Foreign National Offenders

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the Home Office report on the number of foreign national offenders who have committed crimes on release before being deported.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This Government believe that foreign criminals should be returned to their home country at the earliest opportunity, and the UK Border Agency always seeks to remove them. Last year we removed more than 5,000 foreign criminals, 43% by the end of their prison sentence. Where there are barriers to early removal, the agency seeks to detain them to protect the public. However, the agency has to operate within the law. It must release foreign offenders when ordered to do so by the courts and release low-risk offenders where there is no realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period. When this happens, the agency works closely with the police and the National Offender Management Service to reduce the risk of reoffending. Deportation action continues in all cases.

There are 3,940 foreign offenders in the community, 90% of whom were released by the courts. Deportation can be delayed for many reasons, including challenges under human rights legislation, the situation in the offender’s home country, and lack of co-operation by the offender or his home Government in getting essential travel documents. We are doing everything in our power to increase the number and speed of removals. We now start deportation action 18 months before the end of the sentence to speed up the deportation process. We are chartering flights to remove foreign offenders to many more long-haul and challenging destinations. We will change the immigration rules to cut abuse of the Human Rights Act 1998. We will open more foreign national-only prisons, and we will be able to remove more European offenders through the prisoner transfer agreement. The House can therefore see that we have already taken significant action to address this long-standing problem and intend to take further action in the months ahead which I hope Members on both sides of the House will support.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, quite the opposite, in fact. The trouble is that the rhetoric does not fit with the facts. We learned this weekend that a report has been sitting in the Minister’s hands for weeks and yet he had absolutely no plans to publish it. When was he going to reveal the true figures to this House? Will he publish the report, in full, this afternoon? Will he confirm that according to the report by the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine, there were 3,775 foreign national offenders awaiting deportation in May this year, and that according to the secret internal Home Office report in his hands, that figure had leapt by September by nearly 500 to 4,238—higher than the number that the Minister just gave us? That equates to seven foreign criminals in every constituency awaiting deportation. Is not that an increase of 12.5% in just four months? Can the Minister tell us where these people are? To be precise, can the Home Office be precise about the whereabouts of every single one of these people? If not, then contrary to what the Minister says, he has absolutely no means of deporting any one of them.

Will the Minister confirm that the number of foreign national offenders deported has actually fallen this year—fallen, not risen—by more than 700, an astounding figure? Will he confirm that the number of staff at the UK Border Agency is being cut by 6,500? Will he confirm that foreign criminals who left prison this year and have not yet been deported have been arrested and charged with violent crimes? If so, how many; and does that include murder, kidnapping and violence to the person?

So far on the Minister’s watch, we have seen numbers of staff at the UK Border Agency going down, numbers of foreign national offenders deported going down, and numbers of foreign criminals in our midst going up. Does the Minister not realise that that is the wrong way round? I urge him to get a grip as soon as possible, to publish the figures, to publish his secret report, and to put a real plan in place to ensure that more, not fewer, foreign criminals are deported: fewer words, more action.

[Damian Green]

The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that he should think carefully before asking urgent questions about newspaper reports that he has not read very carefully. All the figures in the newspaper report that he is relying on start not in May 2010 but in March 2009, so they cover a large period when his Government were in power. He appears to have forgotten that under his Government foreign national prisoners were freed on a routine basis without even being considered for deportation.. Indeed, let me give him some figures to show what has changed for the better.

Between 1999 and 2006, 1,013 foreign national offenders were released from prison without consideration for deportation. In 2009-10 the figure was 64 and in 2010-11 it was 28. Over the past two years, all 92 have been considered for deportation and 10 have already been removed—a stark contrast with the complete failure under the previous Government.

[Chris Bryant]

Seven hundred fewer.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman asked about violent criminals. Again, I tell him in all friendliness that he should check his facts before he comes to the Dispatch Box. The report at the weekend mentioned three cases involving murder. I have checked the facts. One of those people was charged and acquitted, so was not a murderer at all. Of the other two, one was not only released from immigration detention under the previous Government, but committed the murder for which he was convicted under the previous Government. That is not the previous Government’s fault. People who commit murder commit a crime on their own responsibility. However, the hon. Gentleman should not attempt to distort facts and figures to serve a political purpose, particularly when he is on such weak ground.

Of the 90% of people who have been released by the courts, 60% were released under human rights legislation. We will change the immigration laws to stop the abuse of article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Seven hundred fewer.

[Damian Green]

Having failed with his question, the hon. Gentleman is now trying again from a sedentary position, non-stop. I invite him to lead his party in supporting our legislation, when it is brought forward, to change the Human Rights Act so that it better reflects the British people’s view of what human rights should be.

May I correct one canard that the hon. Gentleman has repeated a lot, which is that this Government propose to cut the number of staff at the UKBA by 6,500? It has been a matter of a public document for more than a year that in the current spending review period, we will cut the number by 5,200. Again, I gently tell him to stop using the 6,500 figure, because the first 1,300 of those people were planned to be cut by the previous Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Of course that will remain the law. The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters, and I am sure that he will recognise that there is something absurd about a situation in which “human rights” has become a boo phrase, and in which many people in this country regard human rights as something that gets in the way of justice. That is nonsense—

[Chris Bryant]

That is because of your speeches.

[Damian Green]

If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) believes that, he really is completely out of touch with reality.

Immigration

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I will address that point later. Some of the measures that we are taking are precisely to promote integration. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government have their own strategy for dealing with that on the ground. Of course, immigration policy can contribute to integration by ensuring that those who come here can, for example, speak English. That is one of the changes in the rules that we have introduced in certain parts of the immigration system. It is an absolutely basic point that if someone wants to come and settle in a country, they should wish to integrate to some extent, and they should therefore be able to speak some English. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

As I say, this country has clearly gained huge advantages from immigration, but on the other hand, the people of this country have a right to know that the Government are protecting their jobs, enforcing tough requirements on those who come here, and sending home those who break the rules. That is why three things are essential. First, it is essential to control the overall numbers coming here for long periods. Secondly, and equally importantly, we must establish a system that is properly selective among those who want to come here—one that brings to the country people who can support our development but keeps out those who cannot or will not. Thirdly, the system must properly enforce the rules.

Let me start by talking about the need for a focused, selective immigration system. The system that this Government inherited was not only chaotic but indiscriminate. The previous Government’s approach was about unlimited immigration, with no limits on tier 1 or tier 2 of the points-based system; tier 1 general and tier 1 post-study work for workers with no job offer; large numbers of supposedly the most skilled immigrants ending up in low-skilled jobs; little-used routes for investors and entrepreneurs; and no restriction on the length of stay for intra-company transfers. Since the points-based system was introduced in 2009, student visa numbers went up from 232,000 to a record 320,000. In 2010, the UK Border Agency had to suspend student applications in some regions because of abuse.

Our first task, therefore, was to impose some much-needed rigour. We have already looked at all the migration routes to ensure that they are selective in the ways that we want them to be—through work, study, family, and settlement by workers. We carried out public consultations on each one of those routes. By next April, we will have reformed them all so that they better meet the needs of this country. We have imposed an annual limit of 20,700 sponsored workers with a specific job offer. We have closed the tier 1 general route and replaced it with a smaller, more focused exceptional talent route. We have restricted tier 2 to graduate-level occupations and intermediate-level English speakers. We have restricted intra-company transfers to 12 months unless the person coming is earning £40,000 a year or more.

We have done the same sort of thing on the student routes. We have introduced tougher entry requirements requiring higher language competency and evidence of the ability to pay maintenance. Any educational institutions that want to bring in students from overseas will be highly trusted sponsors and will be vetted by the relevant inspectorate so that there will be proper inspections and proper accreditation in future. Post-study workers will need a skilled job offer under tier 2 if they want to stay in the UK. We have also consulted on reforms to the overseas domestic worker route. Some 15,000 visas are issued to overseas domestic workers each year, and we will restrict this in future. On the family migration route, we have consulted on new measures to tackle abuse of family migration; to promote integration, as I said; and to reduce burdens on the taxpayer. Within the next few months, we will bring forward proposals that will achieve all those aims.

Let me pause for a second on a point about the family route, because I should make it clear that the main benefit of this aspect of our reforms will be better community cohesion. No longer will people, usually young women, be brought half way across the world, with no knowledge of our language or our culture, to live lives cut off from the mainstream of British society. It is not fair on them, and it is particularly not fair on their children, who need mothers who can explain the world in which the children live in the language they use outside the home.

Settling in Britain should be a privilege, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in. We are therefore going to break the automatic link between work and settlement. Only those who contribute the most economically will be able to stay. The Migration Advisory Committee has given us recommendations on how to achieve this.

Finally—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be going to say a little more about what the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended. It has suggested a lower threshold and a higher threshold, and I wonder which of those two he is aiming for.

[Damian Green]

I think that that comes under the heading of a nice try. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we have fully assessed the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee, and the House will be told at the proper time when we have come to a proper decision.

Finally, across the main routes we have raised the level of the English language levels required. Those coming to the UK across these routes must be able to speak sufficient English to play a full role in our society.

In 18 months, we have completely reformed vast tracts of the immigration system, and there are the first small signs—I agree that they are small straws in the wind because of the chaos we inherited—that our policies are starting to make an impact. The most recent published quarterly statistics for June to September 2011 show that student visas issued under tier 4 are down by 13% and main work visas are down by 18% on the same period in 2010. The very latest net migration figures to March 2011 are also encouraging, showing a fall since a recent peak for the year ending September 2010. However, I will not disguise from the House the fact that this is a long and difficult process. Net immigration was rising rapidly in the last three years of the previous Government. That is why we said at the general election that it would take the whole of this Parliament to bring it down to sustainable levels—to the tens of thousands annually that we think appropriate—and why we have been taking the necessary steps since day one of this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will start with the issues on which I completely and utterly agree with the Minister. First, I agree that this is not an issue we should—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister is wittering something, I think. [Interruption.] He is carrying on.

The Minister said that he believed this House should consider immigration on a regular basis, and he is absolutely right that if serious politicians in the mainstream political parties do not talk about immigration, we vacate the scene and leave it to extremists from other political parties and those who have no desire to foster good community relations.

Sometimes the debate gets heated, although I suspect it is not going to get very heated this evening if the proceedings so far are anything to go by. Some talk about immigration in this country is undoubtedly racist, but I have never subscribed to the view that just because somebody thinks immigration is the single most important political issue facing the country, that makes them racist. If I were to think that, I would probably be telling most of my constituents that they were racists. That is not because the Rhondda is full of people who have come to this country in recent years. In fact, I believe that of all the constituencies in the land it is the one where fewest people were born outside the UK, but that does not mean that my constituents are not directly affected by many of the issues that are enveloped in the whole issue of immigration.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding. Many have confused asylum with immigration, and serious politicians have always wanted to keep those issues apart, as the Minister for Immigration has.

I asked the Minister whether the Government had decided where they were going on the threshold salary that somebody should have if they were to bring in a dependant. He said it was a “good try”, but I asked solely because I thought the Government had an announcement to make today. I suspect that they were originally going to announce something, which was why they decided to hold this debate, but suddenly there were other important matters to be discussed, the announcement disappeared, and with it went the Home Secretary.

It is a simple fact that because world travel is now so much easier for the vast majority of people, there is inevitably more migration. People can physically move around the world and relocate, and many more do so. Occasionally—I am sure all hon. Members have heard of this in their constituency surgeries—people go abroad on holiday, meet somebody and fall in love with them and want to bring them back to this country. For that matter, my parents met not in this country but in Spain—they were both British—and came back to the UK.

Many other things have affected migration in recent years, not least the fact that countries that were once closed to the rest of the world have opened up, Spain being a classic example. Under Franco, Spain was closed to many, and people could not easily get a visa to go there or vice versa. Similarly, most of the eastern bloc of the EU was closed, as were Portugal and many other places.

In addition, the UK, which is primarily a trading nation, has always had much inward and outward migration. In Wales, we are particularly conscious that, at the turn of the 20th century, when there were no jobs in south Wales, many Welsh people went to live in Argentina, which is why there is a large community of Welsh speakers there. Indeed, William Abraham tried to migrate to Argentina but could not get a job there. He ended up coming back here and became the first MP for Rhondda.

The Minister referred to the fact that many British people go abroad, but it strikes me that British people abroad are often far and away the worst at integrating into local communities—one has only to visit Buenos Aires, where there are more piped bands than there are in Stirling and Edinburgh put together, to recognise that enculturation is not the primary focus of British people when they go to other countries.

For that matter, one has only to look at areas of south Wales to see that inward migration has been a vital part of the economic success of the past. Calzaghe is a not-unknown south Walean name, because people came from many places to work in the mines at one time. The English-Welsh word for a coffee shop is “brachi” because many thousands came from Badi in Italy in particular to work in the mines as that was where the work was. Likewise, many came from Ireland and even a few from England.

The problem, of course, is that migration has very many different vectors. It is not, as some have assumed, that migration to this country has been stimulated because we have a supportive welfare system or a strong NHS. In actual fact, the vast majority of migration is caused by elements that push people away from their home country, be that war, famine or political instability, which often leads to asylum. I remember a debate a few weeks ago with the Immigration Minister on migration from north Africa. He was optimistic that the situation developing in the Maghreb would mean that many fewer would come to the UK than were originally expected either for asylum or other reasons, but the most recent figures show that there has been a significant migration to the UK and a significant increase in the number of asylum cases. That issue will inevitably have to be kept under review.

One other potential vector, which other hon. Members have addressed on other occasions, is climate change. If the seas of the world rise because of climate change, there is a strong likelihood that some of the poorest people in the world will not only want to move but have no choice but to do so, because many of their homes are in the most exposed areas.

I agree with the Minister that migration is not always good. Very often, refugees end up extremely disoriented when they arrive in this country, either because their language skills are not brilliant or because they do not understand the system—they might not even understand what side of the road we drive on and things like that. I was struck by that the other day. There was a fight in Tesco Metro and a young man, who had clearly been drinking, was shouting at the shopkeepers, “You have no understanding. I am in this country. I am allowed to be in this country, but I am not allowed to work.” It turned out he was Albanian. Who knows how he will manage to get himself home? The pain of many of those who are forced to travel the world because they are simply seeking a better place for themselves can be writ large.

Often the receiving communities are ill equipped, either financially or culturally, to welcome people. When the number of asylum claimants in the UK was at its highest—not necessarily because of anything that had happened in this country, but because of factors in other parts of the world at a time of particularly unstable international relations—many communities in this country found it genuinely very difficult to take on board the number of people who went to live there, even though they wanted to be welcoming.

In addition—this is what I am most aware of in my constituency because a number of constituents have raised it with me—many feel that there are few jobs out there at the moment as it is, particularly at the lower end of the scale. There are few jobs for manual labourers, and when they get them, they are sometimes turfed out after just three or four months because somebody comes from another EU country and is prepared to do the job more cheaply. A constituent came to me last week. He was delighted when three months ago his son got a job in Gloucester—he travelled there and back every day—but then his son and the five others who were employed were sacked and their jobs taken immediately by people from Poland. The vast majority of my constituents simply do not understand why that should be so and feel that there is a fundamental unfairness in the system.

No hon. Member will today suggest that we should change all the EU’s provisions. Labour Members have already accepted that we should have introduced transitional arrangements for the countries that joined the EU more recently. We should have gone along with countries that did so, and we underestimated the number of people who would come to this country. Of course, two more countries will have full rights in 2014, and it will be interesting to hear the Government’s estimate of the number of people who will come to the UK from them.

Although it is easy to identify some of the problems in relation to immigration, it is not always easy to identify the answers. I have been lobbied quite ferociously by quite a lot of lesbian and gay organisations on what they term “gay asylum”, which is when somebody comes to this country because they will be persecuted for their sexuality in their country. Those organisations believe that nobody should be sent back to their country to face discrimination and a difficult life. Although I wholeheartedly agree that we should not send lesbian and gay people back to Iran to face almost certain imprisonment, it is very difficult to have a simple, straightforward open door for anybody who chooses to claim that they are lesbian or gay. I suspect that the problem is not as simple as people would want it to be.

Similarly, I raised the issue of family members coming to this country. Nobody in the House would believe that somebody bringing a spouse or a member of their family to this country should be able to do so and then put a burden on the state. The question though, as the Migration Advisory Committee has pointed out, is what placing a burden on the state means exactly. Does it mean that someone should not be in receipt of benefits or does it mean that at no stage in the future should that person receive anything from the state? That determines the level at which the threshold would be applied.

Some of the poorer constituencies and communities are of course concerned that the rule will allow rich people to go abroad, fall in love and bring someone back, but poorer people will not be able to do that. The danger is that the rule is unfair.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to being a burden on the state, which also makes me think of problems connected to education and the NHS. It is not just whether migrants are employed; it is also their need for services that we ordinarily expect for our citizens.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, and in a sense that is the conundrum that the Government have to try to resolve. At some point, they will obviously change the threshold from its present low level, but if they go for a significantly higher figure, the danger is that it will introduce an unfairness. The strange thing is that while people might be intrinsically opposed to individuals in general being allowed to bring others into this country, they tend to adopt a slightly different attitude when confronted by individuals that they have got to know.

The NHS also has specific needs in relation to migration. Several hon. Members have approached me about problems that their local accident and emergency units are having, because these days many doctors do not want to work in those units—there can be violence, many people are drunk and there is no ongoing care for patients. Many trusts, and many local health boards in Wales, have been looking to recruit internationally, but it is impossible for them to do so because of the way in which the rules are structured. That is placing a very precise burden on some accident and emergency units. Of course it would be better if we planned better so that we did not have skills shortages, but in some parts of the country they do exist.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

We all believe in evidence-based policy making, rather than the anecdotal points that the hon. Gentleman is making. In that case, why did his Government, when they were in power, specifically prevent the publication of information in the form of research by the Department for Communities and Local Government that considered the impact of immigration on local services?

[Chris Bryant]

I do not have the faintest idea. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will try to give him a better answer. Yes, my point is anecdotal, in that the Government have a figure for certain forms of accident and emergency doctor provision in the whole of the UK, and there is no shortage across the whole country, just in certain areas. That is why we may need some tweaking to ensure that we are able to maintain the services on which we all rely. There are similar issues in relation to nursing, not least because one of the elements of migration that we must bear in mind is that many British nurses—although no statistics have been provided since 2008—are choosing to work in countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It is therefore difficult for us to plan precisely.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

One of the challenges for the NHS is that many of the overseas students who come to study health sciences in our world-leading universities have been built into the staffing plans of our health services. That is partly where the gap comes from. I am concerned about the knock-on effect of our recruiting overseas and the brain drain from developing countries. It is important, however, that we do not pull the rug from under our NHS plans and those elsewhere in our public services.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady makes several fair points. She is right about not wanting to steal lots of doctors from other parts of the world, although people often want to work here for a few years and take their expertise back to developing countries—a positive contribution that we can make. At this very moment, the minor injuries unit in Llwynypia is closed because the accident and emergency unit at the Royal Glamorgan in south Wales is not able to recruit internationally. It has tried to recruit nationally several times, so there is a problem and we need to be able to plan for our services.

Universities face similar issues, because—as the Minister said—it is vital that the brightest and the best come to the UK to study. If they do not, we will not have the best universities and the brain drain will continue and cause long-term productivity problems. That is why some of what the Minister is suggesting in relation to the university route—the right to study in the UK—is right, although I wonder whether some specific elements need tweaking. For instance, it is suggested that someone should be allowed to do a course for only five years, with no extension to six or seven years unless they are already earning £35,000, but junior doctors are on about £29,000 and staff doctors on £34,000. There is therefore a danger in the Government’s proposals.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of particular concerns in the Indian subcontinent about rules on studying in the UK whereby Indian students have to return immediately after graduation, when many of them would wish to spend a year working here to pay back their fee?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course there are concerns, but ensuring that students go home once they have completed their courses is an important part of what we need to do if we are to address migration issues. However, this should be based on evidence not on anecdote. My concern is that in some cases the evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of those doing further educational courses have every intention of returning and not of staying illegally.

