Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Let me gently stroke the right hon. and learned Gentleman and try to keep him in the tent. I think that he will find the tent to be most comfortable. The question today is: do we have judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion orders? A number of Government Members have indicated that they feel that judicial oversight should be present. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we heard on Second Reading—and today this has appeared as being the position of the Deputy Prime Minister—that we should consider putting that in place. All I am saying is that there is a mechanism today for the Government to listen to that. They could even agree with our proposals without us forcing a Division, which would potentially put Members on the spot, forcing them to decide between loyalty to their party or to their principles. The Government could take this matter away and say that they agree with us.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about carnage and defeat. I have been around this place during many rebellions, and I do not get the atmosphere in this Chamber of carnage and defeat. I do not feel a tremendous wave of anger against the Government. Could it be that most Members of Parliament think that if it is a choice between judicial oversight or their sons and daughters being blown up on a London tube, they would rather let the Secretary of State take action, and take action quickly?

[Mr Hanson]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of my comments when I said that this is a proportionate power. There are real issues of potential threat where this action should and could be taken. The question is whether we should have judicial oversight, as we have in other legislation. He says that there does not seem to be an atmosphere of massive rebellion in the Chamber. Let me reflect on that for a moment. We have a number of right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who have expressed their disquiet publicly. They did so on Second Reading, in Committee and when the Prime Minister announced the proposal in the first place. They have also gone to the trouble of commenting on their concerns in the press at the weekend. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife has genuine concerns, expressed on Second Reading. Now the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the 50-plus Members of Parliament whom he leads in this Chamber, is apparently saying that he will seek these changes in the other place when the Bill goes down the corridor. There is disquiet from the official Opposition and our 250-odd Members, as well as from Members of other parties. It strikes me that even now there is potentially a majority in this Chamber to put judicial oversight in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

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

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

With respect, does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise how out of touch he is? He talks about vulnerable people and the rights of free-born Englishmen, which is all wonderful stuff, but the people that the Secretary of State is trying to exclude are crazed jihadists who hate our liberties and our country, who cut off the heads of aid workers and who would love to come here and kill our children. His wonderfully old-fashioned and legalistic arguments are not appropriate for dealing with those sorts of people.

[Mr Grieve]

They might be crazed jihadists, and they might be suspected of being crazed jihadists. It might be that they should be brought to justice and imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. All those things are possible, but I happen to believe in the presumption of innocence. If I may say so, I am a bit surprised, given my hon. Friend’s background, that he seems to be ignoring that. Of course I recognise the threat; that is why I am wholly supportive of the broad thrust of the Government’s approach. However, on trying to get the balance right, I happen to think that judicial oversight would be helpful in giving—if I may put it this way—the authority to the decisions and thereby ensuring that they are accepted within the communities that have more individuals who might be affected by them and that they are therefore unassailable. That would reinforce the values that underpin our society and be precisely the approach that we ought to adopt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

After almost four days of debate, this Bill has almost burst into life after I do not know how many hours. Today there have been all sorts of threats of Back-Bench rebellions. The Liberals were going to get up to something; there was going to be a vote against the Government; and there are newspaper articles suggesting all sorts of things. I thought we were going to have a really exciting debate.

Who could believe that something as important as counter-terrorism and security could attract so little attention from Members of this House? [Interruption.] I would say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that I have spoken at every stage of these debates. I have turned up and played my part, and I feel that I have contributed to the debate, but where are our Labour friends and colleagues? They have made two contributions during these remaining stages; I do not know how many they made in Committee of the whole House. We are hearing a bit more from our Conservative friends today. I very much enjoyed the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); it was a worthy contribution and something we should be hearing more of.

Why so quiet? What is going on? Is it because this is rushed legislation that has gone through so quickly that people have not been able to keep up with what the Government intend to do? Our constituents will find it very peculiar that this debate has secured so little attention and so few contributions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Perhaps the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that most Members of Parliament support the Government line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I associate myself almost entirely with the assessment of the Bill by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier).

Over the past several decades, any number of counter-terrorism Bills have been put before the House. Some have been justified; some have not. Some have been effective; some have not. Some have, in the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), fought terrorism, while some have fed terrorism. This Bill is a complex mix of measures, most of which I suspect are necessary, but it shares one characteristic with every single other counter-terrorism Bill I have seen here before: it brings more unfettered power to the Executive. With that go two problems. One is the increasing power of the Executive, which is a bad thing in itself, and the second is an increase in the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

I do not have a particular objection to a “managed return” approach to some of the individuals currently abroad committing crimes in other states. I do not subscribe to the “stateless person” concern, particularly when people have deliberately rejected their own allegiance to the state. I think there is a reasonable argument to be had on that, but I am concerned that this power will be effectively unfettered, which is what the Bill says at the moment, in the hands of the Home Secretary.

