Syrian Refugees

Jack Straw Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I am pleased that he is pleased that I have been able to respond rather more fully on this issue today than I was able to do in oral questions on Monday. We will give priority to survivors of torture and violence, women and children in need and at risk, and particularly those in need of medical care. I hope that the priorities that we are setting will incorporate his concerns on this issue. The flexibility that we have within the scheme will be of benefit to us.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

In the early 1990s, the Major Government accepted under humanitarian programmes about 3,000 refugees from Bosnia, and in the late 1990s, when I was Home Secretary, we accepted a slightly larger number from Kosovo, because of the terrible crises that existed in both those territories at those times. Will the Home Secretary look carefully at the experience of both the Bosnian and the Kosovan refugees to see what lessons can be learned, including about support within the UK, for these vulnerable people, and the contribution that these people, who often did not have go through the awful hoops of seeking access to this country, were able to make subsequently to our prosperity?

[Mrs May]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the contribution that has been made by many groups of refugees who, over the years, have found sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. We will, of course, look at past experience. When the scheme was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman there was no limit on numbers, so it was not a quota system. The circumstances in Syria are slightly different from those in Bosnia in terms of the scale of the numbers involved. That is why the focus must continue to be on helping the maximum number of people by aid being given within region, which, as I have said, is where the UK has a very proud record.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Jack Straw Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I made clear to the House following the statement I made on that individual, when that individual returned to the United Kingdom he did so on a document that was not a passport, and therefore the passport was not available to be taken.

Let me deal with the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Anyone listening to her would sometimes think that the control order regime would have solved every terrorist plot, but as well as the eight people released when the courts revoked their orders, another seven people absconded during the six years that control orders existed, and only one of those seven was ever found again, so people did abscond on control orders.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I may be about to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will let him intervene.

[Mr Straw]

One of the central differences between control orders and TPIMs that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned so far is the issue of relocation. Nobody absconded from relocation, and she cannot claim that she abandoned relocation because of orders from the courts, because the courts generally were supportive of relocation.

[Mrs May]

I was about to answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. When I refer to the seven absconds that took place under control orders, the answer that I always get from Opposition Members is about this issue of relocation. What neither he in his intervention, nor the right hon. Lady in her speech tell us is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases, including those of two individuals who were subsequently placed on TPIMs. The right hon. Lady also does not say that several control order subjects breached their control orders even while they were relocated, so the idea that relocation would prevent orders being breached is simply not correct. When the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was asked whether the removal of the option for relocation would have had any bearing on the case of Ibrahim Magag, in particular, he answered:

“we do not think so”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will come on to those points about individuals in general and individuals who are coming off TPIMs. As I have said, if individuals have been conducting new terrorism-related activity, it is perfectly possible for a new TPIM to be established and for a request to be made for that TPIM to be applied to those individuals.

The Opposition can say what they like about the issue of the two-year time limit, but I suggest that the fact that people are released having been convicted under the Terrorism Acts suggests that there are people released on to our streets who have been involved in acts of terrorism.

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Having been in her position, I remember what it is like trying to defend a very weak position. To compare people who are released from prison under terrorism legislation with people whose TPIM comes to an end is no comparison at all. Will she acknowledge that if someone is released from prison after serving a lengthy sentence for terrorism offences, they will be on licence and they are eligible to be recalled to prison straight away without any further court proceedings?

[Hon. Members]

They were convicted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Achieving a balance between the liberty and freedom of citizens on the one hand, and the safety and security of the same citizens on the other hand, is a fundamental duty of this House and a fundamental responsibility of any Home Secretary. Since it is not possible to exercise more abstract freedoms and liberties without the freedom to live one’s life in peace and security, identifying where that balance lies will always be difficult and must take account of the particular circumstances of the age in which we live.

The Home Secretary opened her remarks—we should all be grateful for her generosity in giving way—by referring to the fact that all these orders were in the shadow of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Given that the scale of the terrorism and its threat had not before been experienced here, or anywhere else around the world, changes were made that then had to be altered in the light of experience.

I am not suggesting for one second that every change the Labour Government initiated or proposed was exactly right, because it was not. We had to learn from experience. I do not think that anyone who has held the office of Home Secretary—I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) in his place—would suggest that they got everything right.

However, I believe that by the end of our period in government, including the reforms introduced in 2007, the regime of control orders was broadly operating better than any alternative for dealing with the very small minority of dangerous people who, for reasons with which the House is fully familiar, could not in practice be prosecuted for the offences which it was understood in other circumstances they had committed or were likely to commit. Some would say, “We should just leave these matters to the courts.” At least the main parties are agreed that some people are so dangerous—as confirmed by information sufficiently reliable for the courts, albeit in closed proceedings—that they cannot just be left at large. No Government and no Home Secretary would survive if we washed our hands of the risks before us and then an aeroplane was blown up with hundreds of UK citizens on it, or bombs were let off. Control orders, imperfect though they are, and although they should be used only in extreme circumstances, were introduced to deal with those threats.

