Policing and Crime Bill

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

With great respect, the hon. Gentleman should look at Hansard when it is published. That is not what I said at all. I made it very clear that we have been seeking the views of the public and interested parties and that we have to look at what is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest.

The consultation sought views on whether proceeding with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry is still appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest. As the last of the relevant criminal cases has only recently concluded, the Government believe that this is an appropriate time to take stock and seek views on the various options, as the then Home Secretary outlined 18 months ago. Submissions to the consultation will be important in helping to inform the Government’s thinking.

As hon. Members may also be aware, an application has been made to judicially review the consultation. Although I cannot comment on the current legal proceedings, the Government have committed not to take any final decisions relating to the consultation until the legal proceedings have concluded. Given the consultation and the ongoing related legal proceedings, I respectfully suggest to the House that this is not an appropriate matter for further legislation at this moment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I hope the Government will not be intimidated by a campaign the press are waging at the moment to try to deter them from implementing the Leveson recommendations. May I just tell the Minister that yesterday I submitted my monthly article for the Aldershot News & Mail, as I had been invited to do—[Interruption.] May I say to hon. Members on both sides that it is normally very good reading? The article was about press freedom. I received an e-mail yesterday evening saying that the paper was sorry that it would not be publishing it because it was “contradictory” to its stance on “a free press”. It is extraordinary that the Aldershot News & Mail, owned by the Daily Mirror group, feels it is so vulnerable that it cannot accept an article by me—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) is the other contributor. Leaving aside my criticism of the Aldershot News & Mail, with which I was pretty robust this morning, may I say to the Minister that this illustrates a real paranoia in the media about this issue and it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to be straightforward and recognise that what we are seeking to do is to protect not ourselves but ordinary people?

[Brandon Lewis]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point. However, let me make it clear again that the Government will make a decision on this once we have had a chance to review the outcome of the consultation and in the light of the legal proceedings, and not before the legal proceedings have concluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I rise to support, as strongly as I possibly can, the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 134. It recognises the force of the arguments laid out in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and I last year, “Stalking: the Case for Extending the Maximum Sentence”. The report summarised the work of our researchers. Through them, we met victims, stalking charities, academics and police specialists. Everything we learned confirmed our initial instinct that there are a small number of very dangerous stalkers, such as my constituent Raymond Knight who pursued Cheltenham resident and Gloucester GP, Dr Eleanor Aston, to the point of nervous breakdown.

I pay tribute to the Government for accepting our report and its single recommendation of doubling the maximum sentence for stalking from five to 10 years, for amending the appropriate sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on racial and religious aggravated harassment in line with the change to the maximum sentence for stalking, and for outlining in correspondence additional training that will be part of the measures to deal with the mental health issues of serious stalkers. I know the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have worked closely on this together. I am grateful to both Ministers here today for their action.

I also want to thank Gloucestershire-based Baroness Royall in the Lords for her commitment and contribution, and all those who informed us and shared harrowing experiences, including a constituent and her family. I would like to quote from her 16-year-old daughter, who was so egregiously stalked. She told us that the stalker

“broke into my house one night…all the knives in the knife stand were gone…I was sure I was going to die.”

In this particular case, my constituent and her family prefer to remain anonymous, not least because my constituent has been moved by the police to a safe house far from her home and her own children.

I am extremely grateful to all those who informed us, educated us and motivated us. I suspect the work I have done with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham means that the neighbouring constituencies of Cheltenham and Gloucester have not worked so closely since the creation of the Cheltenham & Gloucester building society —now, alas, long since gone. It is for a good cause that we come together in support of the Government’s change of law.

The Government’s amendment in lieu will give judges the flexibility they need. As Dr Aston has said, victims will be able to sleep more easily when the worst stalkers are sentenced and the stalkers themselves will better understand the seriousness of their crime and receive more help in resolving what is a severe obsession and mental health issue. Of course, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) pointed out, that will not in itself stop stalking, but it shows that victims and judges are being heard, that MPs and ultimately the Government listen and that laws can be changed so that sentences better reflect the harm that a crime can inflict on innocent victims, most of whom, as in the instance that inspired my neighbour and me, are women. Ultimately, justice is only as good as the laws we adapt and the way in which they are implemented. In that context, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who made stalking a crime on the statute book when she was Home Secretary, and to the current Home Secretary, who has introduced protection orders against stalkers.

I will finish by returning to where this campaign started: the judge and the victim in Gloucester Crown court. I would like to thank Dr Ellie Aston for inspiring us, for being strong and for having faith; other victims for opening their hearts and sharing their stories; stalking charities, such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the Network for Surviving Stalking, Protection Against Stalking and Paladin; and the Hollie Gazzard Trust, the police and the University of Gloucestershire, which happens to be a leader in research in this sad area. This part of the journey for justice for victims of stalking is now close to over. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has reminded us that there will always be other issues to be raised and resolved, but today’s amendment in lieu deserves everyone’s support.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The whole House listened with great respect and interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who have brought to the attention of the House and the country the appalling consequences of stalking. I join others in saluting their efforts to persuade the Government to recognise the gravity of the crime and in reaching this result tonight, which we can all applaud.

I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for mentioning my intervention on the Minister about section 40 and Lords amendment 24. I will not vote for the amendment tonight, because the Government have agreed to a consultation, and I think it right that that process run, but as I said to the Minister earlier, I hope that the Government will not be intimidated by the campaign by the newspapers that the hon. Gentleman referred to. The newspapers seem struck by an extraordinary sense of paranoia and a feeling of vulnerability, when we all know, from the many cases that have appeared, that they are in the driving seat and have power without a lot of responsibility.

Insufficient attention has been paid to the Leveson inquiry and the subsequent report, which was a detailed and considered piece of work. We should do what the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that Parliament should do. Since the Aldershot News & Mail was unwilling to publish my article today, perhaps I can give the House the benefit of it.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend should place a copy in the Library.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. and learned Friend suggests that I put the article in the Library, but when he hears what I have to say, I think he might be better informed, if not wiser, for I cannot account for his wisdom—he is a great man.

[Chris Bryant]

Division!

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

He seriously is a very great man.

I wrote this:

“I believe in a free press but I also believe in a responsible press. Sadly, the newspapers are becoming increasingly paranoid about what they see as an attack on them and are refusing to accept the recommendation of the latest inquiry under Lord Justice Leveson that an independent regulator be established. Leveson was set up after an appalling series of intrusions into the private lives of people, which included phone hacking on an industrial scale.”

Milly Dowler’s body was found 200 yards from the boundary of my constituency in a case that really struck the public as appalling.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Phone hacking is brought up again and again by colleagues who, in my view, want to censor the press. Phone hacking is a criminal offence, for which people have gone to jail. There is no need for any further laws.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I have huge respect for my hon. and gallant Friend, but the fact is that the inquiry would not have taken place if phone hacking had not been discovered on what I have described as an industrial scale. People’s engagement with it was utterly immoral, and some went to prison, following legal action, which I think is fine.

My article continues:

“It is hard for those who have not experienced an assault by the media to appreciate the level of distress it causes. I know because some 30 years ago, together with my then colleague Neil Hamilton, I had to sue the BBC Panorama programme for libel—which we won”—

and had the director-general of the BBC fired—

“but at the risk of bankruptcy (and loss of our seats in Parliament) if we lost.”

For the record, our costs—Peter Carter and partners were our lawyers—were something in the region £273,000. So I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that it is all very well for those who have got money. They are able to access justice, but this is all about providing a remedy for those who do not have money and cannot afford to undertake that sort of action. I continue:

“Since 1945, there have been no less than 5 Royal Commissions and enquiries to secure a better and cheaper form of justice for those maligned by powerful media barons.”