The Government have fallen for some easy answers and have made a mistaken promise. The Minister rather skirted over the Government’s commitment, which is to cut net migration to tens of thousands—no ifs, no buts, as the Prime Minister said. The Home Secretary also said that the aim was to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament, saying “Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once”, in her best “’Allo, ’Allo” accent. The only problem is that actually the figures have gone up. In the year ending March 2010 the figure for net migration was 222,000, and the year to the end of March 2011 saw an increase to 245,000.

The Minister said that there were only some parts of the equation that we could do anything about, but that he none the less remains committed to a net migration target. He can do something about net migration if he wants to persuade more British people to go and live elsewhere, but that is why we have some concerns about the precise way in which the Government have worded their target.

In relation to those who want to come to this country to work, the Government have used rhetoric that makes it seem as though there is a cap of 20,700 in total, but in actual fact, in the 12 months from the third quarter of 2010, 158,180 work visas were issued. Similarly, the number of tier 2 applicants who were successful in obtaining visas is virtually identical to that for the year before. As the Minister said, his cap has not yet cut into the numbers because it is relatively generous, but what is the point of the cap if nobody has yet been refused because of it?

In the first quarter since the new cap was introduced, 37,000 work visas were issued. The number of intra-company transfers, which the Minister condemned when we were in power, has gone up from 26,554 to 30,000 in July. My biggest anxiety about the Government’s record is illegal immigration. Contrary to the figures the Minister gave, the number of removals and voluntary deportations has been going down quite significantly since the general election. Between 2007 and 2010, the number was always above 60,000. In 2008, for example, 67,981 people were removed or voluntarily deported. In the nine months from January to September this year, the number was down to 38,865—a 12% fall on last year’s figures. There was no increase, as the Minister told us earlier, or as the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago. Indeed, the Prime Minister specifically said,

“illegal immigrants, 10% increase in arrests”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 278.]

That is completely and utterly factually incorrect. The figures show that in the third quarter of last year, 4,730 people were arrested. This year, the figure is 4,141—a fall of 12%; not an increase.

Similarly, the number of non-asylum cases refused entry at port and removed has fallen from roughly 7,000 a quarter to just 3,822 and a little bit more in each of the subsequent three quarters. In addition, this year the Government have engaged in an ill thought through and unconvincing pilot scheme, which effectively lowered the level at which our security was being guaranteed.

I raise those figures because we need to be careful about the use of statistics by this Government, especially by this Minister. Sir Michael Scholar, who attacked the Minister for releasing inaccurate and deliberately misleading statistics on drug seizures, said:

“The Statistics Authority considers that the fact and manner of the publication of the 4 November press release, in advance of the official statistics, was irregular and inconsistent with the statutory Code of Practice, and also with the Ministerial Code and published guidance on the handling of official statistics issued by the Cabinet Secretary.”

In normal parlance, that means that the Minister has broken the rules and should be sacked. In essence, that is what Sir Michael Scholar is saying. He says quite precisely that the Minister has broken the ministerial code.

When I wrote to Gus O’Donnell about this, he gave this answer in mandarin:

“The Home Office press office has also given assurances to the Department’s Chief Statistician that it will work more closely with statisticians and analysts to ensure that this oversight will not happen again.”

In other words, he is confessing that in the publication of statistics the Minister sought to mislead not this House but elsewhere.

Of the eight named day questions that I tabled at the beginning of November, not one has been answered, despite the fact that it is a full month after the date when they should have been answered.

I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, on family migration, what threshold income are the Government leaning towards for a person bringing in a dependant, and when will they announce it?

Secondly, the NHS has no details of the number of staff coming into this country and being employed by it either from within the EU or from outside the EU. It is difficult to form a coherent strategy on NHS staffing or immigration until such statistics are produced. Will the Government set about doing so as soon as possible?

Thirdly, has the Home Office done any specific analysis of the needs of accident and emergency departments around the country? The Migration Advisory Council is now suggesting that everyone on tier 2 visas should have a visa for only five years and that it should be non-renewable unless they are on £35,000 or more. Is that the view of the Government, and what effect do they think that will have on NHS staffing? Has any analysis been conducted of British nurses emigrating to other countries? Again, that is vital information if we want to ensure that we have proper staffing.

In addition, the Home Office estimates that there will be 70,000 to 80,000 fewer students coming into this country because of the changes in provisions. What estimate has the Minister made of the financial effect on colleges around the country, and when precisely do they expect to be achieving those numbers?

Furthermore, a consultation is under way on tier 5 of the points-based visa system, which proposes shortening visas from 24 months to 12 months. This scheme is largely used under the medical training initiative, which allows doctors from other parts of the world, particularly from developing parts of the world, to train in the NHS for two years. All those involved in the scheme say that if we were to cut the scheme to one year, people would not receive sufficient training to be effective when they go back.

A consultation is under way on the domestic worker visa. As the Minister has said in previous debates, when people come in on this visa, they are tied to an employer; they are terrified and are in virtual domestic servitude. They are treated appallingly with uncertain hours and uncertain pay. If, as the consultation suggests, they are unable to change their employer in future, there is a real danger that we will be consigning more people to domestic servitude and to a more difficult situation. When will the Government announce their policy on that?

My final question is on trafficking. Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that it was aware of 2,600 women being trafficked for sexual exploitation in this country—a much higher figure than the number dealt with in the system. Is it not time that we have a means of dealing with people once they have been trafficked and once the trafficking has already occurred in this country, and that we do more about using the Department for International Development’s budget and other budgets to ensure that people are not trafficked here in the first place?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way after his long list of questions. I asked him one, and in half an hour he has not even addressed the central issue. Does he think that immigration is too high at the moment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister has not said whether he thinks the figures are too high. As the Prime Minister is all too happy to say on very many occasions, it is for him to answer questions; it is not for us to do so.

We will support the Government on many things, but not on everything. We will support them when they seek to tighten the system against illegal immigration, international criminality and trafficking. We will also support them when they seek to ensure a robust and fair set of migration rules that do not undermine our economic prosperity or communal support for the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

It is a huge pleasure and honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who has spoken out on this issue again and again, including when abuse was heaped on anyone who tried to do so. I also praise my hon. Friend the Minister, who has brought great energy to one of the most difficult briefs in Government. What I am about to say will be pretty bleak, frankly, but not one word of it should be taken as a criticism of the huge amount of energy and intellect that he has brought to his job.

It is curious, looking through one’s postbag, how many of the pressing issues facing Britain today—housing shortages, congestion on roads and public transport, water shortages, pressures on public infrastructure of every kind—derive largely from a single, common factor: population growth, to which my right hon. Friend referred. We are one of the most densely populated countries in the world, with 255 people per square kilometre. During the time of the last Labour Government, immigration policies encouraged an unprecedented influx from EU and non-EU countries, which has boosted populations in some urban areas to near crisis point. Between 1997 and 2009, after deducting the number of those leaving, more than 2 million extra people were recorded as settling in the UK, a surge that is unprecedented. However, for the first time, those figures were calculated without using embarkation records, so the true figure may be much higher. The ONS projections to which my right hon. Friend referred have been upgraded again and again. For example, in 2004 they indicated that by the middle of this century our population would reach 67 million. In just three years that projection was increased to 77 million, and it continues to rise.

I believe we need to look at gross rather than net migration figures, for several reasons. First, many of those leaving are elderly people, looking to spend their retirement abroad in the sun. In contrast, the vast majority of immigrants are young. First-generation immigrants typically have large families compared with indigenous families. There is a further, obvious point, which was well understood in this country until the middle of the last century, which is that because we are basically overcrowded we always used to have more people leaving, precisely to find homes in emptier lands. Today, housing pressures are caused by domestic factors, such as family breakdown, increased longevity and so on, which have led to smaller household sizes, so if we do not have a degree of net emigration, we will have to keep building more and more.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman’s last comment—that the reason many British people have gone around the world and settled elsewhere is because Britain is overcrowded—is factually wrong. The parts of the country from which many people left—Scotland and Wales—are the least crowded. In fact, they mostly went because there were no jobs in this country or, originally, because of religious persecution. It is nothing to do with overcrowding.

[Mr Brazier]

One can go back quite a long way, into religious persecution and earlier history, but we were very keen to encourage, for example, the Australians to keep an assisted package programme going for nearly two thirds of the last century. Much of that was precisely to reduce overcrowding. There was also a degree of internal re-location—for example, with the setting up of new towns outside London—but we encouraged movement abroad, as well as out of our major cities.

Everybody agrees that previous generations of immigrants have brought huge benefits, in such fields as business, science, sports and the arts. We all have friends from a variety of different communities. My family has particularly benefited from a doctor, without whom two of my sons would not be alive today, who is a recent immigrant. However, few people recognise the sheer impact of population growth on our country today, and I want to focus on two issues: housing and infrastructure.

The most serious social and economic issue facing middle and lower middle-income families in Britain today is the shortage of housing, and not just in the south-east where land is at the highest premium. The huge inflows of population that took place under the last Government are going to require very large releases of land, much of it countryside, even without any further population growth. Our house prices today, despite some fall from the peak during the recession, remain very high by international standards and, crucially, in relation to our falling incomes.

As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, the average age of first-time buyers has risen to 37. Many families are now burdened for much longer than ever before with heavy mortgages, so adults have to work longer hours and for more years in an attempt to service those mortgages. An OECD survey showed a few years ago that a higher proportion of people in this country feel they are working more hours than are good for their family life than people in any other major country in the developed world.

Shelter paints an equally bleak picture of the rental market. More than half of local authorities in England have a median private rent for a two-bedroom house that costs more than 35% of median take-home pay. Families are forced to cut their spending on essentials—food, heating or whatever—to pay the cost of rent or the mortgage.

The Government have set out plans to revive building, which was at an all-time low at the end of the last Government, but that will have the knock-on effect of causing huge problems for infrastructure. The Environment Agency, for example, estimates that 5 million people live in flood-risk areas in England and Wales, and as climate change accelerates, that number will no doubt rise. Yet in a county such as mine—Kent—the majority of all land that does not fall into a protected category is now on floodplains, so much of the building we are going to have to provide to cope with our existing population, including the rise caused by the bulge in immigration, will have to be built on precious protected land or else more communities will have to be exposed to the dangers of flooding.

Water supplies in many parts of the country are under strain, too. In fact, our national average per capita is now lower than that of Spain and Portugal. As more water is abstracted from aquifers and rivers, the flow in rivers falls, killing wildlife and scarring the countryside.

Immigration is putting considerable pressure on our schools, too. A report by London Councils stated that on current projections, London is 18,000 places short. It is not just London. Between 1998 and 2010, the proportion of children in primary schools in England for whom English is not the first language very nearly doubled to 16%, and in inner London native English-speaking children are in the minority. The noble Lord Knight, until recently a Labour Education Minister, admitted that

“undoubtedly there can be problems”

in schools with large numbers of non-English speakers. That is massively to understate the handicap suffered by all the other children in those schools.

The number of arrivals from overseas registering with a GP has increased dramatically. One of the hardest hit NHS specialties has been midwifery, as birth rates have risen most sharply in areas where numbers of immigrants are high. When Labour came to power in 1997, one baby in eight was born to a foreign-born mother. That has now risen to one in four.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has put it well: the real questions are how Britain can benefit most from immigration and what controls do we need to maximise those benefits and minimise the strains. The last Labour Government—we still have not had an answer from the shadow Minister as to whether he believes immigration is too high—maintained that immigration was good for Britain and the British economy as a whole since immigrants boosted GDP. Of course it is true that on average immigrants pay more tax than they receive in benefits or consume in public services. Many, especially the kind of immigrants who came through in generations before Labour opened the borders, make a gigantic contribution, but taking an average disguises the bottom end of the spectrum.

Many of those who arrived in Britain under the last Government, particularly from the Asian subcontinent, were unskilled and joined often insular communities in which incomes were already low and in some cases the unemployment rate was near to 50%. Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, for example, were those most likely to enter the UK through the family route after the primary purpose rule was dropped.

Baroness Flather, the first Asian woman to receive a peerage, caused outrage when she made a brave speech in the House of Lords. She said:

“The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis, have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.”

She went on to say:

“Nobody likes to accept that or to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 September 2011; Vol. 730, c. 706.]

Of course it is true here as in countries all over the world that the trend is for birth rates in ethnic groups that integrate to go towards the national average. The problem, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has pointed out, is that under the last Government we grew significant numbers of communities where there was no integration and no trend in birth rates or anything else towards the national norm. The whole economic argument has largely ignored the costs to the overburdened public purse in infrastructure and the loss of quality of life to the population, as overcrowding worsens.

There are powerful voices that welcome continued heavy immigration. Big business benefits from the arrival of large numbers of people willing to work, since they drive down the cost of labour at the expense of the living standards of the indigenous workforce; and the wives of the better-off are able to get help in the home at a fraction of a living wage for local people, but then they and their families are not usually struggling to pay their mortgages and watching their children’s education being destroyed in schools with dozens of languages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds). He was perfectly right to draw attention to the time lag and the failure of funding formulae to adjust to cope with a different local demographic locally—a point that both our parties used to raise in opposition, and rightly so.

I do not want to prolong the debate about schools—the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) has just left the Chamber—but I benefited from an education in a French state school, where half the pupils spoke a foreign language, so I think that it is not the number of children with a mother tongue, per se, but the level of investment that is relevant.

I welcome today’s debate. The Liberal Democrats have not been scared of debating immigration. In the past, that has perhaps worked to our disadvantage and it might have been advantageous had we not debated the matter quite so openly. A number of Members highlighted the fact that the mainstream parties’ failure to be willing to debate such matters created a vacuum that others occupied. We are collectively reclaiming that ground and enabling measured debates to take place.

I shall not criticise Labour Members as I know that there are many demands on their time, but I am a little surprised by the rather sparse attendance on the Opposition Benches for this critical debate.

[Chris Bryant]

We went for quality.

[Tom Brake]

The Front-Bench spokesman makes a point about quality, but quality can also come from Back Benchers in some circumstances.

[Chris Bryant]

You only have two.

[Tom Brake]

I am not going to prolong the debate that I am having with the hon. Gentleman from his sedentary position—he can calculate the percentages in respect of the parties represented here tonight.

I welcome the fact that almost the Minister’s first words pointed out the benefits that immigrants bring to this country, as in a measured debate the benefits and disbenefits of immigration are discussed. I welcome the action the coalition Government have taken to close down some of the illegal routes used to get into the UK jobs market, especially the action taken to speed up the asylum process. It works to everybody’s advantage, including asylum seekers here, if that process deals with cases rapidly rather than allowing things to drag on for years. At the risk of offending my coalition partners, I must point out that that issue was not particularly linked to the previous Labour Government and that, historically, there have been issues with addressing asylum claims swiftly. Soon after I was elected in 1997—other Members who were elected at that time will remember this—I found that I was hearing about cases that had been under review for a number of years. I am pleased that we are now on top of that process.

I do not want to make general points about immigration, but I have a couple of specific points. Appropriately, the Minister mentioned the Lille issue and the attempts to enter the UK without the appropriate documentation. I hope that the Government have looked at whether other routes are being used in that way and whether, as new transport links are set up, other routes might suffer from that problem. I hope that we are addressing that issue.

The Minister pointed out that the coalition Government have dealt significantly with a blot on Labour’s record—the number of children being detained. We have largely addressed the detention of children pre-departure, but there might still be an issue with reducing the number of children detained on entry to the UK and the length of time for which they are detained. Some organisations have suggested that there should be no detention of children on entry, but that would mean operating an open border policy, which the Government, rightly, are not doing. If that policy were adopted, it might lead to children being trafficked here by people who were not their parents. The Government should aim to minimise the number of children detained on arrival in the UK who have to be returned.

The biggest challenge for the Government is, perhaps, that of overstayers and people who are already here illegally. The Minister has set out a number of measures that the Government are taking in that respect. There is still a major issue regarding the number of employers being prosecuted. As long as employers are willing to employ people illegally, that will act as a magnet, so any other activities that the Government can undertake in that area would be very welcome.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that we need a flexible system of immigration to ensure that we have the skills we need coming into the UK. The Minister might be aware of some recent research by the London chamber of commerce and industry, which found that nearly a quarter of the companies that responded to the survey had looked outside the EU for staff because they believed that employing a non-EU migrant would help them to grow into markets beyond the EU. It will be to the advantage of the UK and our export-led recovery if, on occasion, we allow people with appropriate skills from non-EU countries to enter the UK jobs market.

The Government are looking at safeguards for overseas domestic workers. Members might be aware that it is often very difficult for domestic workers who are brought here and, in different ways, abused by an employer to get out of what sometimes amounts to unpaid servitude. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at this, and I hope that we will be given some information tonight or later about the safeguards that the Government are looking at introducing for overseas domestic workers who experience abuse from their employer.

[Chris Bryant]

There are two suggestions on the table: that the visa should be completely abolished, and that an employee would be tied to the employer who brought them in and would not be able to change employer. Surely the second of those suggestions would make it more likely that people would be caught in servitude.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent intervention. The Government need to explain what safeguards will be in place for a worker who comes here, is linked to one employer and has no alternative but to work for them.

We need an immigration system that is flexible, fair and secure, and the coalition Government are moving swiftly in that direction. Our ability to sell to the wider population the benefits of immigration that is helpful to the UK depends on the coalition Government being able to demonstrate that we, and not the people traffickers, are deciding who comes to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). Much of the discussion in the debate tonight is based on anecdote. One of the problems is that we have not had an opportunity recently to look at fact-based evidence. We can all unite around the idea that if we do not debate these issues in a moderate and mainstream way, the extremists will polarise people and drive wedges between our communities. They would like nothing better than to propagate violence, hatred and dislike among communities of different ethnic groups, religions, creeds and so on.

Not since the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs undertook a proper analysis in 2008 has there been such a study enabling us to identify the costs and benefits of large-scale immigration. It would be remiss of those on the Government Benches not to mention the lamentable policy of the previous Government. I hope the shadow Minister or his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) will come to the Dispatch Box to ask the philosophical question that will inform Labour’s view, if it is developing policy to be a future Government—whether it believes that immigration is too high or not. That is a question that voters are entitled to ask and to which they are entitled to receive an answer.

I pay tribute to the work of the cross-party group on balanced migration and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who have done a great job, ably supported by Migrationwatch. For nine years Migrationwatch has ploughed a lonely furrow, having been traduced as racist and as having some kind of hidden agenda to propagate community discord. Nevertheless, it has concentrated on the facts and more often than not been right in raising the tenor of the debate and allowing mainstream politicians to debate in a meaningful way based on facts.

The facts have not been good for the previous Government. It has fallen to the present Government to clear up the mess and the legacy of uncontrolled, unrestricted immigration. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, 2.2 million people net entered the country between 1997 and 2009. We have not yet had a proper analysis of that, although in fairness the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was honest enough to say after the general election, about the immigration from eastern Europe, that

“there has also been a direct impact on the wages, terms and conditions of too many people . . . in communities ill-prepared to deal with the reality of globalisation, including the one I represent. . . As Labour seeks to rebuild trust with the British people, it is important we are honest about what we got wrong.”

If I was a cynic, I would say that is because the Opposition lost the election, but people now look to them to put flesh on the bones and to develop the mea culpa of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood.

[Chris Bryant]

Having heard many confessions in my time, I am not going to give a lengthy mea culpa. We have already said that immigration was too high, which was in part because we got the element resulting from countries joining the European Union wrong and did not introduce a points-based system soon enough. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, yes of course we think that immigration has been too high and that it should be lower.