I never understood, and we have had no reliable explanation today, why on earth the Home Secretary decided, with no explanation whatsoever, to change control orders, which were working, to a weaker system of which there are two fundamentally different features: first, an arbitrary time limit, which she did not need to impose; and secondly, the removal of the relocation provisions, which was not required by the courts. She referred to four cases, I think, where she said that the courts said that they were not appropriate, as opposed to being struck down, because that phrase is about striking down legislation. The courts had decided, quite rightly, in the instant case, that they were not going to approve that part of the control order. That is what the courts are there for. They were not striking down relocations; they were merely saying “Parliament asked us to substitute our judgment for that of the Home Secretary. That is precisely what we have done. We do not think this is justified in these circumstances.” By the end of this process, no individual for whom a relocation order had been confirmed then absconded, whereas the Home Secretary has been faced with the reality that the system she introduced is very much weaker.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw on his experience as Home Secretary and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Perhaps the current Home Secretary should have drawn on the experience of Lord Howard, who was Home Secretary in the previous Tory Administration and who said:

“If you ask me my personal view…I would have preferred the relocation provisions to have remained.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 17, Q53.]

[Mr Straw]

I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not say, as I think anybody who has held that office would say, “Okay, we’ve made these changes but we’re willing for them to be reviewed on a cross-party basis”, which is the gravamen of what is proposed in our motion.

The Home Secretary was asked, I do not know how many times, whether she regarded those whose TPIMs are about to end as still posing a significant risk to the public. In other words, we seek her judgment as to whether, if there were no time limit, she would be seeking to maintain those TPIMs. However, answer came there none. What she did say, which I greatly regret—I do not think it fits the office—was, “The police and the intelligence agencies have judged that they posed no substantially increased risk.” That is damning the current regime with faint praise. Of course she has to take advice from the police and the security agencies, but she knows very well that she cannot subcontract the responsibilities of this House and the statutory responsibility of the Home Secretary to unnamed police and intelligence agents; she has to make the judgment herself. The legislation does not say that the decision about whether to apply for a TPIM—as, before, with the decision about whether to apply for a control order—should be delegated to a panel of the police or the intelligence services. It is a judgment for her.

We needed to know, not least so that we could understand the Home Secretary’s own confidence in the measures that she has recommended to the House, whether she thought that the individuals in question continued to pose a risk. She did not answer that question. That is one of a great many reasons why I believe that she herself has little confidence in the process that she has brought into legislation and why we should strongly support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Let me say at the outset that this Government regard protecting the British public from terrorism as absolutely one of the most important functions of the state. I stress the seriousness and weight that the Home Secretary, other Ministers and I attach to the exercise of these powers, and therefore the careful consideration that we give to them.

We have been consistently clear that violence and extremism of all kinds have no place in today’s society. We believe that individuals who engage in terrorist activity should be prosecuted wherever and whenever possible. The right place for terrorists is behind bars. In that context—I am sure that this will be supported by Members in all parts of the House—I recognise and pay tribute to the work of the police and the security services in protecting the security of our country and pursuing those who would seek to do us harm.

However, where individuals who pose a threat to this country and its people cannot be prosecuted or deported, we need powerful measures that can help manage the risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made that point clearly. That was exactly why we took stock and reviewed the control orders that the previous Government had used. Despite what a number of Members have said today, it was clear to us that control orders were not working as they were intended to.

During the six years for which control orders existed, seven people absconded. Moreover, they were being steadily eroded by the courts. A total of eight were either quashed or revoked because they were thought wrong in principle, because they were believed no longer to be necessary or because the previous Government were unable to make a disclosure ordered by the court. Furthermore, in four cases the relocation of individuals subject to control orders was quashed. That was why we judged that the state of affairs was untenable. The British public rightly expect protection from dangerous individuals, and we needed a robust system that would provide effective and workable restrictions. We therefore ordered a lengthy and considered review of our counter-terrorism powers against the risk that then existed.

We judge that TPIMs have proved effective and workable. They have consistently been upheld by the courts, they have been endorsed by two separate independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation and they have the confidence of the police and the Security Service. To quote David Anderson, they are a “harsh measure” that provide some of the toughest controls possible in the democratic world. They provide for a comprehensive range of restrictions that can be placed on terror suspects, including daily reporting; overnight residence at a specified address; a ban on overseas travel; the wearing of a global positioning system tracking tag; limits on the use of telephones, computers and financial services and on association; and exclusion from specific places such as ports and airports. They give the police certainty about how individuals will be managed. In his first annual report on TPIMs, David Anderson stated:

“In terms of security, the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against untriable and undeportable persons who are judged on substantial grounds to be dangerous terrorists”.