[Chris Bryant]

It is worth bearing in mind that when it came to suing the Metropolitan police to try to ensure that it gave the media information about what had happened to me, my costs were £380,000. My costs for suing Rupert Murdoch were £480,000. In both cases, because it was an no-win, no-fee arrangement, I did not have to pay anything. However, those no-win, no-fee arrangements are no longer available in these cases.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I was mentioning the five royal commissions and inquiries since 1945. The article continues:

“Time and again, reports threatened new laws if the industry failed to sort itself out, time and again the industry failed. In his 1993 report, Sir David Calcutt, QC said of the then regulator, the Press Complaints Commission: ‘It is not...an effective regulator of the press...It is, in essence, a body set up by the industry, financed by the industry, dominated by the industry, and operating a code of practice devised by the industry and which is over-favourable to the industry’.

In 2012, Leveson recommended that newspapers should continue to be self-regulated and that the Government should have no power over what they publish. However, he also proposed a new press standards body created by the industry with a new code of conduct. The new self-regulatory body should be underpinned by a law to provide for a process to recognise the new body and ensure it meets certain requirements. It should also enshrine in law a legal duty to protect the freedom of the press and to ‘provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to deal with any civil complaints about its members’ publications’. Ofcom should act in a verification role to ensure independence and effectiveness.”

There we have it. There is a proposal on the table that IPSO is perfectly at liberty to take up in respect of a cheap arbitration service. The other point is that it should not be dominated by former press people, but that is exactly what IPSO is all about. I am not specifically advocating IMPRESS, but I see no reason why IPSO should not be able to organise itself in such a way that it is compliant. Instead, it has set up a body dominated by former editors, which does not meet the Leveson conditions. The Government are right to consult, but I really do not believe that the newspapers have anything to fear from these proposals. I believe that they will be in the interests of the press but, above all, they will provide a remedy for those who cannot afford to seek a remedy. Surely our responsibility is to remedy injustice.

[Mr Cox]

My hon. Friend knows how much I return his respect, and he knows that I would normally regard him as an infallible guide to almost everything in the planet, but in this instance I think that suggesting that IPSO is dominated by press editors when its presiding spirit is Sir Alan Moses—Lord Justice Moses, a very fine judge who is vigorously and fiercely independent—is over-emphasising the point.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s belief in my infallibility, and I assure him that he should not be misguided, because I am infallible in this instance as well. Let me respond to his point by saying that although there may be an eminent judge in the driving seat, the fact is that the membership is dominated by press and former press people. They are in the majority.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

That is not true.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It is true. Seven of the 12 are former press people, and that does not meet the Leveson conditions. Let us just meet the Leveson conditions: then we shall all be happy.

Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Operation Midland and the Henriques report.

I am very grateful to you, Mr Streeter, for chairing this debate today, and to hon. Members from all parties in the House who have come to take part in this important debate.

One of the founding purposes of our Parliament, which was established 751 years ago, was for the redress of grievances. So let me say from the outset that where people—particularly the young and the vulnerable—have been abused by others, however high the alleged perpetrator is, they are not above the law. That was an assertion of the late and great Lord Denning, which is not in dispute. What is in dispute, and the subject of this debate, is the manner in which a number of police forces have chosen to operate and the rules under which they have operated.

Today I make no apologies for seeking to highlight what I and many others consider to be a major miscarriage of justice by the Metropolitan police and indeed by other police forces across the land. I intend to concentrate my remarks on Operation Midland, which involved the pursuit of unfounded claims that sexual offences were committed by the former Home Secretary, the late Lord Brittan; the former Chief of the Defence Staff and distinguished Normandy veteran, Field Marshal The Lord Bramall; and my long-standing friend, Harvey Proctor. Mr Proctor was also accused of murdering three children. I served in this House with both Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor, and I have met the Field Marshal and his late wife, Lady Bramall, a number of times.

Other well-known people, such as Sir Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and even the late Prime Minister, our former colleague Sir Edward Heath, have also been caught up in this scandal of police failure and mismanagement. However, such is the weight of evidence against—

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he just care to reflect on precisely what he means when he refers to the former Prime Minister, because from my perspective—as Salisbury’s Member of Parliament—I see that Wiltshire police have conducted their inquiries perfectly within the guidance set out by the College of Policing and are going where the evidence takes them?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to say that, such is the weight of evidence against the police operations, that time will not permit me to make more than a passing reference to them. I am afraid that I disagree with his view of Chief Constable Veale of Wiltshire. The chief constable’s recent assertion—his bravado—was quite unwarranted. Sir Edward has been dead for 10 years, but I wish to leave that point there, because I think others may well deal with it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able in due course to make his case in defence of Chief Constable Veale.

These people have lost income. Paul Gambaccini told the Home Affairs Committee that he had lost £200,000 in income and payment of legal fees following his suspension from the BBC and other broadcasters. Harvey Proctor lost his income following his sacking by the Duke and Duchess of Rutland, to whom he had acted as secretary. That sacking was largely at the behest of Leicestershire’s constabulary and social services. Loss of the job meant he also lost his home on the duke’s estate and he is now living in an outhouse with no running water and no lavatory facilities. That is the hard effect of this travesty.

In addition, the distress caused is difficult to imagine. During the investigation conducted under Operation Midland and Operation Vincente, Lord Brittan died and Lord Bramall’s wife died, neither of them knowing that the investigations had both been wound up. In the case of Lord Brittan, who died in January 2015, it was well over a year before the Metropolitan police told Lady Brittan that the Operation Midland case had been dropped, and only when they were asked by her lawyers to verify a report in The Independent on Sunday did the Metropolitan police say that they would not have proceeded.

However, the distress was not confined to that aspect of the case. Lady Brittan endured the indignity of the search of her property. As she told me, 10 to 20 officers invaded the house. She said it was like witnessing a robbery of one’s treasured possessions, including letters of condolence and photographs, without ever being told why. The police were insensitive to her circumstances and never told her that she had certain rights during a search. In her Yorkshire house, the police asked if there was any newly turned earth in the garden, again without saying why.

As Lady Brittan says, while it was ordinary police officers who were instructed to undertake the searches, responsibility for the control of this operation rests with senior police officers, whose insensitivity and incompetence has been revealed.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what appears to be at work here is the most extraordinary want of any form of judgment and balance? And would he care to comment on why there is a pattern running through all this activity of an absolute inability of the police to think for themselves?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My right hon. Friend makes an important intervention, and in looking at all of this I have tried to work out precisely what motivated the police. As I will say in a moment, they seem completely bereft of any common sense. However, if he will forgive me, I will try to address that point later on.

In respect of the searches of Lady Brittan’s home, one sergeant told her, “Thank goodness we are only lowly cogs in this investigation”.

Let me turn to my long-standing friend, Harvey Proctor. It took him 28 years to rebuild his life following conviction in 1987 for a sexual offence, which is no longer an offence and which of course cost him his place in this House. He shunned the public spotlight and became a very private citizen until, out of the blue, his home was raided by police, who spent 15 hours searching, removed papers and possessions, and told him that he was accused of being involved in historical child sex abuse. It took the police a further two months to accuse him of being a child serial murderer, a child rapist and an abuser of children. Those were the wild allegations of one fantasist known only to the public as Nick.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend is coming to a very important area. Does he agree that we must be very careful about talking about victims, because surely what we are talking about are complainants? There are no victims until allegations have been proven.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point and it is one that I intend to address in some detail in a moment.

Not content with making these serious charges against Harvey, Nick suggested that there was a paedophile ring operating in Westminster, accusations that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who is the deputy leader of the Labour party, was keen to exploit as a Tory scandal and for which he should now offer a full and unreserved apology.

Harvey had staying with him in his house a couple and their newborn child. He was told two weeks before the search of his house by the Metropolitan police that that child should be removed for their own safety, and secret sessions between the Leicestershire police, Leicestershire social services and the duke’s representatives were convened when pressure was placed on the duke and duchess to sack Harvey from his employment after the search of his house. Leicestershire constabulary and the Met passed responsibility for this issue to each other, backwards and forwards, but it happened.

What are the charges against the Metropolitan police and the other forces involved? First, it is that they adopted a policy that the accusations were, in the words of Superintendent Kenny McDonald, “credible and true”. Gone was any pretence of old-fashioned policing—looking dispassionately at the evidence and seeing where it leads.