[Mr Jackson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but there is a more insidious element to Labour’s proposals and its record in office, which was articulated by Mr Andrew Neather, a speech writer for Tony Blair, who was famously quoted as saying that the idea was to rub the right’s nose in mass immigration in order to make a political point. It was a systematic policy of mass migration pursued by the previous two Prime Ministers and the Labour Administration.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Jackson]

I will make some further progress.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found in its report on immigration, the most comprehensive such report brought before Parliament in the past 10 years, that

“we have found no evidence for the argument… that net immigration… generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population… The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small”.

That might be true, but we do not know because there has not been a sufficiently robust analysis, which would be interesting, by either the Government or other academic bodies. What is certainly not in doubt is the public support we have for pursuing a robust, fair and transparent immigration policy. Last month YouGov polled the British public and found that, on a proposal to restrict net migration to 40,000 a year, which would prevent this country’s population growing to 70 million by 2027, 69% supported the idea and only 12% opposed it.

I support the range of policies pursued by the Minister, who has been open and collaborative on the concerns that hon. Members have in their constituencies, for example on student visas, family migration, income thresholds, language proficiency, temporary workers and promoted integration. However, I wish to speak in a similar vein to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who in a measured, well-argued and intellectually coherent contribution identified the issues we have in Peterborough, although I will not reiterate his points exactly.

Let me tell hon. Members a little about education. I secured a debate in Westminster Hall, to which the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) replied, in which I proposed incorporating the number of pupils for whom English is an additional language as a key factor in the pupil premium. In those areas where there are pressures specifically as a result of eastern European migration—there are probably fewer than two dozen such areas—the need for extra resources as a result of language difficulties should be factored in. For example, in the academic year 2010, of the 528 pupils at Beeches primary school in the central ward of Peterborough, only six spoke English as their first language. There are many such schools in Peterborough, although not necessarily at that level, but close to it. That will inevitably have a massive impact on educational attainment simply because the resources needed to bring all those children up to the appropriate standard will be significant.

Another concern relating to education that we must not forget is churn. Many of the low-wage and low-skilled people who work in horticulture, agriculture and food processing and packaging in Boston and Peterborough come here for short periods, which disrupts their children’s education. For instance, overall in Peterborough, 4,767 pupils—31%—did not have English as their first language. Of 2,103 pupils with key stage 2 results, 21% were not in the city at the beginning of their school year, and 22%, or 450 pupils, were in the foundation stage but were not put in for key stage 2 SATs. That one simple example is important in terms of the training, expertise, skills and knowledge of the teachers required to teach those children.

I shall draw the Minister’s attention to some specific issues. On the A2 accession of Bulgaria and Romania and, particularly, the moratorium on the free movement of labour, it would not be appropriate to change in 2013 our policy on that restriction. It is an extremely important issue, because the potential mass migration of large numbers of low-wage and low-skilled people from Romania and Bulgaria would have a significantly negative effect on the UK labour market in 2013, and I welcome the preliminary findings of the Migration Advisory Committee in making that clear to Ministers. Serious consideration should be given to derogation for a further period—perhaps to 2015 or 2017.

On the interrelationship between the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions, we must clarify the issue of the right to reside and the habitual residence test, particularly the operation of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, in its 26th report, found that the DWP had done insufficient work in looking at the impact and ramifications of the end of the workers registration scheme, and that is important in terms of people’s access to benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, pension credit and child tax credit.

I am concerned, too, about the European Commission infringement proceedings and its reasoned opinion, which essentially breaks the social contract, established over many years in this country, that one does not receive benefits unless one has a demonstrable link to this country and has paid taxes to this country. I draw the House’s attention in particular to the case of Mrs Patmalniece, a Latvian woman who claimed pension credit, having never worked a single day in this country. That cannot be right for my constituents or for the constituents of any hon. Member.

I am concerned also about criminal records data in the European Union, because in respect of sharing such data we are not properly using regulation 19(1B), which came into effect in June 2009 as an amendment to the 2006 regulations. If we are using it, we are doing so reactively. It is not right that someone with a criminal record can get on a coach in Lithuania and turn up in Boston, Peterborough or any other urban or rural centre in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, but a number of other Members wish to speak, so I am going to restrict my remarks to seven or eight minutes.

Also under the Labour Government, net migration increased fivefold to 250,000 by 2010. That gave rise to two major concerns. The first was about population growth and pressure on services, and Members have spoken a lot about that in the debate. This morning I visited a project called the Well in my constituency. It is run by the Salvation Army, but a number of different public agencies are involved in it. It deals with people who are either sleeping rough, sofa-surfing or have profound housing difficulties. They often have mental health, alcohol or drug problems as well. It was interesting to see both at that project and at the Nightwatch scheme in Croydon, which provides food parcels to people who are in profound housing difficulties, that there were a significant number of people from eastern Europe in need of those services. They came to the UK looking for a better economic future but have not found it, but they are unable or unwilling to return.

Immigration has given rise to a second concern, which has not really been referred to in the debate because it is not part of the polite political discourse. If we are honest, there are people in this country who feel that their local community has changed demographically during the course of their lifetime and is not the place that it used to be. That is not my view of my local community, but when I canvassed door to door in the run-up to the election, I found that there were people who felt like that and we need to recognise that.

Both those effects are increased by the fact that the impact of migration in our country is particularly pronounced in certain parts of the country. About 12% of the UK population as a whole were born abroad, but in Greater London that figure rises to about 36%, and in some London boroughs it is even higher than that.

That concern about migration led to one particularly damaging effect in some of our communities. When the Conservative Government left office in 1997 there was not a single British National party councillor in this country but, as a result of the huge increase in migration, a number of extremists were elected to public office. Thankfully, the number is now declining again.

Before I touch on a couple of further measures that I should like the Government to take, I wish to set out my views, because it is important for a Conservative representing a demographically highly mixed part of London to recognise that in the past the Conservative party has been perceived, to some degree rightly, as unwelcoming to people from overseas who have tried to settle in this country.

My view is very much that immigration is a good and necessary thing. If we examine our population, we see that the baby boomer generation is ageing and that if we do not bring in some people of working age, we will have fewer working people supporting more pensioners. If we believe in the UK as a global trader, we clearly need to have links with countries around the world and people need to be able to come here and set up businesses. I sit on the Select Committee on Science and Technology and am very passionate about our best universities having the ability to attract the best and brightest talent from around the world. I also see in my home town the vibrancy that migration can bring.

It is possible, however, to have too much of a good thing, which is what I contend we have had. Government policy needs to pass seven tests, the first of which is tone. It is so important that we do not demonise migrants. They are doing what any Member of the House would do in the equivalent situation.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. That is the fundamental weakness in the 2003 Act, which does not allow that discretion which any sensible, right-thinking person would apply straight away on a humanitarian basis.

I was not going to mention the General Pinochet case until I got to the end, but I may as well do so now, as it fits with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point. Like many others, I fought to get Pinochet extradited so that he could go on trial. We won the cases all the way through, but unfortunately the then Home Secretary decided that there was an overriding medical reason for allowing General Pinochet to return on the “Lazarus flight” to Chile, where he walked off the plane and seemed to be perfectly healthy.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rather agree with my hon. Friend about General Pinochet, not least as several of my friends were killed by his police force in Chile. My hon. Friend said that any sensible person would want to change the leeway allowed to the Secretary of State, but unfortunately the report that we are discussing this evening says:

“We note the arguments for increasing the role of the Secretary of State in the surrender of persons…We are not convinced that changes should be made”.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry that the authors of the report are not convinced, but it is up to us in this House to try to convince the Government to make those changes. Although I welcome the examination of the issue, as well as this debate, it is absolutely up to us to ensure that that happens.

The second case that I want to mention is that of Julian Assange and the ongoing attempt to extradite him to Sweden. I want to go on to something else in a second, but let me briefly quote Debra Sheehan, who has been campaigning for Mr Assange not to be extradited to Sweden: “I believe this ruling”—the ruling that he can be extradited—

“sets a very dangerous precedent allowing any UK citizen—and possibly any European citizen—to be extradited without charge. Mr Assange’s case shows that the European arrest warrant can be used in a totally disproportionate way without using other less draconian methods of completing police investigations, such as Mutual Legal Assistance.”

The European arrest warrant is a serious issue, because, as others have pointed out, it seems that countries with a far from rigorous, fair and open judicial system can gain arrest warrants against British subjects, who are then taken to a different jurisdiction, where they face a much lower threshold of proof before a conviction is obtained. It is not our business to protect criminals, but it is our business to ensure that people get a fair trial and that there is absolutely the presumption of innocence before any conviction is made.

The third case that I want to mention is that of Babar Ahmad, which was brought up excellently by my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Yesterday I received an e-mail from his father that I would like to quote from:

“I am writing to request that you attend the debate…and…vote in favour of reforming the laws so that they strengthen the protection for British citizens, such as my son Babar Ahmad, who is now in his eighth year of detention-without-trial.”

He continues:

“Babar is the longest detained-without-trial British citizen in the modern history of the UK. He is in his 8th year of detention in a maximum security institution. He has served the equivalent of a 14 year sentence and if he had been tried and convicted in the UK, he would be probably out by now.

The CPS has recently admitted that it never considered the evidence against Babar before it was sent to the US authorities”—

a point made by my friend, the hon. Lady—

“yet for over seven years, they have allowed him to languish in prison without trial, refusing to prosecute him on the alleged basis that there is ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute him. The crimes for which he stands accused are said to have taken place in the UK. Over 141,000 people and 100 senior lawyers have”

written in his support.

“If extradited to the US Babar faces a period of 3 years pre-trial detention in complete isolation. If convicted he would face life without parole in solitary confinement at a Supermax prison”.

Is that really what we want for British citizens under this law? That is what will happen if Babar Ahmad’s extradition goes ahead. His father continues:

“On 22 June 2011, Parliament’s JCHR explicitly raised concerns over Babar’s case recommending that the government urgently re-negotiate the UK-US”

agreement. Finally, just to make the point, he says that this debate is part of the “enormous public interest” in the case, and in particular the examination of it by the Muslim community in this country, which feels that Babar Ahmad’s case is indicative of something about the treatment of people where there is any suspicion of the kind of offences in which he is alleged to have been involved. He cannot be tried in this country because of the way he has been treated—the trial would collapse—so why on earth should we even consider allowing him to go to the United States?

Baroness Helena Kennedy, who is extremely eminent on all legal matters and somebody for whom I have enormous respect, wrote an excellent article in The Guardian today in which she raised the question of the forum. She wrote:

“To my mind, where there is clear evidence to a criminal standard of a crime being committed either in the UK or from the UK and jurisdiction is being contested, an English court should be required to determine the strength of the evidence and the ‘forum conveniens’—that is, the location of any prosecution. The court’s decision on forum should be based on clear guidance—the nationality of the defendant and the victim; location of both the prosecution and defence evidence, witnesses, and so forth. Yet as it stands there is no statutory right for a UK defendant to challenge extradition on forum grounds.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in winding up the debate.

The general point that I want to make is this. We are not here to defend criminals. We are here to ensure that those who have been charged are given a proper hearing and a fair trial. Extradition arrangements must be fair and reciprocal, and in most past cases they have been, in the sense that the Minister for the Interior, or the Home Secretary, has been able to exercise some degree of discretion as to whether or not a person should be extradited. I think that that is right, although one might disagree with the discretion used on certain occasions. What we have here, however, is a completely imbalanced system—as a result of both the European arrest warrant and our arrangements with the United States—which I consider to be contrary to all the judicial traditions of this country, and on which I think it right for the House to take a stand.

I hope that the motion will be passed, and that that will send a clear message to the Government about what we want. I understand that there may not even be a vote. That either indicates unanimity or that the dark forces of the Whips’ Offices in all parties have taken the night off, but I fear that they are forces that never sleep.

On 11 November the Home Secretary received a long letter from Shami Chakrabarti, general secretary of Liberty, which made points about forum, and many more general points. She wrote:

“The human rights bar in the 2003 Act is of the utmost importance and we continue to encourage its effective application by the British judiciary.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that that letter has received a reply, and will be able to inform us of the Government’s general attitude. We are here to stand up for justice and liberty, and I believe that our arrangement with the United States is the opposite of those things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I must confess that I was looking forward to more of that. I have on occasion referred to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) as the hon. Member for the 13th century, but I think that that was far too radical a century for his liking.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. He is quite greedy about getting debates. I think he has probably had his fair share for the rest of this Parliament, but he introduced an important matter that is of interest to many.

I also congratulate the many Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have had particular problems. I know, from when I was responsible for consular support in the Foreign Office, how often British embassies around the world deal with complicated situations in relation to extradition. In some circumstances, British people did not have to be extradited and were caught up in the criminal justice system in another country, where they did not speak the language, did not understand the system and were a long way from their loved ones, as many hon. Members have said. Some people were languishing in pretty hideous jails. I visited a couple of them in Thailand and Peru and cannot recommend the process to anybody. I therefore commend hon. Members for their comments.

In relation to Andrew Symeou, I tried to ensure, as far as possible, that our embassy in Athens was doing as much as possible to ensure that the family and Mr Symeou had the support that they needed. Of course, we were also trying to provide support to the family who were the victims of the crime in question.

I also congratulate the lawyers who have taken part in the debate. I notice that they keep calling themselves “jurists”. They are not going to get away with that. We know who they are. Unfortunately, I mostly agreed with their contributions, so I will not be rude to them this evening.

It is a fundamental principle that nobody should be arbitrarily arrested without due cause. It inevitably follows that no extradition, no surrender of a person and no arrest under an international warrant should, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer,

“be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly”.

Extradition is a vital part of a modern criminal justice system, as many Members have said. It means that nobody can evade justice simply by fleeing the country. In our case, 581 people have been brought back to the UK to face justice as a result of the European arrest warrant since 2004, including the failed 21 July bomber, Hussain Osman, who was extradited from Italy. Indeed, he was removed from Italy fast enough for his interrogation to inform the decisions on charges that had been placed against others, which was an important part of securing justice in that case.

We need at all times to keep our extradition arrangements, both multilateral and bilateral, under review so that nobody’s freedom is unjustly deprived by them. It seems to me that there are five key issues: the operation of the European arrest warrant, the question of whether a prima facie case should be made in all situations, the issue of double or dual criminality, the implementation of a forum bar and the purported imbalance of the US-UK treaty.

I will first make a few simple points. The first is that the motion refers to the protection of British citizens, as have many hon. Members. However, many UK extraditions are of course not of UK nationals. Many EAW requests are from countries that want their own nationals to face criminal proceedings back home. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights seeks a special threshold of proof for British citizens. Leaving aside the matter of Northern Ireland, I believe that the idea of special arrangements for our nationals, as opposed to anybody else, in the UK courts smacks more of the Russian system of extradition, which prevents the extradition of any Russian national, than the historic British position that the law should be blind to nationality.

[Mr David Davis]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman could have said that it smacked more of New Zealand, Australia, Germany or France. Why did he pick Russia?

[Chris Bryant]

It was partly because Russia has made a large number of extradition requests to this country to which we have said no because Timothy Workman, the judge in charge, has decided on each occasion that they were being advanced merely for political reasons, whereas when we make extradition requests, such as for Mr Lugovoy, who is sought for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian state simply says that no Russian national will be extradited. I do not think that there should be a distinction between different nationalities.

My second minor point is that I suspect that statistics throw far less light on the matter than one might think. It is true, for instance, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned, that the number of extraditions from the UK has risen dramatically since 1975, but then so has international travel. Moreover, although there was just one extradition to Spain in the decade up to 1973 compared with 61 in the past seven years, I suspect that that had more to do with the relations with Franco’s regime than with anything to do with the extradition system.

The same is true, I believe, of the US-UK extraditions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Since 2004 there have been 73 extraditions to the United States from this country, and just 38 to the UK from the US, yet 70% of UK requests for extradition have been successful compared with just 54% of US requests to the UK. In other words, a US request is less likely to succeed than a UK one. Moreover, far more British nationals go to the US every year than the other way around. I know that that seems counter-intuitive, but the Library’s figures suggest that roughly 4.5 million British people go to the US every year, and fewer than 2 million come from the US to the UK.

Thirdly, cybercrime almost inevitably crosses borders, whether we are talking about conspiracy to fund terrorism, illegal file sharing or industrial espionage. Consequently, I agree with hon. Members who have said today that we have to ensure that we have a better way of dealing with the question of where individual matters may be resolved.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in taking interventions. I put it to him that the original arrangements with the United States were entered into under the cloud of the history of 9/11 and terrorism, and now we are hearing cybercrime as the latest excuse. Is there not always another excuse to worry people about why we should go further in taking away their rights and protections?

[Chris Bryant]

I was actually agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in my remarks about cybercrime. I think it is legitimate for there to be a point at which we decide where is the right place for something to be tried. I believe that was the point that he was trying to make earlier, so I am grateful to him for his support for my argument.

Having dealt with the minor issues, I want to turn to the more significant ones, and first the operation of the European arrest warrant. It is true that there have been several cases in which the justice system in other countries included in the European arrest warrant has been far from ideal. Several hon. Members have mentioned those cases today. We are all mindful of the horrific experiences of some people who have been held for considerable periods for crimes that, as it turns out, they never committed. Incidentally, that is of course sometimes true in the United Kingdom as well.

Although I believe the EAW operates successfully in the main, there is one key matter that I believe needs to be addressed—the question of proportionality. Between 2004 and the end of March 2011, Poland accounted for 1,659 and Lithuania 355 of the UK’s 3,107 EAW surrenders. In part, that was because of the prosecutorial system in each of those two countries, but in many cases the warrants were for relatively minor offences. We believe that a proportionality test should apply. Indeed, I believe that the majority of members of the European Union would prefer to see some form of proportionality clause inserted into the provisions. It is important, of course, to bear it in mind that in many cases the UK imposes longer sentences than other countries in Europe, so there is a danger that if proportionality is introduced some countries will retaliate in the wrong direction. However, I believe that such a clause should be included.

[Richard Drax]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we left the EU, proportionality could be decided in this country, not by a massive bureaucracy?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear, no. Don’t get me started on that. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the aetiology of how we got to the European arrest warrant. It was a Conservative Government who ratified our membership of the European convention on extradition in 1991, which has almost all the same provisions and applies to nearly all the same countries. Indeed, in 1993 it also included Hungary.

Secondly, I wish to mention prima facie rules. Under the 2003 Act, there is no prima facie rule in relation to EAW countries, known in the legislation as category 1 territories. However, in countries in whose criminal justice systems we do not have the same legal confidence, a prima facie rule still applies. That includes several Commonwealth countries covered by the London scheme and many others covered by bilateral treaties, such as Brazil and Argentina—the countries that were formerly quite happy to receive people from Nazi Germany without asking any questions.

There is no prima facie requirement for designated category 2 countries that share our respect for human rights and the rule of law, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the US. The Opposition believe that that distinction is a proper one, even if we would constantly seek to urge reform and modernisation of legal systems in many EAW countries. Hon. Members have said that we cannot just hope that that will happen and that we need to try to ensure that it does. However, we would not do so by suddenly inserting a prima facie case for all EAWs. If we did that, we would be leaving the EAW. Some hon. Members might like us to do that—as well as leaving the EU—but it would be a mistake because of the effects it would have on the UK.

[Stephen Phillips]

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is therefore advocating that it is perfectly acceptable for citizens of this country to be extradited to jurisdictions where conditions in the justice system are less than ideal when no prima facie case is shown. Is that right?