[Mr Straw]

Since the Minister quotes Mr David Anderson with approval, does he also accept Mr Anderson’s view that the courts did not object in principle to the operation of the relocation provisions in control orders?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand—I am sure he will recognise this, as a former Home Secretary—that we need to focus on the management of dangerous offenders’ exit strategies and how they are released. As the Home Secretary made clear, the courts struck down relocation on a number of occasions. Our concern has been, and always will be, about having a continuing arrangement to provide assurance about the management of such offenders. Most importantly, the police and the Security Service, whose opinions are after all the ones we should listen to on the subject, say that TPIMs have been effective in disrupting individuals and networks that pose a threat to this country’s security. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, however, they are only one weapon in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

[Mr Straw]

With respect to the Minister, that was not an answer to the question that I posed. Given that he quoted Mr Anderson with approval, does he accept Mr Anderson’s considered opinion that the courts did not in principle stand in the way of the operation of relocation?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members have implied that, in essence, the measure was a silver bullet and the solution, but that absolutely was not the case. The courts have challenged relocation in individual cases, and it is therefore important for us to reflect on that in the management of those individuals.

As my colleague the Home Secretary has made clear, TPIMs are only one weapon in our fight against extremism and terrorism. They are used only in exceptional circumstances as part of measures designed to disrupt a person’s activities—in other words, part of the bigger picture that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) mentioned. Alongside TPIMs, the Government provided additional funding of tens of millions of pounds a year to the Security Service and the police, substantially increasing their surveillance and counter-terrorism capabilities. In addition to TPIMs, a range of tough measures are in place to disrupt the activities of people engaged in terrorist activities, and prevent people from becoming radicalised.

We are using the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals whom we believe want to travel abroad to take part in terrorist and extremist activity, and who on their return would pose a threat to this country. We have strong controls in place at British ports, and the National Border Targeting Centre is able to check advance passenger information provided by carriers, and identify any known persons of interest who intend to travel. We have the power to exclude extremists and preachers of hate from coming to this country, and where necessary we may consider the use of other disruptive powers, including deprivation of British citizenship where an individual is a dual national and the Home Secretary determines that such action is conducive to the public good.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

This is an issue to which my hon. Friend has paid much attention in her constituency. I understand that the mosque authorities have been co-operating with the police and we welcome that co-operation. She refers to radicalisation. Within our counter-terrorism strategy we have the Prevent strand, which is precisely to ensure that young people and others do not find themselves being radicalised, and that we can exercise interventions, particularly through the Channel programme, to help to stop that radicalisation taking place. As I said in relation to the mosque where this individual was last sighted, I am pleased that the mosque authorities have been co-operating with the police.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

In the light of no abscondings under control orders in the five years from 2007 after they were strengthened, but two abscondings in the past 10 months since TPIMs, which the Home Secretary introduced, greatly weakened the controls on these individuals, does she not think that a little contrition rather than bombast would be appropriate in these circumstances? Does she not recognise that the fundamental responsibility of any Home Secretary is to take proper measures to protect the safety and security of the British people? She has failed to do so by acting irresponsibly in weakening the powers available to control terrorists.

[Mrs May]

May I first say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is my first opportunity in the Chamber to note that he has announced his retirement from politics? He has given many years of service to this House, to his constituents and to the Government in various roles. I am sure there are many people who will be sorry to see him go from this Chamber.

National security is always the Government’s first priority. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures. I have to say to him that, yes, there have been two absconds in the two years that TPIMs have been in place, but there were seven absconds in six years under control orders. As I made clear in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, the control order regime was gradually being eroded by the courts. What we now have under TPIMs is a legally supported regime that puts measures in place to control and provide for those individuals whom we cannot prosecute, but who present a risk. The best place for any individual who is a terrorist is behind bars.

Immigration Bill

Jack Straw Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No, I have been very generous in giving way. Let me say to Labour Members and to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that one of the problems we have seen in some family visit appeals in the past—this is why we removed the family visit appeal process—is that people have introduced new information into the appeals mechanism in the time since the original decision. That means that the decision in an appeal that is won is not necessarily based on the original case but may be based on the case put forward on appeal, which may be different. The hon. Lady needs to be careful when she quotes figures.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I give way to the former Home Secretary.

[Mr Straw]

May I correct the right hon. Lady on one thing? Long experience tells me that the tribunals do not accept information that has come in after the original application was made; it would sometimes be better if they did. We are all interested in streamlining the system. However, given the very high number of decisions on appeal that overturn the original decisions by the Home Office or the immigration officials abroad, what guarantee can she offer that the quality of the reviews that will now be undertaken by Home Office officials as an alternative to appeals will be subject to proper supervision? In my experience, when we had those reviews before we often got poor-quality decision making and people within the Department saying, “Oh well, if so and so has already said no, I’m going to say no too.” If that happens we end up with more judicial reviews.