This is where we are assisted by the excellent report produced by Sir Richard Henriques, a former High Court judge; admittedly, that report was at the specific request of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. What Sir Richard found was that the chief constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey, who I understand leads for the Association of Chief Police Officers on child protection and abuse investigation, produced guidance in November 2015 that insisted that complainants should be described as victims. He wrote:

“If we don’t acknowledge a victim as such, it reinforces a system based on distrust and disbelief.”

He said:

“The police service”—

please note the reference to the police service, not the police force—

“is the conduit that links the victim to the rest of the criminal justice system; there is a need to develop a relationship and rapport with a victim…in order to achieve the best evidence possible.”

That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham).

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

Does not that fundamentally undermine the bedrock of our justice system—that somebody is innocent until proved guilty?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friends are intervening in such a way that they keep anticipating the next paragraph of my speech. I will be coming precisely to that point, because it goes to the heart of this case.

Sir Richard, in describing the approach as “flawed”, said that use of the word “victim” to describe a complainant

“gives the impression of pre-judging a complaint.”

So confident is Mr Bailey, he countered that by

“asserting that only 0.1% of all complaints were false”—

so, according to the chief constable of Norfolk, 0.1% of complaints were false—

“any inaccuracy in the use of the word ‘victim’ is so minimal that it can be disregarded.”

What an astonishing claim to be made by a senior police officer in this country! Not one complainant with whom Sir Richard discussed the issue felt that the word “victim” should be applied instead. On the issue of searches, Sir Richard concluded that they were simply illegal.

Sir Richard turns next to the question of belief, noting that a 2002 police special notice dealing with rape investigations read that

“it is the policy of the MPS to accept allegations made by the victim in the first instance as being truthful.”

A 2014 report on police crime reporting by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary recommended:

“The presumption that the victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said, that approach represents a fundamental reversal of a cardinal principle of English law, namely that a man is innocent unless and until proved otherwise.

As Rupert Butler, counsel of 3 Hare Court, put it to Sir Richard:

“The assumption is one of guilt until the police have evidence to the contrary. This involves an artificial and imposed suspension of forensic analysis which creates three incremental and unacceptable consequences. Firstly, there is no investigation that challenges the Complainant; secondly, therefore, the suspect is disbelieved; and, thirdly, and consequently, the burden of proof is shifted onto the suspect.”

The second charge against the police relates to the evidence of witnesses. Sir Richard observed that

“prominent people…are more vulnerable to false complaints than others…They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems. The internet provides the information and detail to support a false allegation. Entertainers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations meeting, as they do, literally thousands of attention seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity which may be exaggerated or misconstrued in their recollection many years later. Deceased persons are particularly vulnerable as allegations cannot be answered.”

I emphasise that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen)—the allegations against Sir Edward are allegations that cannot be answered by him.

[John Glen]

If I may respond to that point, very rarely does an individual act alone. When there are victims—I say victims—who are still alive and connected parties still alive, there is a duty to seek justice for those individuals if they exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend says “if they exist”; I am not saying they do not. I do not know, but what I do know—it is a fact—is that Sir Edward Heath is dead and cannot answer back.

Paul Gambaccini, whom I met yesterday, referred to the “bandwagoner”—a person who hears about a complaint against a well-known personality and adds their own false complaint, possibly to make money. That motive should not be discounted in the consideration of these matters.

The third charge relates to the reliability of witnesses. Nick, the man upon whose evidence much of this monstrous submission was based, was dismissed by his mother, his stepmother, his ex-wife and his siblings as a fantasist. In their investigation, Northumbria constabulary must be ruthless in their analysis of why that man should have been free to make such deeply serious accusations against prominent figures when it would appear that little research was undertaken into his background. If his own mother denounced him, why did the police attach such credence to his claims? Of course, this is a man whose evidence was said to be “credible and true” by that chief superintendent. Did they not even think it was worth asking his relatives?

Fourthly, “victims” were constantly kept informed of progress on the case, but the alleged suspects remained in the dark throughout. That cannot be allowed to happen again.

Finally, why did the police abandon all notion of common sense? My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) made that point. At the time of the alleged offences committed by Lord Bramall, he would have had any number of senior officers around him. What attempt was made by the police to ask for their opinion? Or did the police prefer to believe an unknown witness over one with close knowledge of the suspect? The idea that he was cavorting in some orgy on that most solemn of days, Remembrance Day, is not only absurd but an insult to a decorated war hero.

At my surgery on Saturday, I met Lieutenant Colonel Ben Herman. He is an ex-Royal Marine and a former equerry to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He lives in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who cannot be here because he is attending a Committee. Lieutenant Colonel Herman was charged after being kept on bail for more than two years, but was acquitted after 15 minutes’ consideration by the jury. It was his contention that the attraction of his case was the opportunity to land a big fish. Lowly police officers carrying out dull work—except, I suppose, when they were infiltrating subversive groups and fathering children by the women they were supposed to be investigating—were salivating at the prospect of nailing a servant of the royal household. How far did such sentiments permeate the minds of those engaged on Operations Midland, Vincente and Yewtree?

These investigations constituted a grotesque and inexcusable failure by the Metropolitan police. Sir Bernard has accepted that there was failure, but who has been reprimanded or even sacked for the damage done to the individuals concerned and to the reputation of the Metropolitan police? We await the investigation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission with interest. I hope it will be expedited. On the other hand, the behaviour of those facing these dreadful accusations has been extraordinarily dignified. My noble Friend Lord Dear, a former chief constable of West Midlands police, said that in contrast to the dignity shown by Lord Bramall,

“the police investigation lurched from over-reaction to torpidity.”

I will outline what is needed. First, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe should ensure that those responsible for authorising payments to the real victims of this witch hunt—the people whose reputations his force has shredded and to whom immense distress has been caused—are provided with that authority before he leaves office early in the new year. I spoke briefly to him last night to let him know I was initiating this debate. He must sign the cheques before he leaves. Forcing these people to go to court to seek compensation would simply add insult to injury. However, in the absence of an agreed arrangement, that is what they may be obliged to do. As Paul Gambaccini said to me yesterday, no man should acquiesce in his own annihilation.

Secondly, the Henriques recommendations must be implemented urgently. In particular, the requirement that those making claims of historical child abuse be regarded as victims and not complainants must be reversed forthwith, as it overturns the centuries-old principle of the burden of proof. In an article in The Guardian on 10 February this year, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said—he kindly sent it over to me this morning:

“The public should be clear that officers do not believe unconditionally what anyone tells them.”

But that flatly contradicts Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s ruling, which I mentioned earlier, that the presumption should be that the victim is always believed.

Thirdly, the recommendation of anonymity before charge should also be implemented without delay. The Home Affairs Committee’s report on police bail, published on 17 March last year, was clear about that. It concluded:

“Newspapers and the media are prohibited from revealing the name of a person who is the victim of an alleged sexual offence. We recommend that the same right to anonymity should also apply to the person accused of the crime, unless and until they are charged with an offence.”

In support of that recommendation, the Committee referred to its predecessor Committee’s inquiry into the Sexual Offences Bill 2003, which

“called for anonymity for the defendant in such cases, because it felt sexual offences were ‘within an entirely different order’ to most other crimes, carrying a particular and very damaging stigma.”

I agree and, I am pleased to say, so does Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. At least we have found common ground there.

Fourthly, I am disappointed that the Home Secretary feels unable to intervene in any aspect of this saga. In response to my call for the full Henriques report to be published and for compensation to be paid, she wrote to me last month to say that:

“The police are operationally independent of Government, and so any arrangements in connection with the publication of Sir Richard’s report are a matter for the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis to consider and address.”

I do not agree. These are not operational matters. I regard them as matters pertaining to public policy, which cannot simply be passed back to the commissioner. Indeed, I would argue that it is unfair on him to leave him with the sole responsibility. I gather that, as far as compensation is concerned, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has to seek authority from other unspecified people, but I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm to me that that will be forthcoming shortly.