[Chris Bryant]

The Committee makes it clear in its report that the

“EAW is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and… mutual trust”

between the judicial authorities of EU states. That is a legitimate position for us to adopt, just as it was adopted in 1991 by the Conservative Government when they signed us up to the ECE—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering, but I cannot hear what he says. Unless he wants to chunter louder, I am at a loss—[Interruption.] He says he will chunter more quietly, for which I am very grateful.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—he will chunter from a standing position.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I will indeed. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, wise and sensible as he is, thinks that justice across all European states is equal. It self-evidently is not: some systems are much less good than ours, and none is better.

[Chris Bryant]

That kind of casual British superiority sometimes does not carry the day when it comes to making decisions about our legal systems—[Interruption.] It was a joke. I am sorry. I clearly missed that.

[Mr David Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am being more generous than I should be, but of course I will give way.

[Mr Davis]

I rise to get the hon. Gentleman off the hook. He has accepted that judicial and prison systems in other European countries are less than desirable. He says that he does not want a prima facie test. Does he accept that he is therefore proposing, or what exists, will punish innocent people who are sent to those countries and suffer those problems?

[Chris Bryant]

No I do not accept that. The return question to the right hon. Gentleman would be this: why did he expressly support in 1991 the ratification of the ECE? If Britain had wanted to, it could have insisted on a prima facie case—that was when many member states had even less advanced criminal justice systems than they have today. The honest truth is that Britain came to the decision that it was more important to close down the costa del crime and the many different ways in which people could evade justice around Europe. I agree with his position at that time.

[Mr Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am conscious that the Minister’s contribution is far more important than mine and I want to move on to a couple of other issues.

I fully understand the concern that many have with the abolition of double criminality from the framework decision. I understand those who believe that that could mean that one could be extradited for holocaust denial or other matters that are not criminal offences in this country. However, I ask hon. Members to remember that sections 64(2) and 65(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 make it absolutely clear that the conduct must have happened in the member state where it is a crime, not in this country. When people travel abroad, surely people subject themselves to the laws of those other countries.

Under the forum bar, extradition would not be allowed if, in the words of section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which is now section 19B of the 2003 Act,

“a significant part of the conduct alleged…is conduct in the United Kingdom”

and if, in the opinion of the court, it is not

“in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting”

country. Many have pointed to some of the problems inherent in such a forum conveniens test—it could further delay complex proceedings, several of the terms are imprecise, and there could be extensive litigation around them—but the Opposition are not opposed to such a test per se, and merely note that the Government have not thus far introduced the relevant motion in this House or the other place.

Let me turn to the imbalance in the US-UK treaty. Members will know that the US constitution requires that nobody can be arrested without a prosecuting authority proving probable cause. That applies equally for a US arrest for US prosecution, for an international arrest warrant or, under the 2003 treaty, for extradition. The requirement for a UK extradition to the US is that information must be provided that satisfies the reasonable suspicion test. Both tests are based on reasonableness and require similar paperwork and evidence to be submitted. In the case of someone to be extradited from the UK, the US authorities first have to secure a warrant or grand jury indictment, both of which require that the probable cause test is met in the United States of America. The argument that the treaty is imbalanced is simply not made.

Let me briefly turn to the cases of Gary McKinnon and Babar Ahmad, which are much in Members’ thoughts today. It is not for this House to decide the guilt or innocence of anyone, nor do I believe that this motion can legally affect either of the two cases, notwithstanding the points that have been made by others. The length of time that these two cases have taken makes it difficult to see how justice is being done in either of them. Whatever changes the Government bring forward will not directly affect them. None the less, I urge the Secretary of State to make a final decision on Gary McKinnon as soon as possible, and the European Court on Human Rights to do the same by Babar Ahmad. Nothing we do tonight will free either of them, but we can ensure that in future others do not suffer in the same way.

Extradition

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Leigh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing an extraordinarily important debate and the Backbench Business Committee on doing such great work to ensure our chance to have this discussion. I want to keep my remarks brief, because so much has been said in the evolving consensus of the debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for their powerful contributions.

There has long been a tradition that Parliament is the last backstop for the liberty of the subject and the protection of the rights of property. It is right for us to be deeply interested in the liberty of our electors and citizens, and it is particularly great to see in the Chamber the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who has remained in his seat throughout the debate and who has been such a powerful advocate for his constituent, Babar Ahmad. There seems to be a strong, cross-party feeling that things are simply not right.

To pick up on one issue, if people are in the UK and commit a crime in the UK, the deep, natural sense that we all—the person in the street—have is that such people should be prosecuted in the UK for that act, if it is an offence in this country, and not be taken away from home, loved ones, community and everything familiar to be prosecuted in a foreign country. In particular, I have long found the US-UK extradition treaty troubling.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I issue a slight corrective? Everyone thus far has talked about British nationals being extradited. Quite often, a request under a European arrest warrant, or for that matter an extradition request, is for a non-British national. One reason for the number of European arrest warrants from Poland being so high is that a lot of them are for Polish people whom the Polish Government want to take back to Poland.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I am concentrating on our citizens and our electors.

The situation has long troubled me: in principle, if people commit an offence in this country, they should be prosecuted in this country. Many of us feel that way. According to paragraph 4 of article 8 of the treaty on extradition with the States:

“If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances.”

Perhaps I am an old-fashioned lawyer—that is my background and training—but I feel deeply that the right forum for prosecution in such a case is in the UK and that people in this country should be tried by their peers. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, perhaps it is our jurisprudence and long legal tradition, but that is how I feel, as so many of us do.

[Chris Bryant]

One area in which we in this country have changed direction slightly in the past few years—rightly so, and I suspect the hon. Gentleman would agree with me—is sexual offences, possibly committed in a country such as Thailand by a British national, that might not be prosecuted in Thailand, but could be in this country.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case for the extradition of a British citizen to another jurisdiction where the offence was committed and, arguably, if a sexual offence was committed in Thailand, the right forum for the case would be where the offence took place. I am speaking, however, about when the actus reus of the offence is alleged to have taken place in the UK—in particular, in internet-type cases—so the evidence, and the proper forum, would seem to be in the UK. That is my deep sense of how things should be: if a crime is committed in the UK, it should be prosecuted in the UK. One should not be seized from the UK, as the NatWest three famously were, and sent before a jury in Texas. Having been a partner in an American law firm and having talked to colleagues, my understanding is that Texan juries are simple: people from Texas get a good hearing, but if people are not from Texas, it is a bit more hit and miss. One needs to be cautious in such cases.

Another thing that I and many people feel strongly about is reciprocity, in particular the remarks in the Scott Baker report about probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. That takes us to paragraph 3(c) of article 8 of the treaty. It says

“for requests to the United States,”—

it is only to the United States—

“such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.”

That “reasonable basis to believe” finds its origin in the fourth amendment to the US constitution, which was passed in 1791. Interestingly, in our jurisprudence that principle found its heart and motivation in the famous, landmark case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765. I feel that in our Parliament we sometimes forget our finer and more enduring principles, while the Americans seem to embed them slightly more effectively. The Scott Baker report states, in effect, that there is no real difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I do not share that conclusion.

The table in paragraph 7.30 on page 237 of the Scott Baker report, which I am sure everyone has read in great detail, clearly states of requests to the United States:

“Information satisfying the probable cause test”,

but of requests to the United Kingdom it states:

“Information satisfying the reasonable suspicion test”.

Is there a difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion or not? Scott Baker says not.

Let us look at more of the detail. The Scott Baker report then mentions the definition of “probable cause” in paragraph 7.35 on page 239:

“A well-known definition of probable cause is, ‘a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime’… The Oxford Companion to United States Law defines probable cause as, ‘information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime’.”

We are talking about the difference between reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief, and I say that belief is a rather higher test than simply suspicion.

Let me give an example. An hon. Member’s Order Paper has gone missing in the House and the Member thinks that a colleague has taken it—but which colleague? There are so many around. The Member sees the Order Paper, or part of it, poking out of a colleague’s jacket, so the Member has a reasonable belief that that colleague has taken it. If the Member does not see anything and merely suspects the ne’er-do-well in the next seat, that is reasonable suspicion, because that colleague has done that kind of thing before. Belief is a higher test than suspicion, and there is strong feeling of concern—rightly—that the treaty does not have the degree of reciprocity that it should have.

Another matter that I feel strongly about, because I believe strongly in the liberty of the subject and the proper testing of any case, is the fact that there should be the old prima facie test that we used to have. I know that that would raise the objection that it leads to long hearings and so on, but why should we not have the same test for extradition as for a committal for trial of the old style? That seems to me to be the right way to go, because we should be cautious before sending our citizens abroad. I appreciate that that may cause difficulties with the European arrest warrant, because it is bound up with the wider European issue, where angels fear to tread. However, leaving that aside, we have wider discretion with other countries, and perhaps we should consider firmer testing of the proof, particularly with jurisdictions where we are unsure whether they will provide the proper level and quality of information and fair trial, and when we worry that they might not be entirely straightforward and honest about their level of evidence. Today, we have heard about cases in which there has been concern about the level of evidence.

I would like the Minister to provide some clarity. I understand that 24 British citizens have been extradited to America, and that one American has been extradited to the UK. Given that the treaty was entered into to deal with terrorism, how many of those 24 cases involved extradition for terrorist-related charges, and how many did not? That is germane to how correctly the House was led when the treaty was introduced. It was told at the time that the treaty covered terrorist activities, but not wider activities.

The Secretary of State should have a backstop power to decline to authorise extradition, and reintroduction of that should be considered to provide extra, discretionary protection in favour of liberty of the subject. We should be super-cautious before sending any of our citizens to face trial in another jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Let me add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate.

I am grateful to other hon. Members who have made a strong case for the radical reform of the UK’s extradition treaties by citing the powerful case studies of Deborah Dark and Gary McKinnon and far too many others. Like other hon. Members, I want to use the opportunity of today’s debate to raise the case of Babar Ahmad. As other hon. Members have said, Babar Ahmad, a British citizen, has been detained in the UK for seven years without charge or trial. He is fighting extradition to the USA under the Extradition Act 2003, which, incredibly, does not require the presentation of any prima facie evidence.

Babar is not alone in his ordeal. The poet, Talha Ahsan, is another UK citizen who has also been held—his case is related to Babar’s—without charge and without trial under our shocking extradition arrangements. He is now entering his sixth year of imprisonment. I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of Babar and Talha’s families in fighting for justice for their sons. Before I go on, I want to join others in paying tribute to Babar and Talha’s MP, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). He is here today, but, as a member of the shadow Cabinet, he is not permitted to contribute to this Back-Bench debate. As we know, he stands firmly by both Babar and Talha and their families and has done so since their ordeals began.

As hon. Members know, in June this year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights urged the Government to change the law, so that Babar Ahmad’s perpetual threat of extradition was ended without further delay. Since all the allegations against Babar Ahmad are said to have taken place in Britain, Babar’s father has started an e-petition to call on the Government to put him on trial in the UK and support British justice for British citizens. As hon. Members will know, over 140,000 people supported that e-petition and, although today’s debate is welcome, it is not enough.

There are three key reasons why we need a full debate on a votable motion in the main Chamber. First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is no longer in her place. She sits on the Backbench Business Committee, and gave an assurance that it would look again at the possibility of holding a full debate in the main Chamber. That is important because of the level of grass-roots support for the e-petition on Babar Ahmad. The campaign had no formal organisation; there were no big newspapers behind it and it was basically an outflowing of grass-roots outrage that saw the families involved going from door to door in south London, out in the cold and the rain, standing outside supermarkets, churches and mosques, and making videos of each other signing the petition—many of those videos were posted on YouTube. It was an example of democracy in action.

The petition gained astounding support in such a short time because this is a shocking human rights case. People are rightly appalled at the simple but extraordinary fact highlighted in the petition: a British citizen is being held, without charge and without trial, in a maximum security prison, and that has gone on for over seven years. I have long lobbied for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and as we approach the 10th anniversary of its existence, the cases of Babar and Talha remind us that one of the most fearful things about it—people being held without charge and without trial—is happening on UK soil at the behest of the US.

I appreciate that the Backbench Business Committee may find it difficult to devote parliamentary time to every petition that passes the threshold of 100,000 signatures, but this was a genuine grass-roots campaign. If we do not have a full debate in the Commons, we risk alienating the more than 140,000 people who signed the e-petition following efforts by the families involved. Those families want a debate on a votable motion in the main Chamber, as do the campaign’s many supporters. Officially, of course, all parliamentary Chambers are of equal standing, but in the eyes of the general public there is a difference between Westminster Hall and the main Chamber of the House of Commons. Critically, that difference comes down to whether there will be a vote and, quite rightly, Babar Ahmad’s supporters want to see their MPs take a stand on the issue.

Secondly, Babar’s family have been deeply moved that, in the midst of a recession, more people have expressed their concern to Parliament about a British citizen being detained for over seven years without charge or trial, than have shown their anger about rising fuel prices. We will send a negative message to all those who have engaged with the e-petition process if we do not take the matter forward with a debate in the main Chamber.

One of our strongest tools for combating the threat of terrorism is vigorously to protect justice, democracy and human rights. Every time we undermine the values that we purport to protect, with legislation such as the Extradition Act 2003, we run the risk of adding to the sense of alienation that we know is felt by many of our young people. Over 140,000 people have told Parliament that they want MPs to engage more with such issues.

The third reason for having a debate on the Floor of a House and a vote is that we urgently need to change the law. The detention without trial of Babar and Talha undermines our democracy.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Lady be clear about what she wants the vote to be on?

[Caroline Lucas]

I would be happy to take advice from other hon. Members on that, but a vote should consider the design of this country’s extradition treaty, so that it is not imbalanced, as it currently seems to be. I would like such a vote to refer directly to Babar but I understand why others may not. This is a point of general principle, illustrated clearly by the case of Babar Ahmad.

Members have heard the circumstances of Babar Ahmad’s arrest in 2003, and the fact that he sustained at least 73 injuries, all later documented by police and independent doctors. He filed a formal complaint, stating that he had been subjected to horrific physical, sexual and religious abuse by the arresting police officers. In March 2009, the Metropolitan police force finally admitted liability in the royal courts of justice in London and said that it had carried out the assault on Babar Ahmad in December 2003. The then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, admitted that Babar had been the victim of a

“serious, gratuitous and prolonged attack.”

In March 2009, Babar was awarded £60,000 compensation by the High Court. He is now, however, in his eighth year at a top-security prison, even though he has been found to have no case to answer in this country. The US has alleged that Babar was running a website that solicited funds for terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda and Chechen rebels. That is a serious accusation, and there should, of course, be a trial. Babar and his family desperately want the case to stand trial but wish that to take place in the UK, not in the US, so that he can clear his name. That is partly because Babar is a British citizen and accused of having committed crimes in the UK, and partly because going to the US would separate him from his family, friends and legal representatives, and seriously undermine his ability to mount a strong defence.

Babar’s lawyers point out that other comparable prosecutions are proceeding in the UK. Nevertheless, in July 2004 and December 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service declared—as did the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in September 2006—that there was “insufficient evidence” to charge Babar Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law, and that he should be extradited to the US. Last night, in a shocking turn of events, Babar’s lawyers received a letter from the CPS, which admitted for the first time that it was never given the evidence that was sent to the US, apart from “a few documents.” The bulk of the evidence was shipped straight to the US by the police. Astoundingly, although we had previously been led to believe that the CPS had viewed all the evidence and judged it insufficient to bring the case to trial in the UK, we now have a confession that it had not even seen all the evidence, let alone investigated it properly. A proper decision has not been made on whether a prosecution can go ahead in the UK.

After talking to the lawyers involved, I understand that the CPS knew all along that it had not been given all the evidence. However, it let Babar Ahmad languish in a maximum security prison with the threat of extradition to the US, under the false belief that the CPS had seen all the evidence against him. If that is the case, it is appalling and raises serious questions about why evidence that should have been given to the CPS was not produced, and why Babar was not told about it. Who directed and authorised that circumvention of the CPS, apparently in deference to and at the behest of the US?

The issue is simple: either there is evidence or there is not. If there is evidence, a prosecution should go ahead in the UK. The CPS must immediately obtain a copy of all the evidence, which was gathered in the UK by UK authorities, and it must then review that evidence together with its decision on whether to prosecute in the UK. Given the new revelation from the CPS, it seems—appallingly—that UK authorities deferred to the US, thereby subverting the process that should have been followed and denying Babar Ahmad a trial in this country. Because of the seriousness of the case, it is appropriate to call today for a full public inquiry into what has gone on.

On 10 June 2007, the European Court of Human Rights ordered the UK Government to freeze Babar Ahmad’s extradition until it had fully determined his final appeal. The European Court has declared that Babar’s application is partially admissible and now awaits further observations from the UK Government on the life sentence without parole, in solitary confinement in a supermax prison, that Babar faces if extradited to the United States. The final decision is expected before the end of the year.

It is astonishing that the previous Government passed an Act that does not require the presentation of any prima facie evidence by the US when they wish to extradite a UK citizen. That must be changed urgently, and the way to start such a process is by holding a debate in the main Chamber and having a vote as soon as possible.

In addition to enormous public support, this case also has cross-party backing, together with the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, and 100 senior barristers and solicitors who wrote to the Leader of the House this week, requesting that the matter be properly debated in the main Chamber of the House of Commons. Today’s revelations by the CPS make the case for a full debate with a vote even more urgent, and I hope that the Government will look favourably at the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, although I rather liked the moment when you were sitting behind me as though you were my Parliamentary Private Secretary; that would have been a unique combination, and we would have had fascinating debates in our team.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. He always manages to secure debates, and the debates are never uncontentious. At the rate he is going, I suspect that he will be the next leader of the Conservative party, but having said that, I have probably destroyed his career.

I agree with right hon. and hon. Members that it is unfortunate, to say the least, that a part of our debate this afternoon is a tagging on of a matter that has been raised by a petition, which has been supported by more than 140,000 people. I have my personal criticisms of the way in which the e-petition system was set up. There are problems in that what the public want may not necessarily be what an individual Back Bencher wants the Backbench Business Committee to advance. However, the topic has its own specific importance and should be debated properly on its own.

I have asked the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the nature of the question that one should ask, as that is an important principle. Our debate is in Westminster Hall, immediately next to a place where Parliament regularly used to decide on the guilt—it was nearly always the guilt, rarely the innocence—of people, who were then sent off to face the death penalty. Notwithstanding that fact, it is a good principle that Parliament and elected politicians do not decide on the innocence or guilt of any individual; I am sure that she was not saying that they should. They can decide on matters such as whether they or the House have been lied to and whether there has been a breach of privilege.

Some people have been moving towards the view that we should take some kind of vote on the issue, which I think would be difficult to do. It would also be difficult for us to vote precisely on the question of whether someone should be prosecuted. It is not for this House to decide whether the British prosecuting authority should prosecute. I wholeheartedly support the idea that we have a proper debate on Babar Ahmad in the main Chamber, and also on the wider issues of extradition, the extradition treaty and the European arrest warrant, probably on a votable resolution. However, it would be inappropriate to breach the basic principles that I have set out.

It is a delight to see the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs back in his seat. He sent me a lovely note earlier to say that he was off to another meeting and might miss my “brilliant” speech—though I note that he had added the word “brilliant” afterwards. I think he sent the same note to the Minister.

It is important that we proceed with further debates on another occasion on substantive motions. I recognise the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has sat here throughout this afternoon’s debate. That is part of the ongoing care that he has been taking of his constituent, which many Members in the debate have recognised.

We have to acknowledge some important first principles. Extradition is a vital part of ensuring the security and safety of people in our own country and around the world, and ever more so today. Perhaps in the 17th and 18th centuries, British people could have evaded justice in this country by going abroad, and vice versa. I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber believes that that should be the case today, especially in a world where people cross borders far more frequently and where crime can be conducted from one country in another country far more easily. It is all the more important that we have a sane and sensible process of extradition.