In common with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and indeed others who have spoken, I shall listen very closely to what the Minister has to say. In my view, reform is necessary to bring about, ideally, judicial decision rather than judicial oversight. I would prefer this power to be one for the courts full stop—with all the proper appeal procedures that go with it. Judicial review is not good enough: it is too restrictive, too procedural and insufficiently material. My preference is for a judicial decision, but in its absence, for a close and unfettered judicial oversight. I say to my honourable and old friend the Minister that I hope he will be able to put the conscience of the House at rest today with his proposals. If not, I fear I shall have to support the Opposition in a number of their amendments and new clauses in the group.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I hesitate to speak in the company of such distinguished lawyers, as I am just a former common or garden practitioner in the criminal courts, but I would like to give the view, as I understand it, of most members of the public. I very much hope in respect of what the public want that the Government will be firm today and will resist amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I accept that he is entirely sincere and consistent in his views, and would indeed resist the amendments tabled by the Labour party. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which I signed. I fully understand that the Government might not be able to accept them today, but I hope they will take them away and look further at these entirely sensible amendments.

I wanted to speak today because I believe we need a sense of balance in this debate. We have heard reference made to “carnage”, “atmosphere”, “revolts” and the House of Commons being “up in arms” about this. Judging from how the debate has developed and from the number of Members attending it, I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. As I said in an intervention, I suspect that most Members of Parliament—and, more importantly, most members of the public—support what the Government are trying to do, and we will see what happens in the vote later.

We have these debates, and I quite understand where my legal friends are coming from, and liberty is entirely important. We are using language relating to Magna Carta, habeas corpus, and the God-given rights of free-born Englishmen; that is all very well, but I think the public view the issue in a different way. They are absolutely outraged that people who come here and are given British passports, which should be a tremendous honour and privilege—or indeed people who are raised here and have British passports—feel that this gives them the right to go abroad and fight for an extremist cause. These people not only hold views, but practise views that are wholly alien to everything this country has stood for for hundreds of years. These people are not even like Sinn Fein. At least Sinn Fein in their worst years, even if they were blowing up Members of Parliament, soldiers or innocent members of the public, presumably saw some sort of logic in their own eyes in what they were doing. We are talking about people who are religious fanatics whose idea of fun and aggro is to cut off the head of an aid worker.

The Government are not going to act in a vacuum. The Home Secretary is not going to act unreasonably. We need look only at what the Bill, which I support, says. It refers again and again to the Secretary of State needing to

“reasonably suspect that an individual is, or has been involved in terrorism-related activity”,

and to her “reasonably considering” that action is

“necessary for a purpose connected with protecting members of the public”.

The Secretary of State, furthermore, must

“reasonably consider that the individual is outside the UK”.

She has to act “reasonably”. Surely we must trust our Government and our Secretary of State to protect our people. If the Secretary of State acts unreasonably, we can surely trust the courts in a judicial review system to provide oversight and, if necessary, overturn it. I do not think for a moment that the Secretary of State would act unreasonably.

For the sake of argument, I refer to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North. As I understand it, he wants to replace the system whereby the Secretary of State has to act reasonably, presumably on the basis of intelligence, which may be nuanced, with a full court procedure. His amendment 18 states:

“The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.”

I have tried to understand how the amendments from the Labour Front-Bench team are more nuanced, but let me develop the argument. Those who oppose what the Government are trying to do are saying that there should be a court hearing in which all these factors can be discussed and through which we can assess whether a person—he may have gone to Syria, been a jihadist and all the rest of it—is a real threat to the United Kingdom.

I do not know a lot about intelligence, but I suspect that much of what will motivate the Secretary of State in her actions to exclude an individual will be based on intelligence. We are not talking about depriving somebody of their liberty. We are not talking about a free-born Englishman who goes abroad, gets in a spot of trouble, comes over here and is locked up. We are not talking about anything like that. We are talking about excluding somebody—temporarily, as I understand it—who the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied has gone to fight jihad and engage in terrorist activity, and there is a real danger of them coming back here to blow up our children.

I suspect that a member of the public is not overly motivated by complex, legalistic arguments about judicial oversight, judicial review, delay and the rights of people to claim unfettered return. I suspect that a member of the public will be primarily, fundamentally and, indeed, probably wholly concerned about the safety of themselves and their family, and they will have trust. I trusted the last Labour Government. I know that the Governments of Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) received a lot of stick over this, but I think they were right in wanting to protect the public. I realise that it went against many of their instincts, but they rightly took the view that such was the nature of the threat that we were fighting a war. It is a situation rather like the one we faced in the second world war, in which some sort of deprivation of traditional liberties has to take place, although we are not actually depriving anybody of their liberty here. We are not putting people in prison. We are simply saying, “You have gone abroad to fight an extremist cause, and if you want to come back here, we think the Secretary of State has the right to exclude you.”

[Mr Hanson]

Given the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, does he believe that we should remove judicial oversight for the current TPIM regime?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we are talking about something slightly different. As I understand it, TPIMs deal with someone who is here and whose freedom of movement and operation in this country is being controlled. That is rather different from facing someone who has gone abroad to fight jihad. Presumably, intelligence suddenly arrives that these people are on their way back, so the Secretary of State has to act extremely quickly. I agree that the decision may be based on intelligence and that the sources of intelligence may not stack up in a court of law, but we are not trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these people are guilty of jihadism. We are simply saying that there is evidence, based on the available intelligence, to suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a real possibility that these people have fought jihad, have been brainwashed, are extremists, and, ipso facto, are a threat to our people. I think that is a bit different from TPIMs or indeed any other part of the judicial review system.