[Mrs May]

First, tribunals do accept, and have been accepting—we have seen examples of this—information that has come forward after the original application was made prior to the appeal. The figures that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion quoted related to family visit appeals. We have already removed the ability to appeal on a family visit visa. It takes less time and is slightly cheaper for people to reapply and, if they have further information, to put it into the appeals mechanism. Of course, we need to ensure that the system is operating properly, and we will be looking to ensure that, through the operation of the ability to challenge administrative error, we ensure that people are making decisions fairly on the basis of the decision that is put in front of them.

Undercover Policing

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right that it is important that the investigation into the special demonstration squad covers other cases. That is exactly what Chief Constable Creedon is determined to do. Although there is a specific allegation about the work of the SDS in respect of the Stephen Lawrence murder, it is important that the investigation covers a wider range of activities. Its remit will allow it to do just that.

If I may correct myself, I said that the SDS was disbanded more than a decade ago. In fact, it was disbanded in the late 2000s, which is not quite a decade ago.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I welcome the prompt and positive action the Home Secretary has taken this morning in light of these revelations. I am sure they will be welcomed by the Lawrence family, who may be forgiven for believing that they have been punished twice over for the fact that they inconveniently allowed their son to be murdered while he stood innocently at a bus stop in south London in 1993. Does the Home Secretary accept that I, as Home Secretary, and the Metropolitan Police Authority knew absolutely nothing about the allegations, notwithstanding that it was well known that I established the Macpherson inquiry and wanted to know everything there was to know about the Metropolitan police’s conduct of that investigation? That conduct alone is reprehensible, as is the fact that we now understand that such information was kept from Lord Condon, the then commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Does she agree that finding out why we were kept in the dark, and, more importantly, why the Macpherson inquiry was kept in the dark, should be a focus of the investigation?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he says, he established the Macpherson inquiry and was in office when it published its report. At the time, there were some very concerning issues regarding the way the murder was investigated, both originally and later on, and the attitude, which the Macpherson inquiry looked into, of the Metropolitan police. He is right that we should be very concerned if information was deliberately withheld from those who should have been given it, which is why I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at the issue of the information that was given to the Macpherson inquiry. The remit of Operation Herne, now under Chief Constable Creedon, includes looking at reporting mechanisms within the SDS, and at how information was disseminated.

Alcohol: Minimum Unit Price

Jack Straw Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

There is a range of answers. [Laughter.] There is a serious point here and it will emerge in this session, so let me address it. There are young people who drink cheap alcohol in excessive quantities and are price-sensitive when buying alcohol, so they are likely to be deterred from buying alcohol, to a degree, by minimum unit pricing. However, people on low incomes who consume alcohol responsibly would pay more under minimum unit pricing, and a number of representations have stated that the policy is unreasonable on that basis. We have to weigh up all those representations and points of view. The previous Government did not consider this matter at all. We are considering it carefully and will announce our conclusions when we are ready to do so.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Is the Minister not aware that the very low price of the alcohol sold in supermarkets and convenience stores is the fundamental problem behind the abuse of alcohol and that is not only, in turn, leading, as the university of Sheffield has estimated, to 10,000 unnecessary deaths over 10 years, but it is harming the decent pub trade and accelerating the closure of pubs? So this policy will benefit responsible drinking and also greatly reduce the health harm to a large number of young people. Why does the Minister not just get on and implement it? [Interruption.]

[Mr Browne]

As is being said around me, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have made a good case for why he should have taken action when he was Home Secretary. He chose not to do that, but he has explained one side of the argument on minimum unit pricing, and a number of representations replicated the point he has just made.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Jack Straw Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for her remarks in support of amendment 100, which we have tabled along with other hon. Friends, and to the Solicitor-General for what he had to say in anticipation of my remarks. I look forward to his acceptance of my amendment and to the other changes, which I broadly endorse, to the 2005 arrangements for judicial appointments.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has 12 justices. Just one has been a woman—Baroness Hale. Towards the end of last year, three vacancies on the Supreme Court bench arose. A special panel, as provided by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, was established to fill those vacancies. I am quite sure that the panel applied itself to the highest standards for the selection process. The candidates who were successful are all jurists of the highest quality. Their names were announced last month. All three are men. So this country’s highest court will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be composed of 11 men and one woman. Therein lies the problem.

As the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, said last year in evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee,

“if…women are not less good judges than men, why are 80% or 90% of judges male? It suggests, purely on a statistical basis, that we do not have the best people because there must be some women out there who are better than the less good men who are judges.”

The figures are stark: the further up the judicial ladder you go, the fewer and fewer women there are to be found.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington referred to the important lecture that Baroness Hale gave recently. Baroness Hale set out the figures:

“22.5% of the judges in the ordinary courts…are women and 4.2% are British minority ethnic…Only 26.6% of the upper tribunal judiciary are women, though 11% are BME.”

When we get to the High Court, just 15% are women and 4.5% BME; 10% of Court of Appeal judges are women; none is black or Asian. She said that

“none of the five heads of division is a woman or BME; and in the Supreme Court there is still only me and the only ethnic minorities we have are the Scots and the Irish…The average”—

for judiciaries—

“across the countries in the Council of Europe is 52% men and 48% women. At 23% England and Wales is fourth from the bottom, followed only by Azerbaijan, Scotland and Armenia.”