One of my criticisms of one of the most unfair imbalances relates to the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia. Russia will not extradite—because its constitution refuses to allow it to do so—any Russian national ever, come what may. I believe that Andrey Lugovoy should have been extradited to this country a long time ago for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. I do not think we will ever see justice for Mr Litvinenko’s widow, who suffers, in many ways, exactly the same deprivation of justice that many have referred to in the cases where British people have been extradited abroad.

The UK issued 1,295 European arrest warrants in a relatively short period of seven years. Out of those, there have been 581 surrenders to the UK. Sometimes, they have been British nationals in other countries who have committed crimes. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) referred to the Costa del Crime. British prosecuting authorities being unable to pursue justice had been a permanent feature—people could go off, live in Spain and never come back to the UK. I am glad to say that the Costa del Crime has been closed down. One of the people involved in the 21 July attempted bombings in the United Kingdom was brought back to the UK from Italy swiftly by virtue of the European arrest warrant. Similarly, a large number of IRA terrorists were brought back to the UK by the EAW. We should not chuck the baby out with the bathwater. There were 179 returns from Spain and 117 from Ireland, which is quite important to us.

Of course, extradition should not always be granted. Notwithstanding the many cases that have been referred to this afternoon, many requests are not granted. There were 4,325 requests to the UK, and only 3,107 were granted. Indeed, quite a lot from Russia have not been granted, because they were determined to have been based solely on political considerations and not truly on the pursuit of justice. That is why the two clauses regarding the two categories of countries relating to human rights are important.

[Nick de Bois]

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether some of the applications were not exercised in full or executed simply because the authorities could not find the people, as opposed to finding reasons not to extradite?

[Chris Bryant]

The honest truth is that it is a right old mix. That is why, as we consider the matter, there is a danger that we proceed only on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman referred to as anecdotal evidence of individual cases, rather than properly garnered substantive evidence that covers the whole realm.

I know the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent very well; I have met the family. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was a Member of Parliament, I answered debates. At the Foreign Office, we tried as much as possible to rectify the problems with Greek justice. His constituent’s case was far from a unique example, not specifically regarding extradition, but regarding British people facing justice in Greek jails, in a criminal justice system that was falling apart at the seams in many ways. The Foreign Office had a difficult job to do in trying to ensure that those people got justice.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman cited the case of Russia. Does he think that, in such dealings, reciprocity is an important underlying principle that we should follow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course I do. It is always quite difficult to achieve perfectly because people have different criminal justice systems. If we proceed on the basis of English common law, we end up with a different sort of process than we would if our whole justice system were based on the Napoleonic code. This is where we need to do more work on the European arrest warrant. I would not want to get rid of the EAW because, broadly speaking, it has worked to our benefit. There are elements of it, however, that have not helped. It seems bizarre, for instance, that 1,659 of the cases that are sought from the UK are from Poland and 355 from Lithuania. The rumour is that they are all to do with sheep rustling and so on, but because there is a different prosecutorial regime in Poland and in Lithuania, we need to get to a system of proportionality in the advance of European arrest warrants. If we do not, we simply will not have the reciprocity to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We also need to do more to help other countries to develop a strong criminal justice system that meets the threshold for justice and impartiality to which we, in this country, aspire. That is obviously an important part of what we need to work on in relation to new countries coming into the European Union.

I also believe that justice in relation to extradition needs to be exercised on a fair, balanced and relatively swift basis. If we take completely out of the equation the nature of the allegations against Mr Ahmad, the fact that he has been in prison for so long without any form of trial, charge or anything at all is manifestly unfair and unjust. It is not because the Americans want him to be kept there—they would like to be able to proceed with the prosecution and come to a resolution of the case. It is because the European Court of Human Rights is taking a phenomenally long time to resolve its issues, which is why I support substantial reform of how the Court operates so that there can be a degree of swiftness in relation to extradition. In a sense, slow justice is no justice.

When we were in government, we made it clear that the US and the UK ran different but parallel systems. The Baker review agrees with what Patricia Scotland said when she was Attorney-General. If there is to be a change in the balancing requirements between the two countries, it must be based on hard evidence. Some of the numbers that have been advanced this afternoon in relation to the US are not, I think, right. In so far as I am aware, there have been many more requests to the UK than there have been from the UK to the United States of America. However, I think only one request to the US has been denied since 2004. Of course more British people go to the United States regularly than there are Americans who come to the United Kingdom, so the imbalance in the numbers is partly to be expected.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Leader of the House is shaking his head. If he has other statistics, I will be happy to give way to him.

The Government have a problem. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats made a series of commitments when they were in opposition to change the treaty to ensure that Gary McKinnon would not be sent to the United States of America. As I understand it, the Government were going to rely on the Baker review, but that review has provided exactly the opposite answer to what they expected.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he will correct my impression in a moment.

[Mr Burrowes]

I rise in reference to Gary McKinnon. I am not aware of any suggestion from the Government that the Baker review is linked to Gary McKinnon because any measure would have to be applied retrospectively. The only determination in relation to Gary McKinnon relies on the review’s work with respect to medical evidence. It is important for us not to talk down the opportunities for Gary McKinnon on the back of the Baker review. It is primarily on the basis of the medical evidence that his case is being considered.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important correction. I apologise for that conflation of views. We have the Baker review now. I am sure that hon. Members are far more interested in hearing from the Minister about what the Government will do about this than in hearing from me.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Chris Bryant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I have a series of questions for the Minister. What timeline are the Government setting themselves for proceeding with this matter? As every month goes by, there are more extradition requests and more people are brought into the system. What do the Government intend to do in relation to Gary McKinnon and what timetable are they proceeding along? What estimation have they made of the Baker report? Do the Government agree with any of it? Do they intend to commission a new report? What standing will the report by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) have in relation to the Government’s position?

Border Checks Summer 2011

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

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

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary says that she put something in writing. Is she prepared to put everything that she put in writing in the public domain in the Library of the House this afternoon, so that, instead of having to take just her word for what her pilot was, we can see the truth in black and white?

[Mrs May]

All relevant documents will be going to the relevant inquiries. That is entirely the right way to do it.

I remind hon. Members that last night, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman, confirmed that Brodie Clark, the head of the UK border force, admitted to him that he went beyond ministerial instructions. That is why Mr Whiteman suspended Mr Clark immediately. He took that decision as chief executive of UKBA, and before he informed me of his meeting with Mr Clark. Subsequently, two other senior officials have been suspended and I have ordered three separate investigations, as I outlined to the House on Monday, and I have placed the terms of reference for those inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), with his considerable knowledge of the way that the Department functions. However, for me, and I hope for other Members of this House, the most disappointing feature of this debate has been that it has taken place not only in a heated atmosphere but, at times, in an extremely ill-tempered one. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that he was concerned that the office of Home Secretary might be diminished by this affair. I am similarly concerned that this House has been diminished by some of the debate this afternoon. I say that because I think the British people are interested in three things as a result of this affair and, indeed, of their more general interest in the question of immigration—but not interested in an opportunistic fashion. I venture to suggest that this is an opportunistic motion, albeit that there have been opportunistic contributions from both sides of the House.

First, the British people want to know precisely what has gone on. Secondly, they want an acknowledgement by politicians in all parts of the House—but particularly, if I may say so to Opposition Front Benchers, by those who formed part of the previous Administration—that something went very badly wrong with immigration in this country for a very lengthy period, as a result of which many of our constituents spent much of the last general election campaign raising immigration with us as an issue that seriously concerned them. I know that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has done this in the past in relation to aspects of the previous Government’s immigration policy, but it would do her, and those who sit with her, no harm at all to acknowledge that something went very badly wrong under the previous Government, that having an extra 2.2 million people—twice the population of Birmingham—in this country during the course of the 13 years that Labour was in power was not a good thing or something that increased community cohesion, and that real mistakes were made in relation to other areas such as establishing quotas for those from new-entry members of the European Union.

Thirdly, our constituents want to hear about what ministerial responsibility means in the 21st century in the context of a Department that, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn made clear, is at the forefront of relations between the state and the individual, which is why it has caused such problems for so many Home Secretaries in the past.

I was enormously pleased that the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford acknowledged, because this must be the case in the 21st century, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can know precisely what is going on in their Department. What we therefore need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) indicated, is to get to the bottom of what happened on this occasion by virtue of the inquiries that will take place, to listen to the results of the inquiries, and only then to make judgments about the conduct of the Home Secretary and her officials and advisers in the Home Office.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Stephen Phillips]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very glad. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems a bit surprised that he is giving way to me.

How can we get to the bottom of the matter if it is not guaranteed that the inquiry will be published and that all the paperwork that will be provided to the inquiry from the Home Office will be published? If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it should be, he should vote for our motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I know it in part because I read the evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Home Affairs Committee, and indeed watched most of it.

I will state what appears to have happened on the basis of the evidence that we have at the moment. We do not have all of it because of the prematurity of this debate and because we have not heard Mr Brodie Clark’s side of events. Mr Clark, according to his boss, accepted that he went beyond what he was permitted to do under the terms of the pilot and what had been agreed by the Home Secretary. It was for that reason that he was suspended, not by the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, but by his boss, as the Home Secretary has made perfectly clear and as his boss has confirmed, after it became apparent that the terms of the pilot had been exceeded.

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to correct something that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might have misunderstood. He said earlier that the warnings index was still being checked for children. It was not. The document that the Home Secretary says covers her guidance expressly states:

“We will cease... Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the Warnings index”.

Those passports were never scanned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There have been many striking things this afternoon. The most striking one at the beginning was how few members of the Cabinet came to offer their support to the Home Secretary. I have been in this Chamber on many occasions when people have called for a resignation. I have nearly always on those previous occasions seen at least half the Cabinet present. I presume that she does not have much longer, in light of the support from her colleagues.

There have been a great many contributions. I think I am correct in saying that we have heard from three members of the Home Affairs Committee—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), although I know she is unable to join us now, and, of course, the much-respected Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have also heard from a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

We heard, too, from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I must say that when he said he thought the Labour party should have taken a humility pill, I thought that was—well, talk about “pot” “kettle” “yellow”! The Liberal Democrats should be swallowing a humility pill in respect of a whole load of things at the moment—but I think we will leave that to the electorate.

Other contributors were my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael); my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound); the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Margot James), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab); and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).

All spoke and made interesting contributions, but what have we learned today? First of all, we have learned that the Home Secretary experimented with lowering our border controls—and unlike the Home Secretary, who made up her contribution, I am not making this up—in the year before the Olympics. She chose to experiment with border controls in the year before the Olympics!

Secondly, we learned that the Home Secretary did not even know what she agreed to in the first place. We saw that classically on Monday afternoon, when Members asked whether the experiment applied to Manchester airport, to Glasgow or to Belfast, and she did not know. She did not have the faintest idea; she was completely clueless. She still does not know today how, where or when her experiment with our border controls was applied. Even after days and days of this issue being the main one in the media, she has not chosen to brief herself to find out how it was applied.

The one member of the Cabinet who was here to provide his paltry support was the Secretary of State for Education. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I forgot about the Secretary of State for Wales, because we always do. We have heard that this was a pilot, but I would have thought that a pilot would be introduced in just one airport to see how it worked out, not become an experiment in changing the whole policy on our border controls across every single airport and port of entry into this country. This was no pilot; it was a change of policy.

We have also learned that the Home Secretary extended the experiment for a couple of extra months without even getting a view from the front line on how it was operating. It was only because John Vine happened to go along to Heathrow that we were able to find out exactly what was happening. [Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that Ministers cannot be expected to do inspections, yet we heard from the hon. Member for Dover that at least he has been able to go and visit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman went, but the Minister did not bother.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already spoken.

We also learned today that data do exist. The Home Secretary admitted that for the first time this afternoon, but she is refusing to publish them. [Interruption.] She is looking confused again; of course she is, because she has not bothered to burrow down into the detail. We want her to publish the data as soon as possible. She also admitted that the interim operational instruction, which we have referred to over the last couple of days, represents Government policy and that it does not stretch Government policy at all.

We have learned today, too, that the Prime Minister and several hon. Members who have been given Government Whips’ handouts think that this policy was a good idea. Well, if it was a good idea, are they going to do it again next year? I suspect not because they know it was not a good idea in the first place. What have we seen in this country?

[Stephen Phillips]

The pilot caught an extra 10% of illegal immigrants who were trying to enter the country, so why was it not a good idea?

[Chris Bryant]

It is interesting, is it not, that the only pieces of data that Government Members can come up with are the pieces of data that they think will help their argument. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the House to have data, let him publish the whole set of data, so that we can know exactly how successful or unsuccessful the operation was. He may wish to present a private Member’s Bill next year, in which case I look forward to seeing how many Government Members support him.

What have we seen in the country, though? One person from the neighbouring constituency of Cynon Valley contacted me, having arrived at Heathrow in the summer. He said that

“all those with biometric passports were called up and just waved through”.

That is precisely the opposite of what Ministers have been saying. I also have a piece of paper from the chief operating officer at Heathrow, who writes:

“Within the passenger environment the highest risk currently at Heathrow is the onset of the student season, which brings with it large numbers of people”.

She goes on to explain how she and her colleagues will be dealing with that. It is, of course, one of the main issues with which the Minister for Immigration is meant to be dealing. The chief operation officer writes:

“We have a number of ways of mitigating that risk, and these are now in place: use of Level 2 measures”—

in other words, the lighter touch—

“with the opportunity to use additional measures where required”.

That flies directly in the face of everything that the Home Secretary has been saying, and everything that the Minister has been saying.

We also know that some operations were suspended which the Home Secretary says were not. On Monday afternoon, she said:

“First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 45.]

That is her basic defence. Yet the very document that she says reflects her policy states:

“We will cease…Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings index”.

Those children’s passports were not swiped. The warnings index was not involved. That is directly contrary to what the Home Secretary said on Monday.

As for the Immigration Minister, who has been notable by his absence over the last few days, I think the whole House would agree that he is a nice man. I myself would argue that he is nicer than his politics. However, the fact remains that he has been completely absent. I should have thought that an interventionist Minister— [Interruption.] Will he calm down? I should have thought that an interventionist Minister who wanted to introduce a new policy on border controls and had organised an experiment would be ringing up members of staff at Heathrow, Gatwick and Calais to find out exactly what was happening. In my view, the Minister has been so hands-off that much of this problem is directly his fault.

I note that this afternoon, when the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked on eight separate occasions whether any Minister other than the Home Secretary had sanctioned the extension to further areas, the spokesman expressly chose not to answer the question. I suspect that that is because it was the Immigration Minister himself who gave a further sanction to the extension of the regime.

Government Members would love to talk about anything other than the fact that what has happened is due to two decisions that were made on their watch: the decision to cut the number of staff in the border force by 886 this year and by 1,552 by the time of the next general election, and the decision to suspend some border controls throughout the summer. This was not a pilot; it was a change of policy. It has blown up in the Home Secretary’s face, and she simply has not the decency to own up.

All that my constituents want to know is this: did anyone dangerous or criminal enter the country this summer at a port or airport near them? Sadly, we will not know the answer unless the Government do what our motion calls on them to do and publish the facts in black and white.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Do sit down; you have not been in the debate.

If Brodie Clark had not admitted that to his immediate superior, he would not have been suspended. That is why he was suspended.

Let me turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members. The serious point that the shadow Home Secretary made was about staffing cuts, so let me quote for her from the UKBA business plan produced at the end of the previous Government’s term in office. This was her Government’s policy, and it says:

“Our workforce projections indicate that there will no longer be a business need for the same number of staff in certain locations by the end of March 2011…within Border Force it is imperative that frontline services are maintained but changes to the way we work mean that this will be achievable with targeted reduction across the grade range.”

In other words, the previous Government were planning to reorder the way the border force works so that it could be effective with fewer people. That is why I said that the hon. Member for Rhondda was walking the line between opportunism and hypocrisy—I was not referring to him personally at all.

Indeed, my predecessor, Phil Woolas, said:

“Providing more flexibility and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of our country.”––[Official Report, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c. 5.]

That is what Labour’s last Immigration Minister said, and I agree with him. It is pretty disgraceful that his successors are now attempting to say that it is somehow improper to follow that example.

For many years, the UKBA has needed to be reformed. We have reversed Labour’s open-door immigration policy; we have capped economic migration; we have clamped down on student visas; we have restricted family migration; and we are breaking the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will give way once, to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful. The one thing that neither of the Ministers has revealed today is what will be published at the end of these inquiries. On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State changed her original date for producing the inquiries—by January—to the end of January. What exactly are the Government going to publish? Will they publish all the important decisions—obviously, with the redactions that were referred to earlier—so that we can see in black and white precisely what they sanctioned?

[Damian Green]

Obviously, all the relevant papers will go to the inquiries, and it is for John Vine, who is an independent inspector, to decide what he should publish. That seems to me the sensible way to do it. If there is an independent inspector holding an independent inquiry, it is not for me to tell him what to do.

For the first time in 15 years, we have a Government who are willing and able to deliver a controlled immigration system. Because of the shambles we inherited, it will take longer than I, this House or the British people would want, but we will improve the UKBA, we are bringing immigration under control and, unlike the Labour party, we will continue to take immigration as seriously as the British people do. This is a shameful motion promoted by a shameless party, and I urge the House to reject it.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), it is important to have intelligent border controls, to use technology and to put the right people in the right places so that we can keep our borders secure. Those are elements of this Government’s transformation of the UKBA to sort out the shambles that we inherited.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister may not know how many people are being removed from the border force, but I do. The numbers are 886 in this financial year and 1,552 before the next general election. He boasts that he is getting a grip, but this year there have been waits of many hours, EU nationals have been waved through in their hundreds and non-EU nationals have waltzed into the country without so much as a by your leave. We would absolutely adore it if he got a grip. Can he really say, hand on heart, that his cuts have nothing to do with the corners that are being cut with our security?

[Damian Green]

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as shadow Minister for Immigration. I remember fondly when, in government, he talked about the

“huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers”—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]

complaining about immigration. I am sure that he will provide a lot of that in future years. I am sorry, but I have already answered his question. It is the way in which we use people that makes our borders more secure. I suggest that he pauses before he keeps using the phrase about waving people through, because nobody has been waved through the border. However, under the previous Government, as he will hear from the Home Secretary later, people were waved through.

UK Border Force

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I do not believe that Manchester was included in the pilot, but I will, of course, check that I am right about that because—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It’s your pilot!

[Mrs May]

Yes, it is my pilot, and the arrangements for that pilot were made known to UKBA officials at the various ports where it was operating.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

There are two things that my Bill seeks to do. First, it seeks to prohibit affirmative or positive action by public authorities, and secondly, it seeks to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which removed the selection of candidates from the usual laws against discrimination, and legalised discrimination in the form of all-women shortlists.

I believe in equality of opportunity and fair chances for all, which is why I am very much opposed to the concept of equality of outcome, which means fixing a result before a process has begun. In the case of jobs, that can take the form of targets or quotas and, ironically, it means that there cannot be equality of opportunity. As a Conservative, and not a Marxist, that is something that I do not support. Without fair chances, there is no fair system, and someone will always be discriminated against. The Bill seeks to take away the obsession with equality of outcome, which has replaced equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Just like democracy, meritocracy has its imperfections, but it is by far the best option in the end. Social engineering and fixing processes are not right, as they have in-built, deliberate unfairnesses, and consequently, they are not only imperfect but unjust.

I should declare at the outset that I am the parliamentary spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness, an organisation that I commend to everyone. I can only assume, Mr Speaker, it is only an oversight that so far you are not a member.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Was the hon. Gentleman appointed or elected to that position?