[Mr Winnick]

Following the atrocity of 7/7, public anger was very obvious and justified, given that 52 people had been murdered and so many others had been seriously injured as a result of terrorism. Surely, however, the role of the House of Commons following that atrocity was to assess whether or not the Government were responding correctly. If it is just a question of leaving it to the public and their anger, what is the purpose of the House of Commons?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I do not propose to leave it to the public and their anger. That is taking my arguments to an extreme limit. I am not suggesting that there should be a lynch mob and that everyone who comes back from Syria should be stopped by the public. We are not talking about the public. We are talking about the Secretary of State acting reasonably, on the basis of all the Government and intelligence sources available to her, to exclude someone temporarily from coming back to this country. This is not an assault on Magna Carta, habeas corpus or the traditional rights of English people; it is a sensible precaution, taken in circumstances in which we face jihadists who have no concept of our liberties, or indeed of any kind of logic. That is why I support the Government’s position.

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Before I end my speech, I had better give way to my good friend.

[Mr Davis]

It is necessary to protect public security while avoiding miscarriages of justice. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in a number of cases, the clear finding of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—the court, a secret court, that will probably consider these matters—has been that the Home Secretary of the day has made a mistake, sometimes on the basis of fallacious evidence and sometimes on the basis of straightforwardly bogus evidence presented by the intelligence agencies? The protection against that, surely, is a court, even if it has to be a secret court.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I broadly accept that point. Much as I admire the Secretary of State and her advisers, I freely accept that she may make a mistake. However, I think that, just as in the second world war, the threat is such that there must be some diminution of our traditional civil liberties to protect the liberty of the wider public. I am not saying that the end justifies the means, but we are in a very dangerous situation.

We are talking about the Bill; we are not talking about hypothetical situations. The Bill lays an injunction on the Secretary of State to act reasonably, and if a court finds that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably, it can reverse her decision. I repeat, however, that we are not talking about some fundamental assault on civil liberties, or about depriving people of their liberty in this country. We are simply talking about a reasonable belief that people have fought jihad and a reasonable belief that they are a threat to our people. I think that the bulk of members of the public and the majority of Members of Parliament trust the Secretary of State to act reasonably.

[Mr Raab]

I want to make a few brief comments about the important and, in many respects, symbolic issue that is being raised in the wider context of the Bill.

I think that there are strong principled arguments in favour of judicial oversight in relation to the power of temporary exclusion, especially when it involves a British citizen. A range of points have been made about that, but I want to stress that this is a very strong power. We are talking about the exercise of state power—Executive power—against the citizen. I think that, both in that context and in the broader context, the presumption, or general principle, should be that there ought to be a judicial check. I say that first in the light of basic principles of natural justice, and secondly because the focused, efficient exercise of state power requires checks and balances. The House of Commons is one of those checks on state power, and the courts are another.

I do not think that judicial oversight would weaken the exercise of that power; I think that it would strengthen it, because it would prevent arbitrary abuse. It would ensure that the power was exercised against the crazed fanatic rather than the misguided youth who finds himself wrapped up in some business of which, on reflection, he genuinely wants no part, let alone mistaken cases involving the genuinely innocent. We know from the exercise of state power, particularly under recent counter-terrorism legislation, that there is a risk of innocent people becoming wrapped up in cases. We do not think that the Secretary of State or other Ministers act from any sense of bad faith, but, given the accumulation of state and Executive power, the broader that power becomes in the absence of checks and balances, the more likely it is that innocent people will be caught up in the net. That is my first principled argument.

My second argument is that there have been a number of objections to judicial consideration of the exercise of the power by the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that it may be an emergency power and that the courts are too slow. I think that it is the other way round. If British jihadis come back to this country after being up to no good in Syria, or wherever they may have been, it is hardly an emergency power. A wider argument could be that we are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it is certainly not an emergency power in that sense, although of course we want to keep track of the individuals who are returning home.

I do not buy the argument that the courts would be too slow. In practical terms, of course, the individual could be barred from returning until the court had given due consideration to the application by either the Secretary of State or the individual concerned. I do not entirely understand either the public safety argument or the emergency argument against some form of judicial oversight.

The second point has been made about judicial review, but that is clearly about process rather than the substance relating to an individual case. Notwithstanding the proliferation of judicial review claims—which the Government are rightly trying to curtail—I do not think that judicial review will provide an adequate judicial check on the exercise of state power of this nature, given how intrusive it is in relation to the rights of the individual citizen.

Let me make one broader contextual point about the power and the amendments. Hundreds of British jihadis are coming home from abroad following some form of involvement in foreign conflicts and thousands of individuals are under the radar of M15. However, according to the Home Office’s annual update, released in March 2014, the number of people convicted of terrorism offences under terrorism legislation, or wider legislation, dropped from what was a pretty meagre 54 in 2006-07 to 27 in 20013-14.