I have not been able to contact the Mayor of London, although his office phoned me about five minutes before this debate started. Again, I understand that he does not feel that this is a matter for him because it is an operational matter. I fundamentally disagree. This is a matter of public policy. There has been a serious miscarriage of justice, and Ministers cannot simply stand by and wash their hands of it. They may not agree with my view, but they should at least have a view. I think that the full Henriques report should be published. There is, for example, an entire chapter on Paul Gambaccini, which has not seen the light of day; it has been redacted in its entirety.

For all those people, this has been a harrowing experience exacerbated by insensitivity combined with incompetence on the part of the police. Lord Brittan went to his grave not knowing that the allegations in Operation Vincente had been dismissed. Lady Bramall went to hers not knowing that her husband had also been exonerated. Harvey Proctor said at his press conference on 25 August 2015:

“This whole catalogue of events has wrecked my life, lost me my job and demolished 28 years of my rehabilitation since 1987.”

Not a single police officer has been reprimanded, let alone sacked. Responsibility for this scandalous failure must lie with Sir Bernard and his senior officers. Either they knew what was being done in their name, which clearly renders them culpable, or they did not, which begs the question why they were not closely updated on cases involving multiple child murders and child sexual abuse, allegedly perpetrated by a Westminster ring involving a former Prime Minister and other public figures. In the case of Sir Cliff Richard, we know that the South Yorkshire police disgracefully conspired with the BBC to film the raid on his home.

However, there is one police officer who deserves praise. Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle is the senior officer responsible for Operation Vincente into the allegation of rape made against Lord Brittan by a woman known only as Jane. In September 2013, he decided that the investigation should not proceed any further, and concluded that any action against Lord Brittan would be grossly disproportionate and would not have a legal basis. As he told the Home Affairs Select Committee, as a result of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East piling pressure on the Met, a hurried review of DCI Settle’s decision was carried out by another officer, who failed to look at all the documents and, in particular, did not look at DCI Settle’s decision log, a document he described as

“an intrinsic and fundamental part of all major investigations.”

That provides further evidence that culpability for this matter resides at the top of the Met.

For acting with probity, DCI Settle was ordered by his line manager, Detective Superintendent Gray, to have nothing more to do with the case. Not only was he brushed aside and not only was his hitherto distinguished career blighted but he was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for allegedly leaking information to the media. As one police source is reported to have told the Daily Telegraph:

“He was the only detective who spoke out against the witch hunt of VIPs and he is being punished for his honesty.”

It seems that he is being sacrificed by his superiors.

Finally, I say to those who might be tempted to think that I am concerned with those in high places suffering injustice only because they are people I know in one way or another that I am not. If that is how the police treat those in high places, what confidence can the ordinary man in the street have that he will receive fair and impartial treatment from the police?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that the review deals with. I will come specifically to that in a moment.

This problem will not go away. Reports of child sexual abuse are increasing year on year and our public must have confidence in the system and that their police force—whoever and wherever that is—will handle those cases appropriately. However, again, that works both ways. Members have noted the case of South Yorkshire police and Sir Cliff Richard and how that was dealt with. That is a great example of how to do it badly and in a way that brings the entire police force into disrepute.

In order to wield the power, the police have to take investigations forward properly and appropriately; they have to understand the adage that with great power comes responsibility. At what point could anyone take the view that it is appropriate to carry out a raid with the BBC or any media outlet in tow?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Like my hon. Friends, I find the behaviour of the police and the BBC completely inexplicable. What action has been taken? What reprimands have there been? Has anyone been sacked? Can the Minister tell us?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend may be aware that there have been changes in the leadership at South Yorkshire police, and work is being done there to look at how they act. One of the other things we are doing to ensure that action is taken more widely nationally is to look at some issues that the Home Secretary has raised. I will come to that in just a few moments.

Today I have spoken to the national policing lead, Simon Bailey, who will be coming to see me before Christmas to discuss the recommendations of the review and the work that the police are doing more generally in response to these serious issues. There is also the issue of compensation for those who feel that they have been poorly treated and who have seen their reputations tarnished by the Metropolitan police force. As Members have said, that is important.

Of course, as we have taken power from the centre and moved it into police forces, it is for the Metropolitan police to address any claims for compensation that arise from the report’s findings and the general issues around such cases, particularly the Harvey Proctor case. I am sure that the House will agree that money cannot give someone back their previously unsullied reputation; nor can it give back the months, if not years, of anguish and turmoil they will have suffered. It does however at least provide some recognition of failure and responsibility, and recompense for the cost that people have suffered. That is something on which the police must focus. I am seeing Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe next week, when I will raise that issue and what the Metropolitan police are doing in that case. I assure the House that I will treat these matters with the utmost seriousness in raising them with him, and indeed in the conversations that I will have with the national police lead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Detective Chief Inspector Settle did precisely that. He said that he thought the inquiry should go no further. What happened to him? Basically, he was destroyed. I do not think any legislation that my right hon. Friend can put on the statute book will remedy what has happened, which is a failure of leadership in the Metropolitan police.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and then deal with both issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been a seminal debate and has been very powerful and useful indeed.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) that child abuse is the most heinous crime. That is why it is so serious for those who have been falsely accused; it is the most heinous crime. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was also absolutely right that accusations must be investigated, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said that the police must not be intimidated.

That is common ground among us all, but I think the hon. Member for Rochdale was right when he said that the pendulum had swung too far the other way. We know of the ghastly things that happened in his town; blind eyes were turned to the most heinous of crimes there, which must never be allowed to happen again. The issue is getting the balance right, which we have to do. I think that the guidance has to change. I cannot believe that we can carry on, as is required at the moment, having to believe people making these sometimes very wild accusations.

It is important that the point made by Sir Richard Henriques is taken on board—that some people in public life, particularly entertainers, are especially vulnerable to fantasists’ made-up accusations. In winnowing out all of these cases, it is important to recognise that some people may themselves be the target of fantasists who are interested simply in making money. I readily understand, as Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said in his February article in The Guardian, that investigating these cases is exceptionally difficult. However, this debate has illustrated that the pendulum has gone too far, and that the police have to adopt a different standard. They must call people “complainants” and not “victims”, because otherwise they have prejudged the case at the outset.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his comments. I am delighted that he is meeting Chief Constable Bailey next week, because the issue is the nomenclature and the police’s approach to these claims. I particularly welcome his meeting next week with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and his belief that compensation, particularly in the case of Harvey Proctor, must be resolved before Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe retires. That is a precondition, and I hope that my hon. Friend will reinforce that message and secure that result. I end by thanking all hon. Members for taking part in the debate, and by reminding them that this inquiry has cost the British taxpayer between £2.5 million and £3 million.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10 (6)).

Orgreave

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady has in effect outlined why it has been so important to have those reforms in how policing works and that local accountability over the last three decades. Her point about Hillsborough is right, and criminal proceedings may well come out of that with the IPCC, but that is because the reforms and changes through the IPCC and further reforms in the Policing and Crime Bill and the PCCs have changed the landscape of policing. It has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, and that forms a part of the Home Secretary’s right decision that it is not in the public interest to have a public inquiry.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

In 1984 I sat on these Benches representing the coalmining communities of Cannock and Burntwood. At that time my constituents working at Lea Hall and Littleton collieries were being subjected to the kind of intimidation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has mentioned, including the throwing of bags of urine by striking south Wales miners as my constituents attempted to go to work. So does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that Orgreave was in fact a violent attempt to prevent the British Steel Corporation from going about its lawful business and furthermore a naked political attempt to bring down the Government of Margaret Thatcher, and that since then trade union relations and industrial relations have been transformed out of all recognition, to the betterment of this country?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights the strength of feeling on both sides about issues that happened decades ago, and also highlights again that, hugely importantly, the police have reformed. There are still reforms going forward that we need to see through, and I hope we will all be working together in the years ahead to deliver them.