[Philip Davies]

I think that I was given the position on merit, and I certainly was not given the job because I am a man. I do not think that I was given it because I am white. I would like to think that I was given the position on merit. Most Members know my views on political correctness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My view about freedom of speech is that anything should be able to be said, except—the law is very good on this—for example, something encouraging someone to violence. That is unacceptable. It is clearly criminal. But people should be able to express an opinion, whether I happen to agree with it or not. If we go down the line of saying that there are certain things that people should not be allowed to say, we face the question who decides that. Who decides what people are allowed or not allowed to say? Whose values do we accept? The hon. Gentleman may be content that everything he says falls within the parameters of what is allowed, but what happens when he wants to say something that someone else has deemed not permissible?

When we have got to the stage, as we have in this country, where ordinary decent people are petrified about what they say in case some zealot somewhere down the line takes offence at it, which is the situation that many of our constituents find themselves in, we have a problem. For the country that is for ever going round the world trying to promote freedom, we should be well aware that some of our constituents feel that freedom of speech is being eroded under our noses.

It is telling that we are very precious in the House about the fact that we are allowed to say anything in the House and we cannot be taken to a court of law on the basis of what we have said. Our freedom of speech is totally and utterly protected. The hon. Gentleman can say something incredibly controversial and he cannot be taken to court on the basis of what he said. However, he seems to be suggesting that he should be able to say anything he wants in here but that everyone else, including his constituents, should be subject to some kind of state control over what they can and cannot say. That is not the kind of country I want to live in, even if it is the kind he wants to live in.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman slightly overestimates the value of freedom of speech in the House. It is true that a Member could, in theory, say absolutely anything, but you, Mr Speaker, would upbraid them if they misused or abused that freedom, as happened earlier this year with a Liberal Democrat Member. There are also things that we are simply not allowed to talk about in the House, most notably the royal family and their activities.

[Philip Davies]

That is a separate issue, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

The point my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made about how the people political correctness is supposed to benefit do not actually feel the benefit has also been made by Anjana Ahuja. Writing in The Times, she explains how her opinion was once sought by the newspaper’s executives on how to attract non-white writers. The paper planned to offer internships to ethnic minority candidates who had graduated in media studies. She says:

“It was well intentioned but misguided, I ventured, because I knew of no colleague whose passport to these venerable corridors had been secured by such questionable means. There were historians, linguists, lawyers, classicists, philosophers, biologists, physicists, even an Egyptologist—but no media studies graduates. My view was this: if a brown writer sails in on an easier ticket than a white wordsmith, The Times would be construed as patronising rather than progressive and the intern would struggle against whispers of lowered standards…which is why, in the miserable tale of Ali Dizaei, the Scotland Yard commander convicted of corruption, the fact that sticks out most is the continued, seemingly pointless and possibly harmful existence of the National Black Police Association. Substitute ‘black’ with ‘white’ and an outdated collective becomes an illegal organisation that is morally impossible to defend. Why partition members of the same profession along the lines of skin colour? I would not join an organisation for black journalists (or female ones) because its identity lies wholly in the exclusion of white hacks (or male ones).”

Batook Pandya, director of Bristol-based charity Support Against Racist Incidents, has said of a positive action scheme that meant that fire service open days were limited to ethnic minority recruits only:

“None of these open days should have been closed to white communities. I couldn’t give two hoots if they are white, black, Asian, male or female—they should simply be the best person for the job.”

Roshan Doug, writing in the Birmingham Post, has stated:

“I don’t want people promoted purely on the basis of the colour of their skin—call it ‘positive discrimination’ or something else. To me that’s rather patronising—as if Asians and blacks are a little more than token staff to appease the CRE… I would like to see the best men and women for the job.”

I believe that people are appalled, and rightly so, when they hear that a white person has been turned down for a job because of the colour of their skin. The same people would be appalled if anyone, whatever their ethnicity, was turned down for a job simply because of the colour of their skin. When that happens, it inevitably leads some people wrongly to conclude that the benefiting group in question has asked for this special treatment. As I made clear earlier, that is not the case at all. Some politically correct do-gooder has tried to do the right thing or, as is increasingly the case and perhaps more worryingly, someone is trying to comply with equality law.

Speaking for the Liberal democrats on the Second Reading of the Equality Bill, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), now the Minister for Equalities, said:

“I turn to positive action. It seems completely illogical that we should be allowed to fast-track the training of ethnic minority and women police, but not be allowed to fast-track their employment. The rebalancing of the workplace is hugely important, and I do not disagree with the Leader of the House’s vision of the bank boardrooms of the future. When both the genders make a decision, it is likely to be more balanced.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 581.]

That is just the sort of thing that winds people up. If people want real equality, it must be just that, not some groups being more equal than others. What has a young, white male ever done to deserve being turned away from a dream career in the police force simply because he is the wrong colour and the wrong gender?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great joy to be here at such an exciting moment in the parliamentary calendar. I sort of congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on bringing forward the Bill, although it is a bit of a fib of a Bill because it is entitled the Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill, whereas it should, of course, be called the Political Correctness Gone Mad (Abolition) Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I tried to call it that, but I was not allowed.

[Chris Bryant]

There is clearly significant prejudice against the hon. Gentleman in the Table Office. I should say that that prejudice is entirely shared by those on the Opposition Benches, and I suspect that it is shared a little by those on the Liberal Democrat Bench, which is a rather singular Bench today.

I start from the fundamental principle that we were all created equal. That comes from a religious position, although in my theology I am very heterodox—perhaps unusual for me. I believe that all human beings were created equal and that we, as politicians, should be seeking to ensure that that equality is reflected in the way that people are able to live their lives. I know humanists who come from a completely different perspective, but who end up at the same point of believing that we are all equal and that that equality should be matched in the way that we structure society.

The truth of the matter is that the world is not equal. There is inequality not only between rich people and poor people in a country, but between rich parts and poor parts of a country and between rich countries and poor countries. My fundamental assumption, therefore, is that it will always be a struggle to try to achieve equality, and not an easy one. One has always to try to match equality with fairness. Sometimes, when one is trying to achieve equality, which might be fairer in one regard, one ends up with another form of unfairness.

The hon. Gentleman, in the way that he styled his comments and in the way that he styles his politics, runs away too much from the desire for genuine equality in society. I will raise with him some work that was done a few years ago. It showed that if there are two five-year-olds with the same IQ, in so far as IQ can be measured at the age of five, and one is in a family where the household earns more than £50,000 and the other is in a household that earns less than £15,000, five years later—this is quite frightening—the two 10-year-olds will not have the same IQ; the child in the richer family will have a higher IQ. Labour Members are passionate about ensuring that the child in the household with an income of less than £15,000 has a chance of realising their genuine potential. They should be able to retain the IQ that they have at the age of five until they are 10, 15, 50, 65 or 75. That is one of the many problems that I have with the hon. Gentleman's Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure we can all identify with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and that we all feel equally exercised about it, but surely the way to tackle it is through the education system. We must ensure that it looks after people of all abilities. Surely the solution should not be to allow the education system to perpetuate the current situation, then rig the rules for selecting people for jobs at a later date.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, many of us who represent valley seats in south Wales, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), who is in his place, know the long history of people fighting for better education precisely as a means of trying to rebalance and recalibrate that inequality in society. People do not need to have seen the play or film “The Corn Is Green” to know the educational ambition that often exists in many valley constituencies or other areas in the country with very high levels of multiple deprivation. All too often, however, it does not seem that the same educational opportunity is afforded to somebody in the Rhondda as it is to somebody in Chelsea.

I see the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) in his place—as a Whip, he is now unable to speak, so I can tease him remorselessly. Since he dispatched his close friend the former Defence Secretary from his post specifically so that he could become a Whip, I shall now enjoy teasing his silence. My point is simply that those in Chelsea, who have much greater financial resources, can ensure that they live in a good catchment area so that their child can go to a better school, or can afford to send their child to a private school. I was very fortunate that members of my family paid for me to go to a private school, but that is not available to the vast majority of my constituents or, I suspect, to any of them. That is why ensuring that the educational system genuinely provides equality of opportunity is vital.

The most distressing thing that I have come across in my time as an MP was early on. I bumped into a girl of 17 in Tonypandy and asked her what she wanted to do when she left school. She said she wanted to be a barrister, and I said, “Brilliant, how’s all that going? What are you going to study at university?” She said, “Well, I want to be a barrister, but I’ve been told by the careers service that girls from the Rhondda don’t get to be barristers.” All too often such depression of ambition can be self-perpetuating in communities, and that is why many of us believe in an aspirational form of socialism so that everybody has a chance to prosper.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does that not actually reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the education system is at fault? The careers adviser should not have said that to someone who had that ambition. He should have encouraged her and provided her with the help and support she needed.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely—I agree with the second part of that intervention, although not with the bit where the hon. Gentleman encouraged me to agree with the hon. Member for Shipley. Incidentally, I prefer the former Member for Shipley, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), and I very much hope that he will have an opportunity to present his rather ludicrous Bill later.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure the vast majority of my constituents also prefer the former Member for Shipley and regret the fact that they let him go when they had the opportunity to keep him.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was watching “Daybreak” this morning, but if he was he will have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) promoting her initiative called “If Chloe Can”, which is designed to raise the aspiration of young girls in particular who have the poverty of aspiration that the hon. Gentleman talks about. Surely that type of initiative, which the Prime Minister supported yesterday with a reception at No. 10 Downing street, is a more important way of dealing with the problem than rigging the selection rules for jobs.

[Chris Bryant]

There seem to be an awful lot of Ruperts and Jessicas and Chloes in the hon. Gentleman’s life. I think that the only Rupert who has ever crossed the border into the Rhondda constituency was Rupert Bear.

One of my experiences was as a curate in High Wycombe, a community that has a strong ethnic mix. A large community from St Vincent has been there since just after the second world war, and a large community from Kashmir and a large Polish community arrived in the middle of the second world war. I found that, all too often, in an unequal society the people who know how to shout the loudest get the best resources from national and local government. One of my problems with the educational system in this country, and for that matter with the national health service, is that all too often money has not followed need but has followed the loudest speeches. That is why I believe that we need equality legislation, and why I supported the legislation that the deputy leader of the Labour party brought forward in government.

[Mr MacShane]

I am following my hon. Friend’s speech with great interest, and I hope that it is only in its initial stages, because the Bill that follows really is a ghastly assault on privilege and fair play.

Is it not a paradox that, even with equality legislation, every single person currently in the Chamber is white, middle-aged and male? That is not the case with those slightly outside the Chamber in the civil servants’ box or the Serjeant at Arms’ seat, but it is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not relevant. We are dealing with the Bill, and Members should be speaking to the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not want to get led all over the place. We have already seen that coming from the Government side, and I certainly do not want to see it coming from the Opposition side.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I think the hon. Member for Shipley will be absolutely scandalised to have been described as coming from the Government side.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not sure about being middle-aged, either, but do carry on.

[Chris Bryant]

I think you are middle-aged, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pretty much there as well.

The problem that I have with the contention made by the hon. Member for Shipley is that I still think there is a great deal of prejudice in British society. It is complex and arises in all sorts of ways. I have seen in my constituency problems at school for young black kids in a community that is almost entirely white, and sometimes black teachers have had a really rough time because of the kind of language that people use. Language that would no longer be heard in most other parts of the country, where there is a racial mix, is sometimes still used.

I would also point out that the suicide statistics for gay young men in particular are still quite phenomenal. A young gay lad is six times more likely to commit suicide than his heterosexual counterpart, and I would love to see the end of homophobic bullying in schools. It will be very difficult to achieve, because people are not born with a pink triangle on their forehead or whatever—it is something complicated that they have to discover for themselves, and children can be very cruel. Tackling such prejudice will always be one of the important things for Governments.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely accept that there is still discrimination in society, and I certainly did not say that there was not. The point of my Bill is to try to remove it. My question for the hon. Gentleman is this: how do we tackle that discrimination? Surely the solution cannot be reverse discrimination in favour of people who were discriminated against in the past. Surely it is to remove all forms of discrimination.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, no, not quite. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the ambulance service, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, turned up at the household of a young Muslim woman who was in labour and having a difficult childbirth, and had absolutely no understanding of what was acceptable in a Muslim household. It would not be able to do its job properly. That is precisely why all public services need to be culturally sensitive not just to how Britain has always been but to how it is today.

When homosexuality was illegal—that era is fortunately long gone—and when David Maxwell Fyfe, as Home Secretary, ran a particularly nasty campaign of entrapment of gay men, some friends of mine, a couple who had lived together for many years, were burgled, but because they had only a one-bedroom flat, they were terrified of bringing the police round, because they knew that the police would investigate them for buggery rather than investigating the burglary.

I am afraid that there is a lack of understanding in far too many public services of how work could be improved by sensitivity to the ways other people live their lives—I would not say that there is deliberate prejudice, out-and-out racism, homophobia or sexism. In addition, many minority communities are simply forgotten by local authorities and the health service when they make their spending plans. That is one issue that needs to be addressed and one reason why the Bill is wrong.

Incidentally, there is significant cultural prejudice against the Catholic Church. I passionately disagree with the Pope on just about every issue, starting with transubstantiation. However, all too often prejudice against Catholics in society is quite marked and that is why it is not a good idea to ask people to give the name of their primary school when they are applying for public sector jobs. People will say, “Aha, this person went to the Cardinal Vaughan school! We’re not very keen on Catholics, so we won’t shortlist them.” It is illegal to do that, but it would be simpler and better if that element were taken out of the equation.

The hon. Member for Shipley said that he wanted a tolerant society. That phrase is very often used—I believe that an Archbishop of Canterbury started calls for a tolerant society in the 1960s. However, I dislike the concept of a tolerant society, because I think that a respectful society is far more important. “Tolerance” implies that although someone completely and utterly disapproves of someone who lives in a different style—

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

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will tolerate the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Unfortunately, “tolerance” smacks of reluctance.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman starts tolerance in the 1960s, because surely John Locke did that in his essay on tolerance. The theme has run through Whiggish behaviour, of which he is symbolic, ever since.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I cannot see anything about tolerance in the Bill. I think we will stick with the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

There is nothing in the Bill about tolerance. Indeed, one of the main problems with it is that it does not even aspire to tolerance, which is one of the many reasons why I oppose it.

The hon. Member for Shipley said—I am not paraphrasing, but accurately recording what he said—that women and ethnic minorities do not need the rules to be rigged in order to get jobs. He feels that the current legislation is patronising, because women and members of ethnic minorities are perfectly able to get jobs. I am not sure that that is true. In fact, the evidence shows that, all too often, the rules are effectively rigged so that women do not get jobs.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Labour men who supported all-women shortlists were surrendering themselves and falling on their swords. I merely point out that we are all about to lay down on our swords, because we voted through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I have no idea whether there will be a Rhondda seat or a Greater Rhondda seat, incorporating most of Caerphilly—that was my suggestion. I made no objection to all-women shortlists in the Labour party in 1997. I stood in High Wycombe, which was almost impossible for the party to win, and my election was not anticipated, although the Conservative party so completely destroyed itself in the 1997 election that I very nearly was elected.

All-women shortlists were then rendered illegal by court action. Interestingly, 10 Welsh Labour MPs stood down or retired before the 2001 election, and every single one was replaced by a Welsh Labour male MP—not a single woman was selected in any of those 10 historically safe Labour seats. I rejoiced that I was selected for the Rhondda in 2001, to many people’s surprise, not least my own, but it is none the less important that political parties have the power to retain all-women shortlists.

[Philip Davies]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why no women were selected. Is it the case that none of those women who applied for those seats was good enough to be selected, or is the Labour party in Wales riddled with sexism and so overlooked better-qualified women to select men? Perhaps he should sort out the problems in his own party and not impose those ridiculous laws on the rest of us.

[Chris Bryant]

We are not imposing any laws on the Conservative party.

[Philip Davies]

All-women shortlists?

[Chris Bryant]

No. Choosing all-women shortlists is entirely up to political parties. Labour chooses to use them.

The hon. Gentleman asked why men so often get selected for safe seats, which is a problem for the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour. There are all sorts of complex reasons. Part of the problem is how we do business in Parliament, and part of it is how politics is presented in the wider public domain. There could be other prejudices out there. However, the Welsh Labour party has been immeasurably improved by the fact that we have a large number of women representing not only seats in the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government, but heartland seats in Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not care whether 10% or 90% of MPs are women, but I care. I want to strive to make Parliament as representative of the wider population as possible. That cannot be too narrowly arithmetical, but I want to see the full diversity of Britain in the Chamber. Otherwise, the work that we do is undermined. If people do not hear their voice expressed, there will be a problem. Incidentally, by way of another criticism of myself, there are probably too many MPs of a particular social background and too few of a manual working class background, unlike the position in the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will move on a little if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

We in the Labour party need to address those issues. Many Government Members criticise Labour’s relationship with the trade unions, but I make absolutely no apology for it. Many of the working class people who have come to the House have done so through the trade union route. They learned in the trade union movement how to do their politics and put their arguments, and they were financially supported so that they could put themselves forward for parliamentary nominations. They were selected on that basis, which is why I wholeheartedly support the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party.

The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that there should be absolutely no limits to free speech. I mostly agree with him, and I believe in a free press. I worry sometimes about the direction of the Leveson inquiry. In my work in relation to the News of the World, my intention has never been to dismantle investigative journalism, which is an important part of how we do business and ensure our democratic rights. However, the hatred and the bigotry that some express sometimes goes beyond the pale. I want less hatred to be poured into the pool of hatred that is already out there. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments are similar to those that Ann Widdecombe used when she was in the House. I found that they simply added to the sum total of bigotry rather than diminished it. We should all be striving to diminish it, and I am glad that we have laws that prevent the incitement of not only racial hatred but religious and homophobic hatred. As we have seen over recent years, that legislation has been all the more important in areas where there is a real social mix.

I also believe that Parliament has been immeasurably better for having had more women in it in recent years. I honestly think that were it not for the arrival of so many women some issues would not have been explored and addressed with anything like the seriousness with which they have been. One example is domestic violence. For centuries, a woman was regarded merely as a chattel or another household good for a man to do with as he pleased. Those laws were changed in the middle of the 20th century, but only in recent years did the police and the law start to take domestic violence seriously. I am certain that in my constituency and many others a large proportion of violent crime relates to what happens in people’s households or between domestic partners. I do not believe that the police would have the powers, will or resources to deal with that today had it not been for the arrival of significant numbers of women in Parliament.

I should note that today is the anniversary of the arrival of the first women peers in 1958. There were four of them, and they were a slightly strange lot. One was married to a viceroy, another was the daughter of a viceroy and another was a countess, so it was not exactly equality as we like to see it today. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), also known as the hon. Member for the 15th century and for “Question Time”, obviously likes that, however.

I am glad that the Government are moving forward with the issue of succession so that the prejudice—stemming originally from common law, not statute—that the succession should be subject to male-preference primogeniture should be changed. I also hope that the Government are moving—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting well away from the Bill. We enjoy the history lesson, and it is good that a lot of history is coming out today. However, it is certainly not relevant to the Bill; we are certainly drifting way off course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bring us back on course.

[Chris Bryant]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is just that clause 2 is entitled “Definition of ‘affirmative or positive action’”. The Prime Minister is seeking to change the legislation at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government next week and I worry that that could be seen by the hon. Member for Shipley as positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, listed in paragraph (b), and religion, in paragraph (g). I would hope that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of equality in the succession.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

How could I resist?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether it might be right to look at the matter the other way round. Is this actually a rather dangerous Bill that would impliedly repeal positive discrimination in favour of Protestants in the order of succession—and, of course, of men as well? Has the hon. Gentleman considered that point?