The real hole in the Bill is the gaping gap in our ability to enforce the law, and that is true of successive Governments across the board. We have a huge, broad criminal base, and we have very wide powers, but what is missing from the Bill, and, to some extent, from in the debate, is a reference to measures—not necessarily legislative to improve law enforcement. We seem constantly to legislate, although not necessarily hyperactively: I think that a great deal of consideration has gone into the Bill. The elephant in the room is our inability to enforce the laws that we already have. I do not subscribe to the view that there is a zero-sum game between liberty and security. The justice system is a powerful tool in the fight against terror and should not always be viewed as some sort of heavy, onerous baggage that is weighing us down.

I hope that the Minister’s clarification of the compromise changes that are likely to be forthcoming in the Lords will be sufficient to enable me either to abstain or to vote with the Government if the new clause is pushed to a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am sure the residents and constituents of Stoke-on-Trent South will be interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Lincolnshire. At the end of the day, it is for Lincolnshire and its chief constable to decide what they want to do and we will support them in those decisions. They do not have to be about a reduction in police officers; actually, we have seen an increase in the number of police officers on the ground in Lincolnshire.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am surprised that my otherwise good friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) is suddenly taking such an interest in the Lincolnshire constabulary. To put things in perspective, the reason our budgets have suffered for many years is the sparsity factor formula put in place by the previous Labour Government which transferred resources from rural authorities to places such as Stoke-on-Trent. Having said that, we have still managed to cut crime in Lincolnshire by 20% over five years.

[Mike Penning]

To be honest, I perfectly understand that any chief constable and PCC will campaign for extra money, but at the same time I cannot understand the sudden interest taken in Lincolnshire by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). When this Government came to power, 91% of police were on the front line; that figure is now 93%. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is absolutely right to say that there has been a 20% cut in crime in Lincolnshire.

Business of the House (Today)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No.

The European arrest warrant is not on that list because it does not need to be transposed into legislation, because that has already been done. However, the Government are clear that the vote that will take place on the regulations will be the vote that determines whether or not we opt into these measures. [Interruption.]

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are talking about the liberties of the subject, this is a very important matter. You have absolutely said in terms that the vote tonight is not about the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary seems to be intimating that we are indeed making an indicative vote tonight on the European arrest warrant. The House of Commons, in a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, needs to know what it is voting on, and we need advice from you and the Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point or order. What Members think is indicative is a matter for them. Indeed, if a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government chooses to argue that something is indicative, that is a matter for that Minister. As a matter of fact, I was simply trying to be clear with the House, as I think was the Home Secretary in her previous paragraph, to be fair, that tonight’s vote—I have been asked regularly what the vote is about—is on the regulations. The vote is not—I repeat, not—on the European arrest warrant.

Criminal Law

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No. I can tell the right hon. Lady that I would certainly not stand at the Dispatch Box and disagree with the Speaker’s ruling. The Speaker’s rulings are about what happens in this Chamber and what votes are on. In fact, the words I have just said agree with the Speaker’s ruling—that the vote will be on the regulations on the Order Paper. We have tabled the motion because we believe it right that the House, in debating and considering the package of measures that we want to opt back in to, sees very clearly what legislation is necessary to transpose certain measures.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

But the Speaker has said in terms that we are not voting on the European arrest warrant. Is the Home Secretary now arguing that by voting for the regulations tonight we are joining the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I have been very clear that the formal vote before the House is on the regulations. I have also been clear that the Government—I will come on to explain our timetable, which has some relevance to this matter—want to opt back in to measures that are in a package. If the House votes against transposing some of those measures into UK legislation, it is effectively voting against our package of measures. On that basis, we can speak about all the measures within the package of 35 measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will make a little more progress and will then give way to my hon. Friend.

For the reasons I have just given, the Government have always been clear that it is in our national interest to remain part of these vital measures and to do so without an operational gap.

Over the past four years, and particularly since we announced our intention to exercise the opt-out in July 2013, a number of hon. Members have proposed alternative courses of action to me and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary as we have undertaken our negotiations in Europe. A number of hon. Members are interested in the position of Denmark with regard to justice and home affairs matters. Some have said that it provides a potential model for the UK to follow. I believe that it is a false comparison. Denmark has a separate protocol to the Lisbon treaty that excludes it from participating in post-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures. It has concluded third-country agreements with the EU because it has no other way to participate in those measures.

By contrast, protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty sets out the process by which the UK can opt out of and rejoin justice and home affairs measures. There is no precedent for an international agreement between the EU and a member state that already has the ability to participate in EU measures by specific means. The European Commission argues that protocol 36 provides adequate provision and renders a third-country agreement unnecessary. Riding roughshod over that would involve walking away from a very good deal for the UK and risk damaging our support for future negotiations in Europe. Even if we could persuade the European Union, it would take years to thrash out, guaranteeing a lengthy operational gap in the fight against crime and a risk to the British public that would be unacceptable.