Immigration Bill

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to the issue of registration, which has been highlighted by a number of people, in a moment. To be clear, we are not seeking to impose an over-burdensome or legalistic requirement on children to prove that they have been formally registered, but we will need to see some evidence that they were present in Europe before 20 March. This will avoid creating a new and perverse incentive for families to entrust their children to people traffickers. Our focus will be on reunifying children with families in the UK, but we will also consider cases of children at risk of exploitation or abuse.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I understand that the Government are in a difficult position, although I supported the Prime Minister’s original stance on the matter. Are these children not already in safe countries? Are the Minister and the amendment’s supporters suggesting that France, Germany and Greece are not safe?

[James Brokenshire]

We certainly recognise the pressures that Greece and Italy, for example, have been under, and I will come on to talk about that more specifically. Equally, on children who are looking to be reunited with family here, the measure will provide a further mechanism to support the best interests of the child, which is what the Government have said. Reconnecting children with family here in the UK underpins that important message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. The fact remains that only last week the Government voted against the Lord Alf Dubs amendment, as it was then put in the other place, which was a change from the position the last time we saw it in this House. I welcome this change of position, which is a step in the right direction, but I wish to pay tribute to those who have got us this far. I pay particular tribute to Lord Alf Dubs and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has raised this matter on so many occasions, both in this House and elsewhere. I also thank Save the Children and the other charities and non-governmental organisations that have given their support. I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who have urged the Government to reconsider their position. They have done so over several weeks and months and played an important part in getting us to where we are today.

It is important that actions match words. Citizens UK has identified 157 children in Calais with family connections here. Obviously, there are many children in equally appalling conditions in Greece and Italy. Although the Minister does not want to put numbers and a timetable to the proposed change to the resettlement scheme, the challenge for the Government is surely to take all those in Calais with valid legal claims for reunification notwithstanding the fact that they are in France—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Reunification in France?

[Keir Starmer]

Reunification with their family here under the Dublin arrangements. The Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is seeking to improve the reunification rules under the Dublin arrangements. Some 157 children have been identified as falling into that category. This is the time for action, not words. We also challenge the Government to take 300 children most at risk in Greece and Italy before the start of the next school term. There is an urgency to this situation. The debate two weeks ago was dominated by a real and genuine concern about the missing children—those who are at risk of exploitation, trafficking and various other aspects of mischief. That is the challenge. I ask the Minister to say a little more to the House about the numbers and the timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. On vulnerable individuals as described, I agree. I state again that our position, particularly in relation to pregnant women, is that they should not be in immigration detention at all. However, this is a move in the right direction by the Government, and the limit proposed is better than no limit at all.

Unfortunately, the amendment in lieu undoes a lot of the good work, because it seeks to remove the overriding principle that there should be detention only in the most exceptional circumstances, and seems to remove the provision relating to medical facilities. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment in lieu, but will support the Lords amendment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I quite understand the difficulty that the Government face. As I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree, the British Government have done more than any other Government apart from that of the United States of America to help those fleeing the torment in Syria and other parts of the middle east. I warmly welcome that part of the Department for International Development budget; that is a good use of its budget, though I may disagree with other parts of it. I accept that the Government face some opposition to their policy from Conservative Members, but the Government’s original policy was absolutely right. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), representing the new champions of the premier league—he is not wearing his scarf today; clearly he has deserted his—[Interruption.] Ah! The scarf is under there! He said that he hoped that the amendment would not exacerbate the pull factor, but I am afraid that all reasonable opinion in this country will conclude that it will do precisely that. If we agree to this amendment, we are sending out the message that Britain is a soft touch. Also, it is a cruel policy, as I have said to the Aldershot News & Mail—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is being facetious about the Aldershot News & Mail; it is a very important organ of communication.

The policy is cruel because it will encourage desperate, tragic parents to send their children across the inhospitable seas of the Mediterranean in search of a better life. Who can blame them for wanting to do that? However, they are parents and their responsibility is to their children. It is not our first responsibility; it is that of the parents, and they will be encouraged by this measure to send their children across that dangerous sea and put them at risk in the hope that they will be able to get not just to other safe countries—France, Greece or Italy—but to the United Kingdom.

If this House is saying, in the middle of a debate on whether Britain should remain a member of the EU, that—[Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Benches should not sneer. If this House is saying that Italy, France and Greece are not safe countries, why on earth are we members of that organisation?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

If the Scottish National party would like to intervene, of course I accept that intervention, but if the SNP feels so strongly about this, it should not ask the British Government for money. Put up your own money to cover the costs.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in Calais tonight there are children sleeping in containers that sleep 12 people? They are sleeping alongside adults, strangers to them, and there is nobody supervising. Does he think that is safe?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The whole point is that they are in safe countries. The criticism should be levelled not at the British Government, but at other Governments. If the Scottish nationalists wish to take the children in and they have the capacity in Scotland, they should pay for it themselves and not ask the Minister to go to the British Treasury to fund it. Put your money where your mouth is.

I fear that the Lords amendment will send out a very dangerous message. It is also an insulting message to our continental partners, whom we all know, because we see it night after night on our television screens, are wrestling with the consequences of this tragic migration flow into Europe. The Lords amendment sends out a damning message to them that they cannot cope and that their conditions are inadequate to look after vulnerable people.

That is my first point. My second point is this: my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly asked the sanctimonious hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who is parading his compassion—[Interruption.] We have free speech in this country. My hon. Friend made the point that there is a shortage of 10,000 foster carers in our country to look after our own children in need of foster care.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman does not spend enough time in this Chamber for me to give way to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right that there is already a demand to look after our own children. As I have told the Prime Minister, in my constituency we do not have the capacity to take any more people and I will not give priority to those from overseas, however tragic, when my own constituents are suffering homelessness and vulnerable children cannot be catered for.

I quite understand the difficult position that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been put in, I suspect by some of my hon. Friends who have felt it necessary to parade their compassion. I do not believe the amendment to be a compassionate move. It sends out a very dangerous signal, encouraging parents to dispose of their children and put them at risk on the high seas, which is deeply dangerous.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Along with many others, we in the SNP have been arguing for months that the UK should take a fair share of refugees and asylum seekers from Europe in the face of the ongoing humanitarian crisis. We are therefore glad that the Government have now apparently accepted that principle, albeit up to a point. They have finally listened to the arguments from the different parties and from a host of campaign groups and charities, and we cautiously welcome that change of heart.

Indeed, last week, in Westminster Hall, the Minister himself made a persuasive case for a fairer distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That was in the context of a debate on children already in the UK and was a call for solidarity with the citizens of Kent, where many unaccompanied children have arrived. We on these Benches support that call for responsibility to be shared across the UK, but we want the same logic applied on a European level.

Like others across the House, we will monitor progress carefully to ensure that the new policy is implemented in the spirit of the amendment from Lord Dubs. For example, it is vital, as others have said, that the cut-off date does not rule out protection for the many children who have been in Europe since before that date but who have never been registered, and I welcome the reassurances the Minister has given this evening. Equally, as others have said, the support offered to local authorities must be sufficient to allow them to feel able to become involved in the new programme, so that the numbers taken on represent a genuine attempt to play our part. We will also look for the Scottish Government to be closely involved in overseeing the necessary processes in Scotland and for the Scottish Guardianship Service to have the support it needs to play its part.

However, as the Opposition spokesperson said—this is probably most important of all—it is essential that action is fast. As all hon. Members who have visited camps across Europe will know, the conditions these children are living in are horrendous. We need the Immigration Minister back in the House to update us within weeks, rather than months.

If implemented properly and generously, the Government’s decision will be looked back on warmly and, indeed, even as a matter of pride—people will only wonder, “Why the delay?” However, there is a long way to go before we reach that point.

On the remaining, unresolved issues, the Government have come up short again. On amendment 84, their lordships are absolutely right to insist on a general rule that immigration detention should not last longer than 28 days. This is a modest amendment; as I said when the Bill was last here, it moves us towards a time limit, rather than creating an absolute limit, because of various exceptions. However, their lordships’ reasoning for insisting on the amendment is absolutely right, because the Government’s alternative is even further from being a proper time limit on immigration detention—it simply adds an automatic bail hearing after four months.