These days everyone—more or less—agrees with Lord Neuberger’s sentiment that women are just as qualified to do any job, including the top jobs, as are men. The problem is that, for the judiciary, the system is simply not delivering the equality of outcome that we all seek. It was supposed to do so. When the current statutory system of judicial appointments was established in 2005, one of the arguments advanced for the new, independent Judicial Appointments Commission was that it would be able to advance the diversity of the judiciary in terms both of gender and of ethnicity.

Initially, progress with that commission was frustratingly slow, as both I, as Lord Chancellor, and my permanent secretary, Sir Suma Chakrabarti, repeatedly made clear to its then chair. I happily concede that there have been some more recent improvements, and I know of the personal commitment of the new chair, Chris Stephens, to see the commission do better, and of the steps he is taking. Those steps are necessary but, with respect to Mr Stephens, they are not in my view sufficient.

Part of the problem has been the wording of the 2005 Act, which requires the Judicial Appointments Commission to select solely “on merit”. I will come back to that loaded concept in a moment. The Bill seeks to qualify “on merit” by a provision in part 2 of schedule 13 which essentially allows the commission, where it judges that there are

“two persons of equal merit”,

to choose the woman, or the black or Asian candidate.

I am not cavilling, and that provision may help a little, but some of this country’s much better legal brains than me tell me that it can only help a little, since “merit” is likely to be narrowly defined for these purposes. Indeed, one of Lady Hale’s colleagues on the Supreme Court, Lord Sumption, has challenged the whole idea of equal merit. He was formerly a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission, and he said that at the

“upper end of the ability range there is usually clear water between every candidate once one looks at them in detail.”

He went on:

“If you dilute the principle of selecting only the most talented candidates by introducing criteria other than individual merit, you will by definition end up with a bench on which there are fewer outstanding people. But there is a more serious problem even than that. It is the impact that the change would have on applications.”

Happily, Lord Sumption’s view is not shared by Lady Hale, as her recent lecture made clear, nor, it would seem, by the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, who, I believe, is on the side of light and whose frustration with the present outcomes shone through in a recent interview he gave to The Guardian in which he dissected the concept of merit—that is my gloss, not his words—and discussed how loaded it could be in practice. He said of the appointment process:

“I’m not saying there is a subconscious bias…what worries me is that we may all be suffering from a subconscious bias which by definition may be difficult to show or to prove.”

It might, he suggested, be a subconscious expectation of

“having an image of a judge with…male-type qualities and a male appearance. I’m not saying we do have that but there’s a risk that we do and it’s difficult to know how to cater for it.”

I agree entirely.

When I joined the House 34 years ago, just 19 Members—less than 3%—were women. Today, there are 143 women MPs, or 22% of the 650—seven times the proportion when I became an MP. The Labour party has managed to increase its proportion of women MPs to over a third; the Conservatives are now up to 15%. The proportion of black and Asian MPs is now up to 4.2%. For the first time in my parliamentary career, the House of Commons is beginning to look more like the society it represents, but the numbers are still not good enough.

We know two things. First, progress could not have been achieved without the special measures for women’s selection pioneered by my party, and commendably adopted in modified form by the Conservative party. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that the quality of women MPs, or of black and Asian MPs, is any less than that of white men. I do not at this stage suggest that we adopt similar measures of explicit positive discrimination for the judiciary, although it may come to that if we continue to trail badly in the league tables. Canada adopted positive discrimination measures, which made a big difference to representation on the bench, and it has certainly not affected the quality of the Canadian judiciary.

Instead, the amendments that I have tabled with my hon. Friends would put on the statute book provisions that have been law in part of the United Kingdom for nine years, and which are plainly working, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington set out. Amendment 100 is a direct lift from provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004. The Minister may say in his reply that the Government are doing quite a lot, and urge us to look, for example, at paragraph 11 of schedule 13 on page 224 of the Bill. The problem—although that measure is better than other provisions—is that it requires the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to

“take such steps as that office-holder considers appropriate for the purpose of encouraging judicial diversity.”

In other words, the test is entirely subjective, whereas as my hon. Friend said, our proposed provisions, which are already law, have been operated successfully by successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, in Northern Ireland. As Lord Chancellor for Northern Ireland until the transfer of judicial functions in 2009, I operated those provisions, and they caused no difficulty at all. Instead of a subjective test, under the amendment the duties on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice

“would secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable…that appointments to listed judicial offices are…reflective of the community in England and Wales”.

They would also ensure that a range of persons who are reflective of that community can come forward for those positions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

May I start where the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) left off? I entirely accept that what has happened since 2005 has been very disappointing indeed. We had high hopes. I was involved in the debates at that time and we expected that we would see far more women at the very top of the judiciary than we have done. He mentioned one out of 12 in the Supreme Court. I believe it is four out of 38 in the Court of Appeal. It is not acceptable and there is no question but that more needs to be done.