[Chris Bryant]

I do worry about the prejudice in favour of Protestants, although the issue is even more complicated. It is not quite in preference of Protestants, but in favour of somebody who is able to take communion in the Church of England and subscribe to its articles of religion, a difficult thing even for most Anglican clergy, as well as be a member of the Church of Scotland. That is quite a tall ask.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that clause 2(1)(g) might be problematic for true equality. Incidentally, I would not often say this but I support the striving for equality in the House of Lords advanced at present by Baron Fellowes, who is worried that his wife will not be able to inherit her title, because women in this country are not allowed to inherit titles.

There is still a problem in this country. Only 22% of Members are women. In the Labour party, all-women shortlists have played a significant role in trying to bring about a more equal and representative House of Commons. When we move forward to an elected second Chamber, I hope that we will be able to use the same legislation.

[Philip Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that in a democracy, whoever is in this House should be determined by the electorate—not by him, imposing quotas on who should be here and who should not and what the make-up of the House of Commons should be? Surely that should be decided by the electorate and the electorate alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is then arguing for a system of primaries in every constituency at every election. I have not heard him call for that. I may have missed one of his speeches; I have tried to listen to all of them, although sometimes I wander off. That is not the parliamentary system that we have grown up with. Under our system, local political parties tend to choose their candidates and the candidates are then presented to the electorate. In the end, of course, it is up to the electorate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the situation in Blaenau Gwent. A rather more complex set of issues arose there in relation to why we lost the seat. I merely point out that we now have extremely fine new Members, both in the Welsh Assembly and here.

I still think that we will need measures to ensure that the House is more representative than it has been thus far. The hon. Gentleman referred to what he called his “trump card”—Mrs Thatcher. I think that that was deliberate incitement; he was trying to get the Opposition to rise to the bait, and I am happy to do so. Unfortunately, Mrs Thatcher did remarkably little for women. If anything, she is the rule that proves that the exception proves the rule.

In Mrs Thatcher’s period of government, the effect on women and household incomes, especially among the poorest, was devastating. Many communities that might have hoped for an opportunity to rise on the ladder of prosperity at the time were cast into the outer darkness. What she brought about was not, as she proclaimed, in the words of Francis of Assisi, peace, unity and concord, but division and discord. For many of us in the Opposition, she is not a trump card at all; if anything, she is a joker.

We believe that the equality legislation that we put in place was important and has enabled Parliament to be more representative than it was and to address issues that it would not otherwise have done. In the end, however, hon. Members will have to make a decision. Do they believe that the equality of humanity should simply be left to the market or do we need intervention before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner? I fall into the latter category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

But she did become Queen. That is the point—that she was able to become queen because our constitution has always evolved gently and happily so that more and more people become included in it without necessarily being given a helping hand or a lift up. This is the key point to the Bill: we want to have equality of opportunity as an objective, but not equality of outcome. I think that is what has always divided the Conservative—the Tory—from the socialist: the socialist always wants equality of outcome. Socialists want to meddle and muddle; they want to socially engineer—or perhaps to engineer socially for the benefit of Hansard who do not like their infinitives to be split—and they want to make sure that they direct and control so that everybody should be made into a neat little machine. We have had this terrible socialist proposition recently that the elderly should sell their homes so that they can be put into properties that have fewer rooms. That is what it is all about; it is about controlling people, guiding their lives and taking away their freedoms.

When it comes to this Equality Act, to which my hon. Friend’s Bill would make splendid improvements, with some caveats that I may come to, it is desperately condescending to women. They do not want to be looked down upon as if they cannot cope. I am going to speak of the example of my younger sister Annunziata Rees-Mogg, who was the candidate for Somerton and Frome, where she fought a noble campaign. I discussed this with her and I said, “Actually, for the political advantage of the Conservative party,”—I am all in favour of the political advantage of the Conservative party—“perhaps we should have all-women shortlists.” It might not have helped me but it would have helped her and it might have answered a political problem for the party. She could not have been more strongly against it because she viewed it as condescending. She wanted to get the nomination for a seat on her own great merits—and very considerable her merits are, too. She did not want to be told she was a poor little thing: that is the sort of line an elder brother can use to a sister but it is not the sort of line that should be used by political parties or by the state. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) points out, from a sedentary position, that she lost. Well, she did because the Labour vote went down to 4%. Labour lost its deposit and that was to its horror when it discovered that the Lib Dems then supported us, so the aim to keep the beastly Tories out by voting Lib Dem failed miserably. Without that, she would have won by a landslide and I expect that next time around that will be the happy occurrence.

It is condescending to women to assume that they cannot cope without special measures and to people from what are genuinely minorities, because of course women are not a minority. Some of the time they are in the majority, although not at birth. There are more live births of boys than of girls, but women tend to live longer and therefore can easily be a majority of the population.

We have discussed Catholicism. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that he disagreed with the Holy Father on transubstantiation, but I cannot think why. It is clearly a very sensible and right doctrine. However, I do not think, as a Catholic, that I have any fear of discrimination, nor ever have had, although it did happen once to my father—my noble kinsman, as I ought to call him. He was going for a Conservative selection many years ago and was asked by one of the members of the committee if he would be able to go to the lord lieutenant’s funeral as he was a Catholic, at which point another member of the committee pointed out that actually the lord lieutenant was the Duke of Norfolk, so there would be absolutely no difficulty in my father’s attending his funeral. But he did not need special measures to help him. He had to get on and, if there was discrimination in those days, to overcome it, to strive and move forward—as, of course, Margaret Thatcher did and Nancy Astor too.

We have seen in the development and evolution of this House that it has become broader based. One might think that the days when it was simply knights of the shires, when the borough Members had not been let in, were glorious days when the knights of the shires could come in wearing spurs, as I believe we still can, to indicate that they represented a county.

[Chris Bryant]

Wrong!

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I believe it is true, actually.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I believe it is true.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was shocked at such a sedentary intervention. I have never known such things in this House before.

But things evolved and we let the borough Members in, and we now look upon them as equals.

[Chris Bryant]

That probably takes the biscuit for lèse majesté—“We let the borough Members in”! I know that the hon. Gentleman has been here for a very long time in some shape or form, but to suggest that we have now become representative when he himself is the son of a peer seems a little odd.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful intervention. Of course sons of peers should be represented, and they are a minority too. Perhaps as a son of a peer I should be given special help and intervention to help me to get through all the prejudice there is against sons of peers—not that I would ask for it or that I have ever noticed a particular prejudice against sons of peers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that such prejudices never fall upon so distinguished a figure as yourself either.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Well, I do not really like change as a general rule, and I would be very nervous about intervening in the line of succession to the throne. I think that the line of succession to the throne works very well and changing the Canadian constitution is a particularly difficult thing to do. With Her Majesty’s fantastically successful visit to Australia, we want everything to have a settled continuity of that succession. However, I think that the world has changed and that it may not be unreasonable to allow hereditary titles to pass through the female line, particularly if they are in danger of becoming extinct, because it would be a great sadness for titles to die out over succeeding generations with no new hereditary peerages being awarded. I must briefly declare an interest, because my mother-in-law would be able to resurrect a title if this law were to be changed.

[Chris Bryant]

Could she not just petition the Queen to allow her to hold it sui juris?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure that that is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you. We always used to talk of lollipop ladies. Nobody ever suggested that there ought to be a recruitment drive for lollipop men and nobody thought it was demeaning in any way that there were lollipop ladies and not—as far as I was aware at that time—any lollipop men.

The Bill has only two main parts. The first two clauses relate to the prohibition of positive action by public authorities and the third clause repeals the legislation allowing for all-women shortlists, which I shall come to later. Clause 1 sets out the details of the prohibition of positive action and clause 2 contains the definition of the action that would be outlawed. Positive action, as it is often called, differs from positive discrimination in that it is actively intended to increase the representation in a work force where monitoring has shown a particular group to be under-represented in proportion to the profile of either the total work force or the local or national population.

Positive action permitted by the present anti-discrimination legislation allows a person to provide facilities to meet the special needs of people from particular groups in society in relation to their training, education or welfare and to target job training at people from certain groups that are under-represented in a particular area of work or to encourage such groups to apply for such work. That raises some interesting and difficult questions. What is the area in question that should be considered? If a business or a public authority is situated in the south of England in a predominantly ethnically white area, should they be exempt from the legislation? Well, of course they are not exempt, and it must be difficult for some public authorities in certain areas to meet the quota because it is impossible for them to decide what area they cover. Does one look at the town in question, or the county, or the country, and if so, which country? Does one look at the United Kingdom as a whole or just the make-up of England? Of course, many areas covered by the present legislation are not easy to determine.

An example is sex or gender, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred. Very often, it might not be possible to know whether one has a certain number of gay or heterosexual people in one’s work force. Indeed, I would submit that the information is of absolutely no consequence or relevance whatever.

I should perhaps declare that before I entered this House, I was for many years an employer, so I know all about the rules and regulations that were imposed on my practice as a result of equality legislation. Before any of the legislation was in place, just off our own bat, I had a work force who were 95% female, so in fact, in my work force, men were not equally represented. No one suggested to me that when I came to employ another secretary, legal assistant or solicitor, I should start to select men; I always selected the best person for the job.

[Chris Bryant]

Whether a large proportion of the people the hon. Gentleman employed were men or women is neither here nor there. If, in putting together his pension package, he made provision for people to inherit only the pension of a spouse, rather than the pension of a civil partner or a person of the same gender, he would have been advancing a prejudice.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I believe that it should be up to the pension-holder to determine to whom their pension should go; it should not be anyone else’s decision. No question of prejudice should arise, as it should be up to the individual to determine. I do not see that there is anything wrong with that. It is perfectly all right, and it does not need any legislation to allow that to happen.

[Chris Bryant]

But it has needed legislation to make sure that the vast majority of company pensions operate in that way. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it should be for the individual to decide to whom their pension goes, but in the vast majority of cases, the old assumption was that it went only to a spouse, and not to anyone else. It required legislation to change that.

[Mr Nuttall]

That is a slightly different point. The hon. Gentleman’s point about pensions could easily have been dealt with by the individuals concerned dealing with the trustees of the pension scheme, and explaining to them that they wanted to change the rules of the scheme to allow their pension to go to a certain other individual. Of course, very often, there was no one forcing people to join the pension scheme; if they chose to join it, so be it. We now have a free market in pension schemes, so in the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes, there would have been a gap in the market and, in a free market, someone would have sprung up to provide pensions for people in exactly that position.

[Chris Bryant]

They did not.

[Mr Nuttall]

It could have happened.

My previous comments related to positive action. Positive discrimination, affirmative action or discrimination generally means choosing someone solely on the grounds of their gender or racial group, or for any other factor, and not for their ability. We are now at the crux of the matter. I believe that, by definition, as soon as one positively discriminates in respect of any given group in society, one is automatically discriminating against another group. That cannot be right. The Bill makes a good start in tackling the problem, but it is just the first step on the long road to ridding this country of the culture of political correctness and dismantling the whole industry of diversity and equality.

There could be no better time, given the economic situation, for that to gather pace. I know from my experience as a practising solicitor that many small and medium-sized enterprises struggle under the burden of the legislation. We are not there yet—there is a long way to go—but if we could begin to remove the legislation that applies to public authorities, that would be a step in the right direction. All our public services are looking for savings but, because of the way in which the law is framed, the one area in which they are not allowed to look for them is diversity and equality legislation. They have to keep their army of officers to comply with the law and the tick-box legislation.

Under the Disability Discrimination Acts, positive discrimination in favour of disabled people is not unlawful, and if disabled people meet the minimum criteria for a job, they are guaranteed an interview. The only other exemption relates to the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which the Bill seeks to abolish. The Equality Act 2010 includes a provision giving employers the option, when faced with two or more candidates of equal merit, of choosing one from a group that is under-represented in the work force. There is a whole Government Department—the Government Equalities Office—that exists solely for the purpose of issuing and enforcing guidance, red tape and regulations on that legislation. It has published guidance for employers on how to make those changes and use them in everyday life. The provisions on positive action in recruitment are, I am pleased to say, entirely voluntary but, as we all know, the public sector has seized on them with great glee. There is no requirement for an employer to use either the general provisions or those relating to recruitment and promotion.

Positive action in that regard will be used in cases in which an employer reasonably thinks that people with a protected characteristic are under-represented in the work force or suffer a disadvantage connected to that protected characteristic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made clear, the problem is where we draw the line. Why not, for example, protect and give help to those who are particularly tall?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will leave that point there.

The new positive action provisions make it clear that employers must not adopt policies or practices designed routinely to favour candidates with a certain protected characteristic of whatever nature, even where there is evidence of under-representation or disadvantage. All suitably qualified candidates must be considered on their individual merits for the post in question. Current positive action provisions in employment relate only to training or encouragement—for example, mentoring schemes for ethnic minority staff where they are under-represented in senior roles, or open days to encourage women applicants in male-dominated sectors. This merely serves to upset and discriminate against all those who are not allowed to take part in such training. Why should they not receive the same training just because of their racial background, sex or particular individual characteristics?

The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 was originally presented on 17 October 2001. The key objective of the Act was to enable a political party, should it wish to do so, to adopt measures that regulate the selection of candidates for certain elections in order to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women as candidates in that party. In south Yorkshire in the 1980s I was regularly involved in the selection of parliamentary candidates. Of, say, 50 applications that we would typically receive for a seat, there would be on average 45 from men, three from women and two from ethnic minority candidates. It follows, therefore, that with 90% of the applications being from white males, very often a male was selected, but we were selecting purely on merit.

There were many examples, and there continue to be many examples in the Conservative party, of women who have succeeded on their merits. I know from Mrs Nuttall that she feels extremely patronised whenever there is any talk of special treatment being given to women.

[Chris Bryant]

By you?

[Mr Nuttall]

Mrs Nuttall does not mind special treatment of her from me—I think she expects it—but as a general rule that reflects the view of many women. If they are given special treatment, they feel that they are being patronised and that they can make it on their own merit without it. That applies equally to those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Many Members of this House have made it on their own strength without special treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and perhaps the Labour party will consider selecting its leader on a rotational basis, with a male leader being followed by a female. As far as I am aware, the Labour party, unlike our party, has never had a female leader; perhaps it is time for half a dozen consecutive female leaders.

[Chris Bryant]

We have actually had two women leaders: my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) was briefly leader after John Smith died; and we had an interim leader in the form of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the current deputy leader. More to the point, however, considering the trump card to which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred—Baroness Thatcher—is it not surprising that not a single other woman has chosen to stand for the leadership of the Conservative party since?

[Mr Nuttall]

That is not surprising; it is just a matter of fact. The two examples to which the hon. Gentleman refers from the Labour party were of course simply temporary leaders, who held the post until they could be replaced by a man. We should read nothing into the fact that, since the great lady ceased to be leader of our party, we have not produced a further female applicant for the leadership. I am sure that in years to come females will apply and be candidates in such elections.

[Chris Bryant]

I do apologise; I misled the House. Ann Widdecombe stood, but she was voted off quite fast—as she was off “Strictly”.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will leave that there. We do not want to go into “Strictly Come Dancing”. I will not be tempted down that road.

It has been suggested that the most effective way to attract female parliamentary candidates is to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave, so that aspiring female politicians do not have to choose between a career and family life. But, as we know from experience, Margaret Thatcher entered Parliament when her two children, Carol and Mark, were just six years old. That did not put off Margaret Thatcher, and there is no reason why it should put off anyone else some 50 years later.

Those who consider putting themselves forward to become a Member of Parliament have to make a choice, as we all do, men or women, and it would be sexist if that choice did not apply to men, too. Hon. Members, surely on both sides of the House, recognise that participating in running our country is no ordinary job.

What started in the 2002 Act as a temporary measure that would last only until 2015 has been extended by an enormous 15 years, so the use of all-women shortlists will be permitted right up to 2030. It has been suggested that this debate provides a suitable opportunity for the House to consider whether all-women shortlists have been effective, and perhaps it is time for us to do so. They have produced women MPs, but that is quite obvious. What we do not know is how many good male candidates have been prevented from getting to this House as a result of the application of the Act.

The Leader of the Opposition, on the subject of all-women shortlists, recently said:

“People were sceptical about all-women shortlists but I think they have actually made an enormous difference to the numbers of women in Parliament.”

If that is not a statement of the blindingly obvious, I do not know what is. If all-women shortlists are employed, by definition that can have no other effect than to produce more women candidates and, if applied across the board, that would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of women MPs. That is hardly a great achievement to cite.

It has also been suggested that we need to take action to increase female representation on boards of companies, but it should be up to companies themselves to determine whom they have on their boards. I have no reason to believe that they do not choose the best person for the job. I read the other day that there has been an enormous increase in the number of women directors in the City of London. However, the percentage of the total has hardly increased at all, because what tends to happen is that companies appoint female directors to tick a box. We have almost reached “token woman syndrome” again.

The positive action in recruitment provisions in the Equality Act 2010 are entirely voluntary. There is no requirement for an employer to use either the general provisions or those relating to recruitment and promotion. I may not want to see any legislation to ban discrimination, but equally I would not wish to legislate to encourage discrimination. The Bill would even things up. It is not clear that we have seen any improvement in how companies operate, but at a time of increased difficulty for public spending we have to look at ways of cutting back, and pruning the whole area of equality and diversity legislation would be a good starting point.

Mention was made earlier of the “Not In My Name” section of the Campaign Against Political Correctness website, and I have one or two other quotes from people who do not feel that the whole equality industry has helped them. Mark Grohen said:

“As a gay man I’ve always thought myself rather lucky...I do not need to be told by politicians and do-gooders that I’m either vulnerable or incapable of looking after myself. I really dislike people’s obsession with what I do in the bedroom: I prefer it not to be the reason why I’m hired for a job.”

[Chris Bryant]

But unfortunately people are still murdered for their sexuality, as happened in public only a couple of years ago in Trafalgar square. That is why we need to ensure that the police services ensure that everyone is protected, not just the mainstream and the majority.

[Mr Nuttall]

The shadow Minister makes a perfectly valid point. I entirely agree that the police have to protect everyone equally, regardless of the colour of their skin, whether they are gay or straight, wherever they come from in the world, male or female. However, the existence of all the equality and diversity legislation runs the risk of upsetting those sections of society who feel alienated and discriminated against by that legislation. It does not help—in fact, it is counter-productive—for the Act to remain in place.

A lady—a female—who is half Chinese, said:

“For those of us who have pursued equality for so many years, it is disheartening to see how little has been achieved. Equality is not political correctness. In a truly equal country, the best candidate gets the job even if it is the Anglo-Saxon chap. There is a still long way to go.”

Paolo Fragale, who is a gay man of mixed race, said:

“As a gay man of mixed race I vehemently oppose positive discrimination and quotas. Apart from the fact that I find them patronising, I feel they are counter productive and only serve to further segregate people.”

Rachel Watts summed up the feeling of many women when she said:

“The majority of women in favour of ‘helping hands’ and special treatment are the ones who will gain the most from them.”

Perhaps the most difficult and sensitive area is those who are disabled. Frederick Bird said:

“As someone registered disabled, I would not object to not being given a job that I was not able to do due to my disability. Being realistic there are things that I cannot do and no p.c. rubbish can alter the fact.”

Mention was made earlier of the help that disabled people need. I am pleased to say that the Government, under the Work programme, are dealing with this as it should be dealt with—on an individual basis. It is simply not right to write off great sections of the community, whether they are blind or disabled in any other way, and say, “I’m sorry—you’re not able to work because of your disability.” We should do all we can for those who have a disability to give them tailored, specialised, individual help to get them back into the workplace, but that cause will not be helped by some artificial means of employing quotas.

My final quote comes from Denise O’Brien, a disabled female person who is also a lesbian. She said:

“Political correctness is making artificial differences between people unnecessarily. Special treatment for minority groups in a lot of cases breeds resentment from those not included who have genuine need of help.”