Every now and then, we have hints from the Government that they are waking up to the fact that policy and practice on immigration detention in the UK is draconian, unnecessary and expensive. There are occasional suggestions of a change in approach, but proposed reform is simply far too slow. Far from representing a brave new policy dawn, what the Government are asking us to put into legislation barely even reflects what is supposed to already be their policy—a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release and the use, wherever possible, of alternatives to detention.

In short, the right to liberty continues to be badly undermined—all for the administrative convenience of the Home Office. The Government have failed each time to explain why, in contrast to every single other EU country, the UK cannot operate within the confines of a proper time limit. We will continue to support the Lords amendment as a step in the right direction.

On amendment 85C, we are perhaps getting closer to a result we can live with. My colleagues and I continue to believe that the Government should implement in full Stephen Shaw’s recommendation of an absolute prohibition on the detention of pregnant women. Such a policy would not put immigration control in peril; it would ensure that some pretty barbaric practices in UK detention facilities are brought to an end.

It is frustrating that we are still having this debate without the full facts at our disposal. When will the Minister tell us exactly how many pregnant women are detained, how long they are detained, whether they were released and whether they were removed? What information we do have does not impress. For example, we know that 90 out of 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were eventually released back into the community.

Lords amendment 85C does incorporate the 72 hours or one-week limit suggested by the Government, but it also contains alternative protections. Its inclusion of a general principle against the detention of pregnant women mirrors provisions on the detention of children in families set out in the Immigration Act 2014. As well as retaining that overriding principle, it sets standards for accommodation, for providing notice and for shorter journey times. If we have to compromise on our belief that there should be an absolute ban, then we are absolutely determined to see the full range of protections retained within the Bill. We cannot support what the Government propose in terms of amending amendment 85C and thereby watering down many of those protections. We will not support dawn raids on pregnant women, long journeys to detention centres, or inadequate facilities at those centres. If there is not to be the absolute ban recommended by Sir Stephen Shaw, then we must have the safeguards that prioritise antenatal care over Home Office convenience. The Government have their priorities absolutely wrong.

Amid all the gloom of this Bill, at least let us properly safeguard the right to liberty, and at least take action to properly protect pregnant women. That really is not very much to ask.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a lot of support and interest in this amendment, and we should be drawing on that. The Government have talked about working with the LGA, but I hope that they will also work with all sorts of other organisations. For example, I had an email only this morning from an independent boarding school local to my constituency that wants to offer two free places from September for child refugees. I will pass that offer on to Ministers, who I hope will take up not only that offer, but those of about 80 places from independent boarding schools across the country, as well as others from other community groups and organisations that want to do their bit to help—from faith groups to Home for Good, which wants to work with the Government to bring forward more places—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will not give way because there is very little time and other Members want to speak.

Home for Good wants to involve foster parents who would be prepared to sign up and work with local authorities.

European Agenda on Migration

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8961/15, a European Agenda on Migration, No. 9345/15, EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling, unnumbered Document, a Council Decision on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR Med), unnumbered Document, a Council Decision to launch EUNAVFOR Med, and a Draft Action Plan on Stepping up EU-Turkey cooperation on support of refugees and migration management in view of the situation in Syria and Iraq; and supports the Government’s aim of working with the EU and Member States and other international partners to develop a coherent and sustainable approach to addressing current migratory pressures, focused on shorter and longer term actions to break the business model of people smugglers and traffickers, to break the link between rescue at sea and permanent settlement in the EU, and to address the root causes of migrants’ journeys.

Today’s debate offers an important opportunity to look at the range of measures proposed to address the migration situation. The first of the documents listed on the motion, the “European Agenda on Migration”, was published on 15 May and sought to provide a blueprint from which to address the worsening situation by outlining an overview of the various measures available to the EU. It is fair to say that subsequent documents listed for the most part provide the detail of that blueprint.

The Government support many aspects of the European agenda. We agree that there should be more effective joint action on returns and against people smugglers. We favour stronger co-operation with third countries, as well as more effective management of the external border. Indeed, we have continued to press our European partners on those points, both before and since the publication of the Commissioner’s communication.

We have also welcomed the proposals against migrant smuggling. Its focus on strengthening co-operation to tackle the gangs profiting from the crisis through people smuggling, including enhanced approaches with international partners, is sensible, and we support the strategic priorities outlines.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that it does not sit well with Mrs Merkel that she should be criticising the Hungarians who have done their level best to implement the Schengen arrangements, as they are required to do, by seeking to secure their border, which is the European border? Has the Minister or the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to Chancellor Merkel to say that she should be supporting the Hungarians, not attacking them?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are not part of Schengen, so the operations to deal with internal Schengen arrangements are for those who are party to them. As was discussed in the previous debate, what happens at the external Schengen border is important, which is why we have sought to support Frontex in a number of its activities, given the potential impact on us in the UK.

Looking at the approach off the coast of the European border, it is interesting to note how the subsequent Council decision on an EU military operation in the southern central Mediterranean has in many respects been a positive step in the joint efforts to break the business model of the people smugglers. That has had the UK’s full support. On 7 October, the operation moved into phase 2, the high seas phase, and was renamed Operation Sophia, in which the UK is playing an important role.

The purpose of Operation Sophia is to tackle the human smugglers and traffickers, disrupting their business model, which trades so carelessly in the lives of others. We must not forget, however, that Operation Sophia is only one part of the Government’s support for sea operations in the region. Since May, the UK has saved over 9,000 lives in the Mediterranean.

The last document listed, the proposed Turkey-EU action plan, has been broadly welcomed by political leaders across the EU and was the subject of an EU-Turkey summit on 29 November. The Government share the view that a plan of this kind is needed in order to ease the refugee burden on Turkey, while preventing further uncontrolled migration to the EU. Turkey is a key relationship partner for the EU and is a country with which the UK has had close co-operation for some time. It also has a pivotal role in the migration crisis, given that so many of the migratory flows through Greece and the western Balkans come through Turkey.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. In a number of questions this afternoon, I have responded in relation to the United Kingdom’s plans to bring in a number of Syrian refugees. It is right that we continue doing that. As I have indicated, we have security-check arrangements, but there are many people who have been displaced from their homes as a result of the barbarity that has taken place in Syria and who need protection and assistance, and we stand ready to play our part, as indicated, in providing that.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the meeting that took place earlier today between the Prime Minister and President Putin as a constructive contribution towards the resolution of the civil war in Syria which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said, is at the heart of this crisis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events in Paris illustrate to us the need to provide our security and intelligence services with all necessary powers in order to keep us and our people safe from these depraved Islamic fundamentalists?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think the majority of the public agree with him too that our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies should have the powers necessary to keep us safe and secure.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)? I am a sentimental sort of bloke, and I rather think we need to have the Liberal voice heard in this place. I observe that there is not a single Liberal in what used to be the Lib Dem heartland of the south-west, but I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been returned and I look forward to his contributions in the months and years ahead.

It is a particular pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who spoke exceptionally well. He is the new James Arbuthnot, which are very big shoes to fill.

We have spoken a lot today about the northern powerhouse. We need also to speak about the west country powerhouse. I confess my interest as a rural rustic from the south-west. I note that in recent years the Government have invested heavily in infrastructure in my part of the world, and I look forward to their continuing to do so. I am thinking in particular of the upgrading of the A303, which is vital for prosperity in the west country, and of investment in superfast broadband, which is clearly necessary for the rural businesses that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is particularly keen to promote.

While considering the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, we should be a little careful. I know that it would not be the Government’s intention to disadvantage the shire counties in any way, but it is vital that we get the balance right and do not inadvertently disinvest in rural parts of our country because of our understandable enthusiasm for investing in our great cities.

We have heard today about local enterprise partnerships and regional development agencies. In my part of the world, the transformation following the introduction of LEPs and the abolition of RDAs has been huge.