As the right hon. Gentleman conceded to some extent, we have done much in the Bill to try to achieve that, starting with flexible working, which could make a difference, and the tipping-point provisions where two people are of an equal standard. There has been a long debate in the legal profession and among judges about exactly what merit means in this context. Lord Bingham and Lord Phillips previously said that it was the judicial qualities, plus what the needs of the Court were, which had to be put together to establish what the commission should be looking for. One of the needs of the Court is to have the wisdom of highly intelligent women who have sat as judges for many years and who come to the role with the experience of women, which is, admittedly, different in all parts of the House. We are very keen to see the position improved.

There are one or two encouraging signs. For example, those entering the legal profession are now balanced and there is some progress, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at the lower levels. There is no question but that more needs to be done. The Bill makes a start with the flexible working and the tipping point. There was a great deal of discussion in the other place about how to try to make matters go forward faster, and it was accepted there that one way would be a statutory duty underpinning the leadership role of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That is why, as the right hon. Gentleman said, paragraph 11 of schedule 13 provides that both office holders must take such steps as they consider appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is correct that that is not the application of an objective standard. We are putting trust in the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to take this matter seriously and come up with a plan for the steps they consider appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity. For my part, given that we have not done that previously, and given that I trust those office holders to take it seriously and pursue it vigorously, I am prepared to give them the chance without making it an objective standard. We are putting trust in them, under paragraph 11 of schedule 13, to do the job. I believe that the current Lord Chief Justice takes that very seriously—I have discussed it with him and he certainly gives that impression—as does the Lord Chancellor.

[Mr Straw]

I have the highest regard for the Lord Chief Justice and, as it happens, for the Lord Chancellor, so that is not the issue. Will the hon. Gentleman explain something for me? Exactly the same arguments could have been used with regard to the Northern Ireland judiciary, because we were trusting the same Lord Chancellor—the same person—until 2009, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is a man of the highest quality. Therefore, if these measures have not only been needed in Northern Ireland but have worked, why is the hon. Gentleman moving on to say—I think he is about to do so—that they are not needed in England and Wales?

[The Solicitor-General]

What I am saying is that the new provision was accepted in the other place, with wide acclaim—the Opposition thought that it was a major move forward—and an agreement about the way forward was established, so it is perhaps wrong for this House simply to say, “Oh well. Let’s nudge it another inch.” If Parliament is prepared to say that there will be a legal duty on those officer holders to take those steps, that seems to me to be a step forward. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in that great role, would have taken it lightly if Parliament had told him that he must take such steps as he considered appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity.

Police Integrity

Jack Straw Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I expect that the College of Policing will make a real difference. I believe setting up a professional standards body for the police that will set standards and take on many of the ACPO business areas in looking at those standards, as well as dealing with the ethics of policing for the area that it covers and with the training and development of officers, will give a boost to officers in terms of their professionalism and the regard in which they are held. I am pleased that Professor Shirley Pearce, former vice-chancellor of Loughborough university, is the chairman. We also have a very energetic chief executive in Chief Constable Alex Marshall, and I am pleased that members of the police force at all ranks are part of the college, including members of police staff. It is important that it covers everybody.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary who established the IPCC in the first place, may I welcome the announcements by the Home Secretary today, which seem a sensible development of those powers? I have two questions. First, the chair of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, served for seven years as an extremely effective and independent chief inspector of prisons and I have confidence in her work and ability to take forward the IPCC. Since the Home Secretary has not mentioned Dame Anne, would she like to do so?

My second point concerns the relationship between the professional standards units of individual forces and the IPCC. I understand that at a time of limited resources, money has to come from somewhere and that some transfer is sensible. However, will the Home Secretary take care to ensure that professional standards units in individual forces are not so denuded that they cannot do their crucial initial work of identifying early possible bad police officers, and of investigating complaints that may start at a low level but turn into more serious matters that need to be allocated to the IPCC?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, I see this as a development of the IPCC. Its role over the years has been changing and this is a necessary and important development. Dame Anne Owers has done an excellent job since becoming chairman of the IPCC. The role is changing slightly from the one she first came to, but she is addressing it with great distinction and commitment, as one would expect from her. Indeed, in her time overseeing prisons she built up a reputation for herself and her independence, and it is good that we have somebody with that reputation as chair of the IPCC.