The Bill is a good start on a very long road that we have to go down. It perhaps says something about where we are with the equality and diversity agenda that in the recently published new edition of “The Solicitor’s Handbook”, chapter 2 is on equality and diversity, and it comes before the chapters on client confidentiality and conflicts of interest. I am sure that when someone goes to consult their solicitor they are more interested to know that their business is being dealt with confidentially and that there is no conflict of interest than whether the company in question has the right sort of tick-box approach to equality and diversity. This is a burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is no business of the Government to interfere in this way in how businesses are run. It provides an unnecessary burden in terms of the training that they have to do on a yearly basis in order to be able to demonstrate that they are complying with the diversity agenda.

In conclusion, this matter is perhaps best summed up by the quotation from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”:

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

It cannot be right that we need this legislation in the 21st century. Everybody should be treated with respect and tolerance. I have no objection to using the word tolerance. If it is used in its normal, everyday meaning, everybody knows that it means tolerating people and treating people from different backgrounds with respect. By starting along the road of removing some of the politically correct nonsense legislation, we would be doing our constituents a great service. I warmly commend the Bill to the House. I trust that it will receive resounding support on Second Reading, have a smooth passage through this House and the other place, and reach the statute book, much to the delight of my constituents.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This debate has been even more educational, informative and entertaining than I had hoped and expected when I learned that I would be responding to it. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, who is a greater expert on these matters than I am.

This debate has stimulated a discussion on the use of positive action in our society, particularly by public authorities and political parties. It provides me with an opportunity to explain the principles and the practice of positive action as it is used by the Government, and to clarify how it can be lawfully and helpfully used in different situations by public and private organisations, service providers, and political parties, which are specifically raised in the Bill.

I will start by correcting two small errors that have crept into the debate. First, my hon. Friend said that no one cares about any form of apparent discrimination against men. He raised the interesting and relevant subject of midwives. However, there is currently a debate about the paucity of male teachers in primary schools and that is a serious issue. I am sure that many hon. Members from all parts of the House have had the experience that I have had of going into a small primary school in their constituency and finding themselves the only adult male on the premises apart, usually, from the caretaker. We all recognise that that does not necessarily contribute to the quality of education. My colleagues in the Department for Education are concerned about this issue. It gets to the nub of the debate, because if a head teacher in such a primary school were faced with two candidates of equal merit, one of whom was male and one female, a lot of us would think it sensible for them to pick the male candidate. No doubt, the female candidate would feel that that was unfair and unnecessary discrimination, but in many ways it would be common sense.

The second correction is, again, purely factual.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before correcting one of the mistakes that he made.

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that the Minister might be about to do that.

I remember on one occasion a bishop saying to me that he was very worried because he had to appoint a clergyman in a deanery where all the clergy were gay, and he thought that it might be discriminatory if he did not appoint a gay vicar to the parish just because all the other vicars were gay.

[Damian Green]

I think that it would be foolish to enter into Church politics in that way from this Dispatch Box, so I will merely note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I wanted to correct him on a point that was perhaps not central to his argument. In referring to my former neighbouring MP for Maidstone and the Weald, Ann Widdecombe, he said that she had been voted off “Strictly” very early. That is not true. She went a very long way in “Strictly”, and indeed the BBC was panicking that she was going to win.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Not being an entrant of “Strictly”, I can be strictly authoritarian on this—we are going to stick to the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

And I didn’t say that.

[Damian Green]

You did. I will very happily return to the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The aim of the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is to prohibit the use of positive action by public authorities in recruitment and appointment processes, and to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. I shall start with the principles behind what the Government do.

Our approach to equality is built on two principles—equal treatment and equality of opportunity. I entirely share my hon. Friend’s dislike of equality of outcome as a political project. He said that it was misguided, and I certainly agree. However, the Government’s approach is built on the principles of equality of opportunity and equal treatment. That means building a society in which no one is held back because of who they are or where they come from. It means not uniformity but, rather, giving everyone an equal right to be treated fairly as an individual.

In our society, people can face discrimination and disadvantage because of who they are and where they come from. The Government need specific action to deal with such problems. However, the key to taking forward our equality strategy is to demonstrate that equality is for everyone by making it a part of everyday life. It is about changing culture and attitudes and tackling the causes of inequality rather than introducing more legislation. That is why we are working with business, local communities and citizens to promote good practice, transparency and accountability.

We can look at the history and concept of positive action. It is, of course, not new in UK legislation. The general positive action provisions have been in use for more than 30 years, having first been introduced in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. Those provisions, which are sometimes called the training and encouragement provisions, have ever since allowed employers, both public and private sector, to take a range of voluntary—I cannot emphasise that word strongly enough—positive action measures to address disadvantage and under-representation in the work force.

There are many examples of such training and encouragement measures by employers, including the provision of mentoring and shadowing opportunities, the targeting of advertisements at particular groups by encouraging them to apply for advertised jobs, and the holding of open days solely for people with a particular protected characteristic that is under-represented in the workplace, in order to offer them an insight into the selection process that they would have to go through when applying for employment with that employer.

Over the decades since those provisions were first introduced, they have become both well understood and well used. The Equality Act 2010 simplifies and harmonises them, so that unlike previous legislation, under which positive action applied in slightly different ways to different protected characteristics, it now applies in the same way to all of them as long as the relevant criteria for their use are adequately met. For those who are confused by the jargon, a reference to “protected characteristics” means a reference to someone’s age, disability, marital or civil partnership status, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation or gender reassignment if applicable. What is new under the 2010 Act is that it extends positive action provisions to the limits permissible under EU directives, which allow member states to adopt specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to any of those protected characteristics. It introduces new provisions specifically related to recruitment and promotion, not recruitment and appointment as suggested in my hon. Friend’s Bill. He is slightly off the mark with that.

There is a real need to tackle under-representation and ensure that everyone takes part in key areas of our society, in civil, economic and political life. One could cite a range of statistics to show why positive action can be helpful in tackling the under-representation and disadvantage that are suffered across the board in some of the more desirable strata in our society. For example, there are only three ethnic minority High Court judges. There was much discussion this morning about the composition of Parliament and how the political parties approach it. Only 22% of MPs are women, but more than half the population are women, so that is a huge disparity. More widely, only one third of public appointments are held by women, and only 0.8% of local councillors in England are black and minority ethnic women, which is an extraordinarily low figure. In terms of active discrimination, one in five lesbian, gay and bisexual people say that they have been harassed at work because of their sexual orientation. Although progress has been made—[Interruption.] I will not respond to that sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the shadow Minister, for his sake. Although progress has been made, clearly more needs to be made in future.

Positive action can also be used to support the delivery of the equality duty, which requires public authorities to consider the needs of people with various protected characteristics, some of whom may be at a considerable disadvantage. In a bid to address such needs, public bodies could choose—I emphasise choose—to use the positive action measures to target those disadvantaged groups.

Before I respond further to my hon. Friend’s Bill, it might be useful to set out what positive action is, what it can be used for, how it can be legally used in different scenarios, and most importantly, what it is not. In this morning’s interesting debate, many hon. Members were sliding between attacks on specific legislation and examples of positive action, and a general dislike of political correctness. There is an interesting and genuine debate to be had both on the meaning of political correctness and on what it has meant in practice, and we could ask whether it has gone too far in some ways and not far enough in others, but that does not have much to do with my hon. Friend’s Bill—I will therefore stick to the terms of the Bill.

Positive action is a term used to describe a range of measures that organisations can use when people who share a protected characteristic—I have listed them—experience some form of disadvantage because of that characteristic; have particular needs linked to that characteristic; or are disproportionately under-represented in a particular activity. In the second scenario, the Bill would make it illegal for people to install a wheelchair ramp, because that would be positive action to help a particular group. I do not believe that my hon. Friend intends that, but as I understand it, that would be the effect of one of the clauses. It is important to look at the detail of what positive action can involve when we assess whether the Bill should make further progress.

When any of the three conditions apply, proportionate action can be taken to overcome that disadvantage—I again emphasise that the action must be proportionate, and that action “can” rather than “must” be taken. Action can be taken to overcome a disadvantage, to meet particular needs, or to encourage and increase participation in the related activity.

Positive action can be taken in relation to a wide range of activities covered by the Act as well as employment, such as education, training, service delivery and activities undertaken by associations and other organisations. Positive action is not about woolly-minded thinking, political correctness, reverse discrimination or sidelining men. My hon. Friend was both entertaining and in large part correct in attacking what he described as lentil eating, woolly minded, Guardian reading characteristics.

[Chris Bryant]

That’s you in the Tory party.

[Damian Green]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I really do not eat lentils—nor do I own a pair of sandals, nor do I for pleasure read most of The Guardian. I find The Guardian extremely useful for one thing. If I ever wake up and feel my political energy flagging, I read the letters page of The Guardian and that reminds me why I am a Conservative and why there needs to be a Conservative Government in this country—if only to keep people such as that out of power. So The Guardian serves a tremendously useful purpose in my life.

Positive action is about counteracting the effects of historical discrimination and disadvantage by providing opportunities for those who are disadvantaged or under-represented to gain skills that would enable them to compete fairly and openly for jobs and to reach their potential. There are practical benefits for businesses attached to the use of those measures and I shall return to them later. However, I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall); we need to consider the needs of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, although as I say there are the practical benefits.

A common misconception confuses positive action and positive discrimination; some people talk about the two interchangeably. It is important to establish that there is a clear distinction between them. Positive discrimination is treatment that favours a person solely because they have a particular protected characteristic, irrespective of whether there are special circumstances. In other words, the treatment discriminates in their favour whether or not they experience a disadvantage connected to that protected characteristic or have particular needs that are different from those of people without that protected characteristic.

Positive discrimination is generally unlawful in this country and will remain unlawful in most cases, although we should note that it is not unlawful to give more favourable treatment to a disabled person than to a non-disabled person. The intention behind that is to provide a level playing field for disabled people, who have been widely recognised to be disadvantaged in the field of employment, in society and in accessing services, without being open to legal challenge by non-disabled people.

Positive action, as I outlined, is about ensuring that any action taken has to be a proportionate means of achieving the aim of tackling or addressing disadvantage, encouraging participation in activities and meeting the specific needs of people with protected characteristics. It is essential for any organisation using positive action to ensure that the measures being taken do not unlawfully discriminate against people outside the group that they are seeking to help. The provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that relate to positive action make that very clear.

I am sure that my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the Bill would agree that many in our society have experienced historical disadvantage and under-representation in numerous sectors and professions, including in economic and political life, and many still do. Of course, significant progress has been made in recent decades to improve things.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We come back to what I spoke about—the exceptional nature of the powers sought and the point that 14 days should be the norm. Through the new clause, we seek to address the very limited circumstances in which Parliament is not functioning, and we recognise and take on board the Joint Committee’s comments on that. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary and the Government need to be able to act in the national interest to ensure security. For that reason, the emergency order-making power in new clause 13 is limited to periods when the introduction of primary legislation would not be possible—that is, when Parliament is dissolved or before the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament.

As we set out in the Government’s response, published last week, to the Joint Committee’s report, we welcome two of the Committee’s further recommendations for increased safeguards, and we have included them in new clause 13. First, applications for any warrant of further detention that would see an individual detained for longer than 14 days may be made only with the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the equivalent post holder in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Secondly, whenever an individual is detained for longer than 14 days, their case will be reviewed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, or someone on their behalf, and a report of that review will be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

Both those changes will also be incorporated in the draft fast-track legislation to increase the maximum length of pre-charge detention to 28 days. New clause 13 and consequential amendments 79 and 80 ensure that there is an effective contingency mechanism for increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention in the limited period during which Parliament is dissolved. It is right that we should continue to rely on fast-track primary legislation in all other circumstances. On that basis, I commend new clause 13 to the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will start with some general comments and then come directly to the amendments and new clauses. Obviously, this is the first time that I have spoken about these matters in a shadow ministerial capacity, and I want to underline the fact that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition remain loyal on these issues. It is often said—just because it is a truism does not make it untrue—that the single most important thing that a Government have to do is protect their citizens, and we fully accept that.

It was said earlier that it is important to balance the security of the nation and civil liberties. I disagree with the framing of the debate in that way, because I think that the two are intertwined—someone has personal liberty only if they are safe and feel it, but they have liberty only if those particular liberties are granted to them as well. I would try to say that the two are not mutually exclusive, but intimately intertwined.

Outside London, people often think that issues of counter-terrorism are primarily the responsibility of the Metropolitan police and to do with what happens in the metropolitan areas of the country. However, I clearly remember that after 11 September, when Americans stopped flying, people were laid off at GE Aviation in Nantgarw just outside my constituency because it did not need to make any more aircraft engines. We are all intimately involved. Following the bombings in London, all the schools in my constituency cancelled their visits to Westminster for about a year, because there was a nervousness about coming up to London. We need to get these issues right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed—but we are trying to do better, and I honestly think that there is a danger. At that time, when there would be a Government but not a Parliament, we would end up with something of a constitutional crisis if the Government chose to delay having a Queen’s Speech to invoke the power, notwithstanding the other elements to which the Minister referred.

Then there is the route of emergency primary legislation. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) referred to the dangers, and he is absolutely right. Obviously, there would be a series of debates in this and the other House, because we would have to go through all three stages in both Houses. I cannot conceive of a set of debates in which one would not get close to having to argue why it was all necessary now and therefore it would not be prejudicing any potential prosecution. That is the Government’s big problem about the route of emergency legislation.

I should also say that, on the whole, emergency legislation is a bad idea. In my experience, the Commons does not do emergency legislation well, and their lordships do not do it much better. I presume that the Minister would want all three stages in both Houses in one day, or at most two. There are real problems with that, because Members would have to be able to table manuscript amendments on Report and would not be able to listen to the Second Reading debate before considering the tabling of amendments. All that would be in danger of leading to bad legislation.

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position and wish him well in his new responsibilities and duties. Does he accept that when the previous Government were considering the extension to 42 days, they were proposing to use exactly the same mechanism?

[Chris Bryant]

I think we have moved on somewhat; certainly I have. Also, the facts have changed. There was a time when a lot more people feared much more that we might need more than 14 days rather more frequently, but the fact is that the powers have not been used—they have not been necessary. The facts have changed, time has passed, and we need to move on. I am grateful for the Minister’s wishing me well, with a slight barb to it.

The Minister said that in the case of phone hacking the House moved remarkably swiftly. In fact, all that happened was Executive action, because the Government were finally persuaded that they should set up the Leveson inquiry. Parliament did absolutely nothing. We did not legislate; we certainly did not go through three stages of a Bill. We may end up legislating in that respect, but it will not happen for some time.

We have had the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and I am grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Committee. However, there is still the danger that following the moment that necessitated emergency legislation—I do not know whether that would be 10, 11 or 12 days in—we would effectively be undertaking ad exemplum legislation, which is always a mistake. I sympathise with the squaring of the circle that the Government are trying to achieve whereby we all accept that the norm should be 14 days, and while in normal circumstances we do not want all those 14 days to be used, we none the less accept that there might be some exceptional circumstances in which 20 days might be necessary. However, I believe that the Government are going down the wrong route in trying to achieve that, as does the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which said:

“We believe, however, that the parliamentary scrutiny of primary legislation to this effect would be so circumscribed by the difficulties of explaining the reasons for introducing it without prejudicing the rights of a suspect or suspects to a fair trial as to make the process of justifying the legislation almost impossible for the Secretary of State and totally unsatisfactory and ineffective for Members of both Houses of Parliament.”

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As someone who does not have to move on from 42 days, having taken, in my view, the right decision at the time—and previously on 90 days—like my hon. Friend I have the greatest reservations about emergency legislation all in one day. If it is to be detention without charge for 14 days, which, like him, I certainly welcome, I would vote against any measure that the Government clearly have in mind whereby it would be 14 days-plus. That would be totally unsatisfactory, for all the reasons he has cited.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that “I told you so” came at the beginning of my hon. Friend’s comments. Quite often he does turn out to be more correct than me, but there we go—that’s life.

I can imagine a point where we are nine days into somebody’s detention and then the Government realise that they need their emergency legislation. They would not be able to start that process until the 11th day, and then they would suddenly be saying, “Right, we’ve got to put it all through this House and the other House in one day.” That leads to very dangerous decision making, and it is a bad route to go down. It would be a mistake for us to decide in principle that that is what we want to do in some given circumstance. That is why I prefer the route advanced by my right hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Having said that, we still need to resolve some of the issues about the level of corralling needed to ensure that the power is not used gratuitously, that the Secretary of State is not able to proceed unhindered, and so on.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Has the hon. Gentleman already thought through what some of the safeguards should be to ensure that the Secretary of State does not use the provision as an administrative facility to progress from 14 to 28 days?

[Chris Bryant]

New clause 14 makes clear some of the specifics involved. If the Government have things they think should be additional, that debate needs to be had. I suspect that this will not be the end of the matter in this House and that their lordships will want to look very closely at whether there is a better route to achieve the same end.

Nobody is trying to end up in a different place in this regard, but the process of emergency legislation that the Government are using is a mistake. In essence, they have already accepted the principle that there should, in exceptional circumstances, be an additional power. They have accepted that in relation to Dissolution and effectively said that it should be present at other times. The issue is simply about how we make sure that the Secretary of State, if he or she were to have that power, would then be circumscribed by Parliament and by other bodies. Undoubtedly, High Court judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions make decisions that do not allow the Secretary of State to act gratuitously. However, we prefer the route that new clause 14 lays out, and I hope that the Government will think again. I do not expect that we will want to divide the House on this matter, but I hope that their lordships will look at it again.

[Mr Cash]

I will speak briefly because I have already gone through this issue on a number of occasions.

I believe very strongly that if there is a case for extending the period from 14 to 28 days, the Government, by referring to the period in question as merely 14 days and describing it as a permanent reduction in clause 57, and then talking about certain circumstances of an emergency nature that extend it to 28 days, effectively sell the argument down the river. I am trying to look at the principle. In my opinion, 28 days is justified. We have been through the arguments, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said, about whether it should be 42 days or 90 days. Fourteen days can be a very short period, so if there is a case for it being 28 days in certain circumstances, for heaven’s sake let us just accept that 28 days will be used very rarely and only in special circumstances.

Furthermore, to go back to a point that the Minister made, there is the distinct, continuing right of habeas corpus. If a judge thought that somebody was being ill-treated during a period of detention, which is really what this is all about, and he was satisfied by evidence from other sources and an application for habeas corpus, he would go straight down—in Belmarsh, for example, there is a tunnel—and ask to have the person who was being detained produced for him. He would rapidly work out whether that person was being subjected to unfair or unreasonable treatment—we are talking here about the realities of life—and whether he should be given the full benefit of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus means, “You shall have the body,” or, “You shall produce the person.” That, in my judgment, is ultimately what this is all about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The problem for the previous Government was that, in letting in uncontrolled numbers, they did not differentiate between those who would bring benefits to the British economy and those who would act as a drag on it. At the heart of our policy is the distinction between those whom we want in this country—the brightest and the best—to study, work and bring long-term benefits to this country, and those whom we do not want, who either evade what they are supposed to be doing, coming here pretending to study but wanting to work, or still more, who come here to live off our benefits system. We will have a much better focused immigration system, as well as significantly lower net migration.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the groups who have been coming to this country over the past 15 or 20 years—and indeed, for longer—and who have contributed significantly to it socially, culturally and economically are people who study at Christian theological colleges and Bible colleges in the United Kingdom, but they currently face a very difficult time because of the Government’s policies. Many Bible colleges may have to close. I am sure that the Minister does not intend that source to dry up, so may I urge him to give specific consideration to the group of people concerned to establish whether there is something that he can do?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are in close contact with the various small theological colleges, and are considering how we can resolve the issues involved. As I have said, genuine students studying genuine courses at genuine institutions of study are of course welcome in this country.