Finally, I hope hon. Members will heed the Danish example in full. Every agreement that Denmark has made separately with the European Union has required Denmark to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In effect, the Danish agreements that have caught the attention of some hon. Members simply bind Denmark to EU law by another legal means. I suspect that is not what those hon. Members had in mind.

I have explained that only a certain number of the measures require transposition through the regulations before the House. The regulations make provision to give effect to the European supervision order in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. That allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK, rather than spend months and months abroad awaiting trial. It will therefore stand alongside the reforms that we have made to the arrest warrant, making it easier for people like Andrew Symeou, whose case has been championed admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), to be bailed back to the UK and preventing such injustices from occurring in future. The connection between the supervision order and the arrest warrant, one of which is being transposed in the regulations and one of which is not, is an example of the inter-connectedness of the package of measures.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.

I mean this question completely sincerely. One reason why I passionately support the British courts and jury system is that one never knows when one might get into trouble or be wrongly accused oneself. I realise that it is extremely unlikely, and it is a personal question, but if she were wrongly accused of something in, say, Croatia, would she rather rely on British justice and traditional extradition procedures or on the say-so of a prosecutor in Croatia?

[Mrs May]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come on to explain how we have changed the European arrest warrant so that British judges are now interposed in the system in a way that they were not always in the past. Those measures have been an important advantage, and some arrest warrant requests to the UK have already been rejected as a result.

I do not want to lose sight of some of the other measures in the package. For example, the regulations also cover the European criminal records information system. We are already taking steps to identify foreign nationals who are abusing our openness and hospitality by committing crimes in this country. Operation Nexus, a groundbreaking initiative taken by the Metropolitan police and immigration enforcement, helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. As I said, it began with the Metropolitan police, but it has recently been extended to the West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester forces and six other forces including Police Scotland, and we wish to extend its work to every force in England and Wales. ECRIS is a key tool that supports that operation and thereby helps to keep our streets safe.

As people find it easier to move around the globe, we must ensure that our law enforcement agencies can exchange information more readily too. In 2006, the UK made and received no requests at all for criminal records from other EU member states. In 2012-13 we made over 25,000 requests, and last year that figure was 41,500. I recently announced that the Government would increase the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals by introducing full checks on foreign nationals arrested in the Metropolitan police area. Given that 30% of those arrested in London are now foreign nationals, it is clear that that is an operational necessity. That is also why our package of 35 measures also includes the Swedish initiative, which simplifies the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement agencies, and the data protection measure, which protects personal data transferred in the fight against crime. Those measures both require transposition, and they are covered in the regulations.

Another of the measures in the regulations provides for joint investigation teams between our police and their European counterparts. It allows our police to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill, which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking into the UK of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland; and Operation Rico, which resulted in 110 arrests, mostly in the UK and Spain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will in just one moment.

We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm, after we had had the urgent question following questions. There was a good length of time available, in which hon. Members, with the degree of latitude you indicated you would give them, Mr Speaker, in relation to the motion on the regulations, would have been able to debate matters that were not just the measures in those regulations. We then went into a business motion debate, which took a considerable time. We have now got into the debate proper on the regulations, but what we have seen—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friends are queuing up to intervene, so I ask my hon. Friend to wait.

What we have now seen is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to change the terms of this debate and to stop the debate taking place, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary that she says she supports the regulations and she says she supports the Government on what we wish to do, and in that case she should allow the debate to take place and vote on the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I make the point to the shadow Home Secretary that if she says she supports—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Yes, I did say I would give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On the point the Home Secretary has just made on the importance of debate and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), as I understand the procedure, now that we are debating this motion there will be no further debate regardless of the result of the vote we are about to have. Am I right in thinking that?

[Mrs May]

I hesitate to give an absolute ruling, because Mr Speaker has, of course, made it absolutely clear what would happen, but the Question is that the matter be not now put and, as I understand it, if that motion is passed, the draft regulations will not be put to this House. We have been very clear about the timetable we need in order to address this matter.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We are in quite a serious position now. This is a very important matter and it looks as if, whatever happens in the vote in a few minutes’ time, there will be no further debate today. I beg the Government: this is an important issue and we can come back tomorrow. We can just set aside time, have a proper motion, and vote on the European arrest warrant. That is the clear, simple, honourable and direct way of proceeding.

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend, as I have been saying throughout the debates on the various motions tonight, that the Government have been very clear about why they have brought the regulations forward in the form they have done in relation to UK legislation, but we are also very clear that if this House votes in favour of the regulations, then it is endorsing the package of measures the Government have brought forward to ensure we can maintain the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with matters they need to deal with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

1. What steps she has taken to reduce bureaucracy in the police.

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

We have cut red tape and given the police just one simple target: to cut crime. The work that we have undertaken to reduce bureaucracy could save up to 4.5 million hours of police time across all forces every year. That is the equivalent of more than 2,100 officers back on the beat.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I remember that when I was a young barrister practising in Bow Street magistrates court—I could not get a better brief anywhere else—the police officers just rolled up with their note books and justice was swift and usually fair. [Interruption.] Yes, it generally was fair—if they weren’t guilty of that, they were guilty of something else. Ever since then, every single Home Secretary has tried to cut police bureaucracy, but it now takes up to a third of police time. Can we just cut through this matter and repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which started the rot?