On the transfer of services, the point is that work will be transferring from professional standards departments to the IPCC, so it therefore makes sense to transfer resources. We are not talking about not having professional standards departments at all, and a discussion will be had with forces about the level of that transfer and where the boundary appropriately falls.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No. What I say to the hon. Gentleman and others who have concerns is that this is the only visitor category that retains a full right of appeal. As a result, I think we see some abuse in this system. It is better to focus the resources available for the immigration appeals systems on those appeals, such as on the refusal of asylum, that could have a far greater impact on the lives of the individuals concerned.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I ask the Home Secretary to expand on two things? First, will she expand on her suggestion that initially the right of appeal in visitor cases extended beyond families, because that is simply not true? I introduced it as Home Secretary, and it was only ever applied in respect of family visitors and not more widely, as I remember. Secondly, can she explain what she means by the word “abuse”? Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have plenty of appeal cases, and the purpose of the appeal is to filter out those appeals that are genuine from those that may be an abuse. Since at least a third of appeals are successful, however, there is no possible argument for abandoning this right of appeal.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the family visit route is the only visit route that has this right of appeal. Of course, it is not being abused in all cases. I mention the word “abuse”, because what often happens in the system at the moment with these appeals is that a decision is taken by immigration officers on the basis of the evidence available to them at the application stage. When the appeal goes forward, further evidence is introduced, and it often does not have the same degree of attention and consideration given to it as is given by immigration officers to the evidence given to them in the application process. What we see is not an appeal against the decision of the immigration officer. In many cases—I would say in most cases—an appeal is heard on the basis of different evidence.

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and there are one or two others.

[Mr Straw]

Our constituencies differ. Over the past 30 years, I have dealt with hundreds of visitor appeals, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady that what she is being told by her officials is very different from my experience. In the vast majority of cases that go to appeal, the initial evidence has been made available by the applicant, here and abroad, to the entry clearance officers. It is the fact that that evidence has not been properly treated by the immigration officers that then leads to appeals. I ask her to look at the evidence base on which she is relying.

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in many cases the appeal process for family visit visas is being used just as a means to present fresh evidence into the appeals system in support of the application, and that is not the point of an appeals process. There is another point for individuals who go through the appeals process: if fresh evidence is available, they should make a fresh application. It takes less time for a fresh application to be considered than for an appeal to be considered. With a fresh application, people will on average be able to have a decision within 15 days, rather than eight months with the appeals process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and to commend the measure that now appears in the Bill.

Ever since the principles of British policing began to be established two centuries ago, there has been a natural and inherent tension between the demand of the British public that policing should be local and the reality that many of the threats that individuals face arise nationally and internationally. The history of British policing in part reflects an effort to try to square the circle of the demand for local control and the reality of national and international threats. When there were 125 police forces in England and Wales alone, the circle was squared by the Metropolitan police having a dual function not only as the force for Greater London, extending far beyond Greater London’s boundaries, taking in a third of Surrey, big chunks of Essex and Hertfordshire, but as a national force as well. For the 30 years following the seminal Police Act 1964, there was a further squaring of the circle by successive Governments, effectively detaching the police from local influence by ensuring that police authorities had very little in the way of democratic representation and the Home Office reigned supreme.

Over the past 20 years that has changed. A succession of measures, in which I was involved partly, has led to increasing local involvement in policing—first when I started the abolition of the role of the Home Secretary as the police authority for London; then with the gradual strengthening of the powers of the Mayor for London as the police authority; and much more recently with the establishment of police and crime commissioners. Taken together, those things mean that the accountability of those for our territorial police forces will increasingly be based on local considerations. That being so, there is a greater danger than ever before that national and international concerns could be marginalised. It is for that reason that I welcome the establishment of the National Crime Agency—the result of gradual development that began in 1992 and of many changes under Labour’s Administration. For those who have a weak stomach, as it were, I should say that it is inevitable that the Bill should give powers of tasking to the new director general of the National Crime Agency by which he or she can issue orders, effectively, to local police forces. Without that ultimate power, there will be an imbalance in the priorities that territorial forces can set.

I also happen to believe that there is a very strong case indeed for handing over counter-terrorist policing to the National Crime Agency, as the London police focus becomes more and more local. If that is to happen, however, it is essential that it is by way of primary legislation, not by way of super-affirmative orders. I care about the Minister’s reputation, so I tell him to stay away from super-affirmative orders. They can lead only to a vale of tears. Some Labour Members have gone down that vale and have been only too delighted to have been hooked out and extracted by right hon. and hon. Friends.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have been listening very carefully to what has been said. How would the right hon. Gentleman see the police and crime commissioners fitting in if the National Crime Agency were in charge of local police forces?

[Mr Straw]

My point is this: the establishment of the police and crime commissioners is a matter of party controversy, and we will see whether they are embedded or whether there is some change. In any event there has been an increasing focus on giving local people greater say over local policing, and I strongly support that, but it means that national and international priorities—the threats that lead to quite a lot of local crime—could be marginalised. That is why there is a powerful case for a National Crime Agency and the kind of powers of direction that are inherent there. As I say, we have to go a stage further and accept that there will be two levels of policing—a national police service and the local police services—and ultimately the national police service, the National Crime Agency, will have the power to direct the local police services to ensure that national priorities are met.

