austerity created by the Conservatives, which then blames immigration for the economic poverty inflicted on people by the Tories. The Government give UKIP credibility by saying that we will have a referendum, making out that Britain could survive outside Europe, and then they say, “Oh, we’ll reform it first”, which implies that Europe as it stands is not worth being part of. The Government are feeding the monster of UKIP and it will be the tiger that devours them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I have only a few moments to speak so, if I may, I would like to make some progress.

Getting to this point has involved a long and tortuous procedure, as the Home Secretary recognised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that his Committee published a report on the matter on 29 October 2013, and we are now only 12 days away from 1 December 2014. The matter has been debated by the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

The process by which we have got where we are today has been a shambles. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminded us of his contribution to last week’s debate of claiming to move “That the Question, That be Question be not now put, be now put,” which is second in parliamentary history only to when I wore a top hat on the Opposition Back Benches to make a point of order during a Division some 20 years ago.

Hon. Members have set out several reasons why we should not sign up to the European arrest warrant and the other measures. They have said that doing so represents a transfer of power and that that subjugates UK law. They have said that UK standards of justice will not be met, that the warrant has the word “European” in its name, and that extradition should be dealt with in individual treaties. We also heard the serious point that innocent people may face an unfair procedure in a foreign court, which was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a great deal of experience of these matters, as well as the hon. Members for Stone, for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who is also no longer in the Chamber, pledged UKIP’s 100% support for opposing the motion—it was extremely satisfactory that he agreed with himself.

Such strong points demonstrate that there are genuine issues, which I do not decry. It is important that we consider them, but I disagree with the points made. I take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as hon. Members would expect, but I also respect the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all pointed out that the measure is about bringing criminals to justice.

I confess that I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), but he made the valuable point that changes have been made. I can let him into a secret: we supported those changes during their passage through Parliament and we did so because we know, like the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, that the measure means that foreign national criminals will be deported back to their home countries to face justice, that criminals will face trial here, and that there will be justice for victims against whom heinous crimes have been committed. I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who put his latent Euroscepticism to one side for a moment to recognise that the issue is about crime, not Europe, and about bringing criminals to justice to ensure that they spend time in prison, not on sun loungers in Spain.

Criminal Law

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There is considerable benefit, and I point my hon. Friend towards the measures on minimum standards for the justice system—there are about 20, I think. It is not the view of the Government, and it is certainly not the view of the Conservative party, that we should be part of the European justice system that some people think some of Europe wishes to introduce. Coming out of the minimum standards measures was an important part of ensuring that we did not go in that direction.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the scrutiny process, but, as she well knows, all three Select Committees—the European Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Justice—have said that there has not been proper consultation with Parliament on these matters. What has happened today amply demonstrates our concerns and nothing has emerged to change our view. Will my right hon. Friend explain how on earth all this has happened?

[Mrs May]

I am aware of the views expressed to this House by my hon. Friend and by the Chairmen of the Justice and the Home Affairs Committees. I remind my hon. Friend that I, the Justice Secretary and other Ministers have appeared in front of the Select Committees of this House, of the European Scrutiny Committee and of Committees of the House of Lords on a number of occasions on the subject of these measures. We have also held a number of debates on the Floor of the House and varying views have been expressed from both sides of the House about the measures that have been proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I assure him that I will refer to a number of measures that will ensure that there is judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant and proper consideration of such cases in the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right about another thing. The Government have negotiated this package and are bringing it to the House because we believe that these measures are necessary to ensure that we can continue the job of keeping people safe and bringing criminals to justice.

I will outline some of the other vital measures in the package of 35 measures. However, I said earlier that I would say a little about the timing of today’s debate, which I think is relevant to the consideration that Members have given to the motion. Now that the final reservation has been lifted on our deal, which, as I said, happened on Friday, we must allow for discussion at a Council in Brussels before the month is out. Very few appropriate options remain. We must add items to the agenda of a Council 16 days in advance to guarantee their inclusion. That means that we do not have long to complete our domestic processes. To avoid an operational gap for our police and law enforcement agencies, we must complete the entire process before 1 December. That involves formally notifying Brussels about the measures that we wish to remain part of.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way? It is important.

[Mrs May]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for just one moment. He will know that I am usually very generous in giving way to him during debates on European matters, even though I sometimes disagree with the points that he makes. However, the point that I am about to make is important too.

If we do not complete the entire process before 1 December, including notifying Brussels of the measures that we wish to remain part of, we will have an operational gap, which I believe would be a real problem for our police and law enforcement agencies. We must be ready to transpose those measures fully into our domestic law. That is why it is important that we hold votes in this House and the other place, and complete the necessary legislative steps as soon as possible—hence the motion before us.

[Sir William Cash]

In the light of what has happened so far and the fact that we do not have the opportunity to vote on the European arrest warrant, as Mr Speaker has indicated, will the Home Secretary confirm that we will have an opportunity to do so, as was promised not only by her, but by the Prime Minister? We have not had such a vote. Will she guarantee that we will have one after a proper debate on the matter?