[Mrs May]

I am not about to repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which contains some important safeguards in respect of the way in which the police should conduct investigations. However, my hon. Friend’s overall point about the necessity of ensuring that the criminal justice system works smoothly, efficiently and effectively, not just for those who are investigating and prosecuting but for those who are brought to trial, is important. That is why the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice continue to do such work. The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims is continuing the work that was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) when he was in that position to reduce the paperwork in the criminal justice system as much as possible so that we get the police doing what everybody wants them to be doing, which is preventing and cutting crime.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the situation clearly in her statement last week. The judgment was made in April and we have sought clarity on it. Indeed, the pressure brought to bear by other legal challenges and the industry itself has made it necessary to clarify these essential measures and tools relating to the ability of our law enforcement and security services to assure us of our national security and to combat crime. I am sure we will get into those issues in the substantive debate, so I do not want to detain the House too much on them.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I support the principle of what the Government are trying to do, but, like many people, I would try to avoid pushing Bills through in one day. Why was this Bill delayed? Did the Liberals delay it?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend will know that proposed legislation is always given due consideration. No Government embark on fast-track legislation lightly. There is a pressing and urgent need to bring into force the Bill’s measures, to ensure that capabilities that are used day in, day out are maintained and that there is no risk to what are essential facilities for our policing and other enforcement agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I would have thought that our fundamental duty was to protect the freedom of the individual. As it happens, I support the Bill. However, if I may say so politely to the Minister, he owes us a bit more of an explanation when he sums up.

It is fair enough if the Liberal party, with its traditions, has objected to many parts of the Bill. There should have been long arguments and objections. Why can we not just be told about them?

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will finish my point.

If it takes three months to agree to something in the coalition, the Government should come back to us honestly and say, “It has taken all this time. We have finally come to an agreement. Here it is.” What is the urgency? It seems extraordinary that, on a matter as fundamental as the freedom of the individual, we are rushing things so much.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, we have considered carefully the impact of the European Court of Justice judgment, the European convention on human rights and other parts of the law in examining the position. That is why we have considered the Bill so carefully. The additional safeguards and provisions that have been written into the Bill reflect that consideration. We remain confident that the provisions meet the legislative requirements.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I refer the Minister back to the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)? Does this debate not underline the importance of the report of the European Scrutiny Committee on establishing the supremacy of Parliament? I am afraid that the Minister’s response was not absolutely clear. I think he said that the Government are “confident”. Surely on matters as important as the freedom of the individual and national security, we should be more than just confident; we should be sure of the supremacy of Parliament.

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend knows, legislation is always subject to court challenges. That is the nature of our constitution. The House often reflects on changes that are made to the law as a consequence of decisions that are made in our courts. There is a separation of powers between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary.

We have reflected carefully on the European Court of Justice judgment on the directive. It is important to state that that judgment related not to our domestic legislation, but to the directive. Obviously, the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 were made to implement the directive. We believe that the regulations remain in full force and effect, but the questions, doubt and risk have arisen because of how the industry and others have looked on the judgment and the regulations. Although we assert that the regulations remain extant and in full force and effect, it is essential, given the questions and points that have been raised, to deal with the risk and put the matter beyond doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair of this important Committee, Sir Roger. I shall not detain the Committee for long because, given that we broadly agree with the Government’s approach on this key issue, the Opposition have not tabled any amendments to clause 1.

As the Minister said, the stated context for the Bill is the continued threat from serious organised crime and potential terrorist activity. Given that the European Court of Justice struck down the regulations because they were neither proportionate nor objective, we have taken the view that we need to look at how to frame legislation that will be proportionate and objective in respect of the retention of data.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I would be interested to know the Opposition’s view on the issue of our laws being trumped by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in the report of the European Scrutiny Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, in the event of a Labour Government, there might be a case for passing legislation to proclaim the supremacy of Parliament so that we can protect ourselves from European legislation?

[Mr Hanson]

I take the view that we are part of the European Union, so we have to respect our obligations within it. I come to this particular piece of legislation, however, on the basis of what will best prevent activities by terrorists, child pornographers, paedophiles or serious organised criminals. Given the actions of the European Court of Justice, we have to examine our obligations as the United Kingdom Parliament and to frame legislation that we believe will have the support of the Government—and, in this particular case, of the Opposition—to ensure that we meet our European obligations but in a way that also meets our obligation to tackle the serious and organised criminals and others who would damage the fabric of our society. I will probably have disappointed the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) with that answer, but I believe it is consistent with our positive approach to Europe and our involvement in the European Community.

I believe that clause 1, which is the main focus of our debate, meets those obligations. It gives the Secretary of State powers to issue a retention notice requiring organisations that have data to hold those data, with which they will have to comply. Strict criteria are set out in subsection (2), which specifies who the operator could be, what the data being retained should be, for what periods the data should be retained, and whether there is different proportionality within different types of data.