We have to admire the Opposition’s nerve in tabling an amendment attacking the Government’s record on housing; never was there a better opportunity for a political party to draw a discreet veil. In supporting the aspiration for low-cost housing laid out in the Queen’s Speech, I make a plea for the integrity of the core planning process that lies at the heart of the Localism Act 2011. In Warminster, which I represent, residents feel with good cause that they are being taken for a ride; the Minister for Housing and Planning knows that very well, as I have been to see him about the issue recently. I do not want public money or my constituents’ time to be wasted on core strategies that turn out to be worthless. I do want the right housing to be in the right place with the right level of supporting infrastructure.

The late Charles Kennedy suggested that this Parliament would be about two Unions: the United Kingdom and the European Union. I very much welcome the inclusion of the European Union Referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech, and I look forward to its Second Reading next week. Devolution and subsidiarity must mean removing powers from Brussels as well.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is an operator. I am sure he will return from Europe like Moses from Mount Sinai, with a prospectus that I can recommend to my constituents. They would expect a British exception that will exclude the UK from ever closer union, which has only one destination: union. They will expect parity of esteem among EU currencies and the reaffirmation of the trading and commercial deal that my constituents, their parents and grandparents thought that they were signing up to in 1975.

My constituency has a heavy defence interest. I declare my own interest as an ex-regular and current reservist. I welcome with due trepidation the inclusion of the strategic defence and security review in the Gracious Speech. During the general election campaign, many of my constituents expressed puzzlement at the fact that we have committed to statute the OECD 0.7% of GDP development target without having committed to NATO’s 2% defence target, notwithstanding the progress made last year at Celtic Manor. They are also puzzled at the licence given to our unequal partners who enjoy NATO’s fully comprehensive cover while paying a third-party premium.

There can be no development without economic prosperity, and there will be no prosperity without security. The engineers of that security—Britain’s soldiers, sailors and airmen—are a distinct force for good in a troubled world. Despite the progress made by the coalition Government, the link between outcome and input in Britain’s international development effort since 1997 has been far less clearcut. If a country’s military deploys to a country whose inhabitants pose little direct threat, it operates in a space between altruism and enlightened self-interest. Britain’s military contribution to making the world a better and safer place must be properly referenced in the upcoming SDSR and in our development returns.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the issue of aid versus defence. Does he share my concern about recent remarks from General Odierno, the head of the US army, and the US Secretary of Defence, Ash Carter, who are very concerned about Britain’s refusal to commit to 2% of GDP on defence?

[Dr Murrison]

We of course need to listen very carefully to our biggest and closest ally. Since the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is now contained within the Ministry of Defence budget, we need to be particularly mindful of the fact that the room for manoeuvre is limited. My hon. Friend and I both welcome the commitment to maintaining headcount, which is important to my constituents and to the security of our country. That, however, means there is very little room for manoeuvre on other cost drivers in defence, which is very much a concern for our American allies.

I welcome the intention in the Queen’s Speech to improve GP access, which was definitely an issue on the doorstep throughout the election period. So much general practice is actually social care, and in my constituency, I see the consequences of two systems running in parallel, not in series. That political failure is hugely wasteful and demands fresh thinking on how we pay for and provide care for an ageing demographic.

I welcome the Queen’s Speech, which sets a powerful programme for Government, and I look forward to supporting it in the months and years ahead.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hon. Members]

In unison!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that we have had discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. Indeed, some other member states, notably Poland, will take steps themselves to change the way in which they approach this particular issue in their legislation. That would mean fewer trivial or smaller cases resulting from the European arrest warrant. The changes we have made are, of course, changes we have made in domestic legislation here in the United Kingdom. The House has had the opportunity to vote on them and to put them through.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Further to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I do not think that he and I have quite the same touching faith as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in the European Court of Justice. Is it not the case that however we see the ECJ interpreting things now, by opting into this European arrest warrant now, we do so in perpetuity and we will for ever be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—unless we leave the European Community? What upsets and concerns so many Conservative Members, and indeed people across the country, is that we are surrendering a power to the ECJ over which we have no control whatever. It is a surrender of sovereignty that many of us just feel unable to accommodate, even though we understand the forceful argument on security that the Home Secretary makes.

[Mrs May]

Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I did to a previous intervention, that I fully accept the concerns that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but this is not an issue confined to the measures we are considering today. As part of the opt-out/opt-in decisions we take for measures brought forward in the justice and home affairs area post-the Lisbon treaty, we look at the question of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the ECJ applies to those measures as well. We have opted in to a number of measures on the basis that a balanced judgment of the importance of those measures and the benefits they bring outweighs the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. He uses the term “in perpetuity”, but as I said, if we have a Conservative Government after May 2015, we will have the opportunity to renegotiate a relationship with the European Union and a number of issues can be dealt with within that. Both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that we think free movement should be included within it, and I believe that our relationship with the European Court of Justice is another candidate for consideration in those negotiations.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I hope the hon. Lady and others in the Chamber will be reassured to know that I understand that the CPS is indeed reviewing this issue as we speak. I am not able to give her an answer on what the CPS is doing, but it is doing it as we speak.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

It is clear that the lives of 1,400 very vulnerable young people in Rotherham have been devastated, in large part by a wicked culture of political correctness, assiduously promoted over decades by the Labour party, as public officials denounced as racist people like their colleague—our colleague—Ann Cryer, who sought to tell the truth. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to be vigorous in her campaign to end this culture, so that in future people can speak the truth without fear of losing their jobs or, worse still, being sent on an Orwellian diversity course?

[Mrs May]

I have already made the point, as my hon. Friend has, that cultural concerns can never be an excuse for failing to bring the perpetrators of these appalling crimes to justice. I commend the work done by the former Member of this House Ann Cryer, who did stand up on a number of issues, often in the face of her own party, and raised issues of very real concern. But the message from the whole House is very clear today: cultural concerns cannot get in the way of dealing with the perpetrators of these appalling crimes.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of the views that the Committee put forward in its report, and as I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we have not yet agreed absolutely the final package with other European member states and the European Commission, and some technical reservations have been made. We are working on that and expect to be able to remove those reservations, and the House will have an opportunity to vote in due course.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that we have legislated in a way that protects us from the issuance of trivial European arrest warrants, but surely those will be subject to the European Court of Justice. They could, in future, strike out our own legislation, reinforcing concerns among Conservative Members that this Parliament continues to be sidelined in favour of the European Court of Justice.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend should look to other member states in the European Union that are already subject to the European Court of Justice and already exercise a test of proportionality on such matters. To return to the point I made earlier, although some may think that an arrangement similar to that held by Denmark would get over that problem, it would not because part of the arrangement is precisely being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I agree with the Prime Minister and with my hon. Friend on that point.

The Prime Minister recently told the “Today” programme that he wants to pursue a relationship with our European partners based on “trade and co-operation” and on being “an independent nation state”. I have to say that I cannot find any strand of consistency between the measures in this Command Paper and the aspirations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

May I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is not in her place at the moment, of what we said in the House about the European arrest warrant when we were in opposition? My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, as shadow Home Secretary, said in 2009 that it “undermined civil liberties”. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, as shadow Justice Secretary, said in 2008 that

“once such things are subject to the European Court of Justice and the Commission…the Government will lose all control over standing up for United Kingdom interests in these areas”.—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 176.]

He also pointed out that the European arrest warrant

“is very different from…an international treaty obligation that the United Kingdom could decide not to follow if it infringed the human rights of those affected. We will be surrendering the final say about that entirely to a supranational body.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]

The Foreign Secretary, as shadow Foreign Secretary, chided the previous Government for not keeping their promises on the EU when he said:

“Time and again they have made promises that they would not hand over powers to Europe, particularly on justice and home affairs, and time and again they have done exactly that, not least through the treaty.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1684.]

My right hon. Friend now has to eat those words.

The Conservative party manifesto of 2010 promised

“three specific guarantees—on the Charter of fundamental rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation—with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU.”

Why have we abandoned that? It was based on a speech the Prime Minister made when in opposition, in which he promised to negotiate the three guarantees, one of which was

“limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”

Why have we abandoned that?

Much more recently, the Prime Minister wrote in The Sunday Telegraph on 16 March 2014 that one of the key changes he would seek in a renegotiation with the EU was:

“Our police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions”.