[Mrs May]

I have set out quite clearly the Government’s view on the motion before the House and the debate that we are having. I will attempt to make progress, because I want to get on to some of the other issues, including the European arrest warrant. I recognise the degree of interest in that and the concern that remains among some hon. Members. That is why I wish to have time to speak about that particular measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, nice try. The problem is that we are debating a series of measures that we and the Home Secretary think we should be opting back into. We think that the 11 measures are important, and we want to have a debate today on the additional measures we also think we ought to opt back into: the EAW and the rest of the 35 measures. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Back Benchers disagree, but at least we should have the debate. I can reassure the Home Secretary that there would still be a strong House of Commons majority in favour of her 35 measures, because they are important for fighting crime. Surely, however, we should have that debate so that the House can send a strong signal to Europe and the courts that we support these measures—that they are the right thing for fighting crime and for Britain and Europe.

[Sir William Cash]

Is the shadow Home Secretary effectively saying that she agrees with the treatment of the Kings: a small child with a brain tumour is taken away from his parents in Spain, a European arrest warrant is issued by the British courts—after the July reforms—and the parents are arrested? Was that a good way to treat a child?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think there was dreadful decision making in that case. The police should not have continued with the EAW—they should have withdrawn it—and I think it was a bad decision. However, the hon. Gentleman will know of cases in this country where the police wrongfully arrest somebody; we do not then conclude that the police should not have a power of arrest. Instead, we say there should be proper and thoughtful decision making. What happened to that family should not have happened, and the whole House will have immense sympathy with them. They should not have been put through what they were put through.

[Sir William Cash]

Of course, the big difference is that in the case of the Kings, this European arrest warrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It overtakes the Supreme Court; it overtakes this Parliament because the Lisbon treaty has allowed it to do so. That was passed by the right hon. Lady’s Government, but the bottom line is that it has created grave injustice.

[Yvette Cooper]

As I have made very clear, the police and the CPS should have withdrawn that arrest warrant much earlier; it was the wrong thing to do. I also think it important for the police to be able to work with other police forces right across European and right across the world, and to have these particular powers in place to work in Europe. The Home Secretary agrees, and we agree with her that this is the right thing to do, but the way in which we have had this debate in Parliament today has been utterly chaotic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on what matters are relevant to the speech that can be made in relation to the question that has now been put.

The motion is about whether or not we should vote on the regulations that are before the House today. As I have made very clear, we put those regulations before the House today because of the timetable with which we are dealing in relation to ensuring that we are able to opt back in to the measures that we need to opt back in to by the requisite date—1 December—if we are to ensure that there is no operational gap.

[Sir William Cash]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although several Select Committees have said that there should be?

[Mr Speaker]

I would have called the hon. Gentleman to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, including the European arrest warrant. However, I have also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the legislative process that would be put in place. There is no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put in place for us to remain party to the European arrest warrant.

[Sir William Cash]

I must point out, with great respect, that what my right hon. Friend is saying is, “We will go by prerogative.” That smacks of everything that is in direct contradiction to the evolving democracy of the House of Commons. The fact is that it was the prerogative that was displaced by parliamentary change and reform. What she is saying is that, on this particular matter, she will decide on behalf of the Government without regard to what Parliament has to say, and that is unacceptable.

[Mrs May]

I am not saying that. I suggest to my hon. Friend that I have been very clear about this matter. The Government have negotiated with the European Commission, and with other member states, a package of measures for us to opt back in to. We believe that those law and order measures are necessary for ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to catch criminals and to deal with matters of justice, which is why we have put before the House legislative measures that will enable United Kingdom law to accord with that package of 35 measures.

Business of the House (Today)

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is a disgraceful way of going about a very important matter. It is tainted with chicanery. It is not the way that Parliament should be treated. Right from the very beginning of this issue, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee have complained about the lack of transparency and consultation and the manner in which the Home Secretary has been treating the House. It is completely unbelievable that she should come to the House and, presumably, try to argue—as we shall discover in due course—that this is about the EAW when it clearly is not.

If the motion were a Bill, it would be dealt with in separate clauses and parts, all of which could be amended, but this motion is unamendable. That has not yet been properly considered. This is being done to avoid a real decision being taken today, as was promised to us by the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago, and by the Home Secretary in the article in The Sunday Telegraph and in the letter that the shadow Home Secretary referred to. This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings, and that is a reason in itself to vote against the business motion, as I shall be doing. I could give many other reasons for doing so, but it is fundamentally about a lack of transparency and honesty in going about issues we need to deal with.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sorry that the Home Secretary is shaking her head, because she knows perfectly well that this is a trick and an attempt to get round the reality of what is facing us: this is not just about law and order, but about the European Court of Justice and the opportunities being created to bypass this House and our own courts. It is a disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

No, I will not give way. Members have been calling for me to stand up and speak, and that is exactly what I am doing.

There is no legislative requirement for us to bring this package of 35 measures to this House for Members to consider and vote on. There is a legislative requirement for us to transpose certain measures into UK legislation. The normal way of doing that is upstairs in a Standing Committee, on a one-and-a-half hour debate on a negative statutory instrument, after 1 December and after the decision by this Government to opt in to a certain number of measures had been taken.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—