Communications Data and Interception

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

In the interests of brevity, let me say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Surely most members of the public would congratulate the Government and the former Labour Government for being so robust on these matters. In the context of the wider debate, will the Home Secretary resist the advice given to her by the Liberal party that we should have further legal impediments? For the public, if there is a choice between their children being blown up on the tube or those people’s conversations being listened to, it is a no-brainer.

[Mrs May]

Yes, I believe the public do want to see our police, our law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies have access to the capabilities they need to keep people safe. The legislation is about ensuring that we maintain those capabilities.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs.

I have just noticed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) sitting in solitary splendour on the Opposition Front Bench.

On 24 March this year, Francis Paul Cullen was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults on children. He committed those offences over a period of more than three decades while serving as a priest in Nottingham and Derbyshire. His victims were both boys and girls, and were aged between six and 16. The judge said that their

“whole lives have been blighted”

by this

“cunning, devious, arrogant”

man. Indeed, one of them tried to take their own life.

When his crimes came to light in 1991, Cullen fled to Tenerife to evade justice. Last year, after 22 years on the run and two decades of further suffering for his victims, he was extradited from Spain on a European arrest warrant. This spring, he pleaded guilty to 15 counts of indecent assault, five counts of indecency with a child and one count of attempted buggery. After a lifetime of waiting, his victims who were watching in that courtroom in Derby finally saw justice done.

That harrowing case and too many others like it form the backdrop to today’s debate. Francis Cullen is just one of the despicable and cowardly criminals who have fled our shores to try to escape British justice. In an earlier age, he might have succeeded. Under the system of extradition that existed before the European arrest warrant—the 1957 European convention on extradition—his 22 years on the run would have rendered him immune from prosecution by the Spanish authorities, helping to bar his extradition back to the UK. It is thanks to the European arrest warrant that Cullen is behind bars at last.

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the way in which that measure has operated since the Labour party signed us up to it, and I have shared many of those concerns. That is why I have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections that we can offer to those who are wanted for extradition, particularly if they are British subjects.

First, Members were concerned that British citizens were being extradited for disproportionately minor offences. We changed the law to allow an arrest warrant to be refused in respect of minor offences. A British judge will now consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence are sufficient to make the person’s extradition proportionate. Secondly, Members were concerned that people could be extradited for actions that are not against the law of this land. We have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which the person is wanted took place in the United Kingdom and it is not a criminal offence in the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

These are serious matters. Nobody wants to protect criminals. However, there is a lot of concern about these matters in the House of Commons, not least because it is difficult to argue to our people that we want to take powers back from the European Union if we are giving it powers. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that although this is effectively an Adjournment debate on a one-line Whip, there will be a substantive vote after a proper debate so that the House of Commons is able to vote on these matters?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend causes me to progress to another part of my speech. I want to make the situation absolutely clear. As he knows, we have had a number of debates on this matter in the House, and the Justice Secretary and I have made a number of appearances before various Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee. We had hoped and intended that by this stage we would have reached agreement on the full package that we are negotiating with the European Commission and other member states. That has not happened. The package was discussed at the General Affairs Council towards the end of June, but some reservations have still been placed on it, so we do not yet have the final agreement. However, we believed that we had sufficient knowledge to make it right and proper to have this debate in the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I am not suggesting for a moment that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not sincere in her belief. All I am saying is that the incentives against obtaining alternative advice are massive. If someone goes against the grain of the coalition, they are likely to be stopped at the end of the process anyway, so what is the point? And so we finish up in this position.

That episode highlights how impossible it is to put any political will behind the Prime Minister’s stated aim of a renegotiated relationship with the EU as long as we remain in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who take a fundamentally opposite view to ours.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I normally agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) says, but I wonder whether this quad thing is a bit of a myth. It is a convenient myth that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary find useful in explaining why they cannot pursue Conservative policies, but surely the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary can instruct their civil servants. I cannot believe it—I may be wrong; my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is the Chair of the Public Administration Committee—but it is an extraordinary way to run a country.

[Mr Jenkin]

It has been made clear throughout the civil service that there can be no policy except Government policy, and Government policy is filtered through the coalition arrangements, over which there is a mutual veto in that unless there is agreement, there is no policy. If the Home Secretary had started out on the premise of an alternative policy—of multilateralism or of a simple bilateral arrangement on such matters—she would have been up against not only the vested interests in the EU, with their determination to block this kind of thing and the residual resistance of the status quo, but the added pressure against attempting to do such a thing that exists in the way the civil service operates under the coalition. I am afraid that that is just a fact. On some occasions, Ministers have asked for papers or legislation to be prepared on their behalf, and there has been a blanket refusal because it is not Government policy if it has not been approved by the coalition; that is a fact.

The episode demonstrates that another year of coalition is another year of paralysis and inertia on EU policy, because the machinery of government is hostage to the coalition. That is another reason why we should either end the coalition in the run-up to the election or, indeed, call an earlier general election. I believe that we will rue the day that we voted—I did not, but the House did—for fixed-term Parliaments.

The present paralysis also makes nonsense of the Government’s current policy on the EU. I admire the stand made by the Prime Minister over Mr Juncker, but it just shows that although the Prime Minister may get permission within the coalition to make what amount to grand gestures, he cannot get permission for any policy of substance that purports to advance the objectives he has so ably set out.