Why have we abandoned that already? What did he intend to convey to voters in advance of the European elections? Surely not that he intended to do exactly the opposite a few weeks after the close of poll.

This year’s Conservative European election leaflet stated:

“We stand for a new relationship with the EU, bringing power back to Britain and away from Brussels”,

by, among other things,

“taking back control of justice and home affairs”.

If the UK intends to bring powers back in our renegotiation after the next election, it is a strange way for the Prime Minister to begin setting out his stall by giving up the very powers he said he would not give up.

That raises the question about the pressure on Ministers to continue supporting the process of EU integration because of coalition politics. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s blank denial that there could be any alternative to the European arrest warrant underlines that she may well have fallen prey to such pressures. Notwithstanding the fact that the main party in power has a different policy and was elected having opposed Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, Whitehall appears to be continuing to implement those treaties according to a policy of business as usual. More powers are being transferred from the UK to the EU, with EU legislation encroaching ever more on our justice system, as though there had been no change of Government.

I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is acting on advice and with complete integrity, but it may help if I, as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, remind the House how advice to Ministers works in a coalition. The civil service is enjoined to serve the Government as a whole, not individual party agendas or the different agendas of individual Ministers. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that no serious consideration has been given to any alternative policy of negotiating a permanent bilateral agreement on these matters, like the 170 or so sovereign states that are not members of the EU.

If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been minded to ask for credible submissions to support such a policy and then to act on them, it is not only the status quo in her Department, the Foreign Office and elsewhere that she would have had to fight. She would certainly have had the support of the Conservatives in that—if we were a majority Government, I doubt she would have had the support to act in the way she is acting now—but in this coalition, the quad would have vetoed that policy. It is, therefore, hardly surprising, four years since her appointment, that little work has been done on any alternative policy.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I think it is terribly important that we explain to the public what the quad is about, because it is Westminster-speak and I do not think the public understand that no policy is pursued by civil servants unless four individuals—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—sign off on them. Unless they do so, civil servants will not deal with those policies. That is what has stuffed us on the Conservative Benches.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry)—a brother knight who had the responsibility of looking after my old school at Bloxham. I have always had great affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, even though he has been somewhat unsound on European matters. No doubt he will be awarded some further grand honour by the Association of Chief Police Officers; I can see him as the guest of honour at a grand function, funded no doubt by G4S as there is no public money for such things.

I agree overwhelmingly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, particularly on the sovereignty of this Parliament. Whereas it is entirely right that we should take into account the evidence of those who are operating at the coal face, such as members of ACPO, it is our duty here in this Parliament to look at the wider issues and the wider consequences.

I suppose that I take as my text the joint report of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees of 26 March, which states in paragraph 1:

“Whether EU measures covered by the so-called ‘2014 block opt-out decision’ continue to apply to the United Kingdom and become subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice from 1 December 2014 is a profoundly significant issue.”

That is absolutely right and I pay tribute to the Chairmen and members of those three Committees for their detailed and measured response on this important matter. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, on whose shoulders rests the responsibility for charting a course that not only satisfies the coalition, but reconciles the need to protect our constituents and secure law and order in this country, and the need to preserve the rights of this sovereign Parliament.

I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have just two key concerns and they are very straightforward. The first is that, by opting into these measures, we will lock ourselves into the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in perpetuity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier, home affairs and justice was originally a third pillar matter that was decided on by sovereign nations and was not subject to qualified majority voting. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex gave a litany of quotations, not least from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, on the implications of signing up to these measures and subjecting ourselves to the European Court of Justice.

We have no excuse any more. We have seen how the European Court of Justice has sought constantly to arrogate greater and greater powers, and even to overrule our Supreme Court. We would be failing in our duty to the people we represent if we did not spell out to them the very real risks that lay before them if we continue to provide the European Court of Justice with further powers. By doing so, we undermine not only our position in this Parliament, but the interests of our constituents; for they will have no one to whom they can turn if the European Court of Justice continues to exercise these responsibilities.

My second concern is about the political message that will be sent out by the Government’s decision to opt back into 35 of the measures. As we approach the next general election, Europe is assuming greater and greater significance. Those of us who have banged on about Europe, to use a popular expression, have done so because European matters pervade our national life at every level. The biggest concern that the public have today is immigration. Why is that? It is because the issue of immigration is overwhelmingly about our ability to control our own borders.

I am sure that I am not alone in finding on the doorstep that our constituents do not believe the Prime Minister when he says that he will hold a referendum if we are returned as a majority Government at the next general election. That is the case, notwithstanding his efforts in vetoing the fiscal treaty, cutting the EU budget, supporting the European Union (Referendum) Bill and, most recently, tackling the issue of the presidency of the European Commission. He has demonstrated his commitment to trying to resolve those matters and addressing the real concerns of the British people, but because he suggested before the last election that we would have a referendum if we assumed power, that has been constantly brought up as though he has failed to deliver on a promise. That referendum was conditional on the Lisbon treaty not having come into force by 2010, but it did come into force and therefore there was no point in holding a referendum.

As we talk about further negotiations with our European partners on reorganising Britain’s relationship with the EU, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex: this sends a completely different message. We have had the battle with Mr Juncker and expressed the Prime Minister’s rejection of ever-closer union and of the whole project, yet we will be portrayed by our opponents and by the public as having signed up to a raft of measures that touch on some of the most sensitive issues around the protection of our people, such as the ability to deport foreign criminals or return those who have fled the country but are charged with offences in the UK. People are bound to say, “We hear what you say about having a referendum, but when you’re faced with a practical decision on whether to opt back into home affairs and justice measures, you opt back in. We know what that means in terms of the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction”.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a whiff of appeasement here? Basically, we do not want the jurisdiction of European institutions, including the Court, but on the other hand we do not want to resist their intrusion into our becoming more integrated into the European Union. When it comes to the balance between those two positions, the Government increasingly give the impression that they do not want to do that, but they go along with it in practice. That is a very dangerous path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend is right, and I set out earlier what I felt the dilemma to be. Undoubtedly, the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary are receiving shed-loads of advice from law enforcement agencies, saying that we must protect the European arrest warrant and all our ties with our European partners because to do otherwise would make our task of enforcing law and order more and more difficult.

I understand where the Home Secretary is coming from, and again I will quote from the excellent European Scrutiny Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. In its report of 7 November last year, it cited the Home Secretary as having said a year ago:

“We believe the UK should opt out of the measures in question for reasons of principle, policy, and pragmatism. And we should only seek to rejoin those measures that help us co-operate with our European neighbours to combat cross-border crime and keep our country safe.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 177.]

Who could possibly disagree with that? We are all in favour of that and of arrangements that enable the efficacious management of our borders, and the return of criminals and so on, but other issues are at stake. How will the European Court of Justice interpret these matters, and how—as I said a moment earlier—will the public see that? Of course we need to protect the public, but I suggest, as my hon. Friends have done, that we also need to resist the risk of subjecting ourselves to further control by the European Court of Justice.

How do we bridge the gap? I understand that it is entirely possible that transitional arrangements could apply from 1 December. Come 1 December, we opt out en bloc and at the same time opt back in on the 35 measures that are the subject of this debate. By then, it is possible to have transitional arrangements to extend our ability to have those measures in force, pending a final decision here in the UK. The Home Secretary has said that Denmark’s opt-out arrangements remain subject to the European Court of Justice. Why do we not have alternative arrangements that do not subject us to the ECJ? We do not need to follow Denmark’s example and can chart our own course. Surely this is a magnificent opportunity for Mr Juncker and his cohort to demonstrate their commitment to recognising that the UK’s issues need to be addressed and to accommodate the UK’s concerns. We can provide them with an early opportunity. Come 1 December, they can show us that, yes, they understand the nationwide concern in this country on these matters and come to an accommodation with the UK.

These are massively important issues. I understand from Ministers that there will be a proper full-day’s debate later this year, followed by a substantive vote, and not in a deferred Division or anything like that, when the House can have its proper say.