The decision on the justice and home affairs opt-ins should be seen in that very serious context, because there are very serious implications. The way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s challenge to Mr Juncker was dismissed at the Ypres summit indicates that the EU will resist any fundamental reform. That could not be clearer from the events at the summit. We saw not only how the ambiguity in the treaties will continue to be exploited by those who want to carry on the process of centralisation, but how the UK’s attempt to boost the role of national Parliaments—the fourth principle from the Bloomberg speech—was all but eliminated from the final conclusions, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

There should be no need in this House to reiterate the importance of our national Parliament to our democracy, or to point out that under the UK’s constitution Parliament is, and must remain, supreme. However, the Ypres summit and its decisions underline how EU treaties and institutions deny such an essential element of the UK’s constitutional autonomy under the present terms of membership. Since Maastricht, we have seen that opt-outs, subsidiarity and talk of different degrees or speeds of EU integration make no difference to the direction of the EU. Consequently, the legal protections concerning disproportionality and dual criminality are potentially meaningless.

Incidentally, the removal of the words “ever closer union” from the preamble of the EU treaties would make no change at all to how the European Commission, Court and Parliament behave. It would not remove a single treaty base of a single EU legal instrument or court ruling, and I emphasise that it would not prevent the European Court of Justice from setting aside any domestic protection that we may enact in respect of the European arrest warrant. That is because the EU treaties are not consistent with the UK’s constitutional position, or with the Prime Minister’s stated desire for the UK to be an independent nation state.

The practical importance of addressing the issues set out by the Prime Minister—they include immigration, freedom of movement, the single market and energy prices—is self-evident. However, any concessions that we obtain will be nugatory in their effect unless we also obtain recognition of the main principle at stake—namely, that of the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.

In the UK, all EU laws and treaties rest upon the UK Parliament, which voluntarily agreed to the 1972 Act. This took place in the context of the unambiguous assurance that national sovereignty would be maintained after we joined. That was set out in the 1971 White Paper. Many subsequent treaties, and measures such as these, have been adopted by Act of Parliament, but the fundamental and ultimate role of the UK Parliament has never been vitiated. Had the UK adopted the EU constitution, that might have changed, but for now at least, the European Communities Act 1972 remains the foundation Act, and every EU law in the UK is subject to the constitutional principle of voluntary acceptance by the UK Parliament.

Those final conclusions of the European Council, along with so many other statements from other EU leaders and from European institutions such as the Commissioner and the European Parliament, do not accept our view. They speak and act as though the European Parliament is paramount, and attribute only a subsidiary role to national Parliaments, including our own. This reflects the political reality, which we Conservatives spelled out at the time, that the Lisbon treaty is the EU constitution in all but name. This justice and home affairs decision demonstrates that the Government are doing nothing of practical value to challenge that. The lack of any specific constitutional provision in the Lisbon treaty to make it autochthonous—that is, dependent on its own provisions for its authority, like a constitution—does not prevent the majority of EU states or the EU institutions from behaving in that way.

This question of constitutional supremacy has now reached a critical point. The point in the final Ypres conclusions about the need for “strong and credible” EU institutions but no more than

“closer involvement of national parliaments”,

underlines the fact that the EU is set against anything that seeks to reassert the supremacy of the UK Parliament in the European Union. It is beyond any doubt that such a proposal would even be considered, because it would take only one other member state to veto any such proposal.

In these circumstances, it would be impossible for any leader of the Conservative party to campaign to vote to stay in the European Union, either in a referendum or at the next general election, without making it clear that he had a clear bottom line in the renegotiations that our new relationship with the EU must be based on the supremacy of our national Parliament, at least, and that otherwise we would have to leave the treaties and seek that new relationship from outside.

Public Administration Select Committee

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

In our evidence, we heard that there was not enough internal or external inspection. When Kent police were specially audited a year or two ago, it turned out that there was substantial manipulation of crime statistics. Whether it was advertent or inadvertent, it was happening. The result has been a much cleaner bill of health for Kent. Regular audit and inspection is one of the things that must happen, and HMIC must make that a priority every year.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In Lincolnshire during this Parliament, we have had an absurd spat between the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, which resulted in the chief constable being suspended for a time—not for anything operational, just some rubbish about political correctness. Meanwhile, while all this money and time wasting is going on I, speaking personally as an ordinary member of the public, have been a victim of crime twice in Lincolnshire and I have to say that the response of the police was completely underwhelming, with no follow-up and nobody caught. People are increasingly fed up with members of police forces, particularly at the top, who pay themselves quite well and seem to be enmeshed in empire building, political correctness and form filling. What we and the public want to get back to—this is why this report is so good—and what I want my hon. Friend to comment on, is old-fashioned community policing, with the police in our communities, the old bobby on the beat, walking around, knowing everyone, talking to people and not just sitting in their headquarters having these absurd spats—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that there must have been a question somewhere in that great rant, and I am sure that Mr Jenkin will be able to pick out an answer.