On the reform of the courts, I welcome the unification of the county courts, which makes complete sense. I particularly warmly welcome the establishment of a single family court. That arises from the review of family justice under David Norgrove, which I established with support from the then Opposition. I am really pleased that, thanks not least to Mr Norgrove’s great acuity and sensitivity about the way in which the system needs to reformed and further changed, it looks as though the review will have important and beneficial consequences.

I changed the law on self-defence back in 2008. I understand why the Justice Secretary was faced with a blank in his proposed speech to party conference and thought he needed to say something on this issue. I doubt very much whether it will make any difference at all, because the practice and the law have already changed satisfactorily, but I certainly will not oppose the measure and I do not think my right hon. Friends will either.

The next issue is the right of appeal on applications for visitor visas. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look again at the arguments that have been advanced to them by Home Office officials. No one—I say this without any levity at all—has greater affection for Home Office officials than do I. I went to great lengths in my memoirs—available in all good bookshops—to defend and to celebrate officialdom, not least in the Home Office. I never sought to blame officials when it is Ministers who set policy and implement it. However, the truth is—I may give away a secret, but too bad—that it is inconvenient for there to be a right of appeal in visitor cases. There was a lot of resistance to it when I introduced the right of appeal in 1998, and I can disclose that throughout the rest of my ministerial career, about once every two years there was a proposal from other Ministers, once I had left the Home Office, to abolish the right of visitor appeal. I blocked it, whatever position I was in. That is why it survived.

[Keith Vaz]

Another secret missing from my right hon. Friend’s memoirs is the fact that when I was entry clearance Minister he was one of my biggest customers. The important point about that is that the element of discretion—the need to look again at the decision—is absolutely vital, whether it is a Minister saying that they will overturn the decision or whether it goes to appeal. With the reluctance of immigration Ministers to exercise discretion, it is vital that people get the chance to look again.

[Mr Straw]

My book is being reprinted, I am pleased to say, but when there is a revised edition I will add that. The truth is that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As successful as the right hon. Gentleman’s book is, I am sure that we do not need to get bogged down in his book sales. We look forward to the next volume.

[Mr Straw]

The truth is that my right hon. Friend had to make those ministerial decisions because visitor appeals had not been introduced at that stage. Ministers will end up with a lot more demands on their plate, among other things, if they take the route of abolishing visitor appeals.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this provision is more important than it was when he introduced it, because a number of our constituents will not be able to satisfy the current price of bringing a husband, for example, into the country, and it is therefore likely that there will be many fathers who can never even see their children in this country?

[Mr Straw]

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says.

Like the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have looked at the analysis put forward by the Home Office, and I am afraid that I am sceptical about the evidence, which collides with my experience and, I believe, that of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Government Members who have large immigration case loads. It is rare, in my experience, for constituents and their relatives abroad not to have produced the evidence first time round. Much more frequently, they produce the evidence and it is then overlooked. Time and again, my office and I face the situation where the evidence has been submitted and it has been overlooked by the entry clearance officer or has got lost. It may appear to the tribunal to be new evidence, because for sure it is new evidence to the entry clearance officer, but it is not correct to draw the conclusion that that evidence has never gone before immigration officers. Even if that is the case, the fact that a third of appeals are upheld shows that there is important merit in having such a right of appeal. To argue—I hope that the Minister does not do this—that it would be just as satisfactory to re-submit an application is, frankly, disingenuous in the extreme. I have seen constituents re-submit applications in respect of non-family cases, where there is no right of appeal, and all that happens is that the application is turned down again and they have wasted their money.

My final point relates to judicial appointments. I strongly support the proposed changes in respect of diversity. The apparently prosaic change to allow for the number of judges to be counted by full-time equivalents and not by full-time numbers will make a very important contribution to the employment of the part-time judges, typically female, at every level. Also very important are the tipping-point provisions to allow for the Judicial Appointments Commission to take into account somebody’s gender or colour if two candidates are of equal merit.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Straw]

I am afraid that I am running out of time.

I depart from the Government on their proposals for very senior appointments—to the Supreme Court, for the Lord Chief Justice and for the heads of division. Initially the Bill included a proposal by the former Lord Chancellor by which the Lord Chancellor would sit on the appointments panel for those very senior appointments. That has been withdrawn from the Bill in place of consultation. The current arrangements, which include consultation, do not work. It is entirely legitimate for the Lord Chancellor to have a role—not the decisive role, but a role—in these very senior appointments, because what the Supreme Court is doing has very clear political consequences and what the Lord Chief Justice and heads of division are doing has very clear Executive and administrative consequences. The current Lord Chancellor may not wish to sit on the appointments panel—that is his choice—but it is important for the benefit of future holders of that office that the power should be available, and I ask the Minister to look at that again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I think those receiving the sentence will know. I cannot set out the details, because that is for the courts. Anything that requires the deprivation of liberty at a particular time or the performance of a task at a certain time can contribute to the punitive element of a sentence.

Let me move on to deal with some of the detailed points raised during the course of the debate.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I suspect I will not be able to deal with them all—in fact, I certainly will not be able to do so, but I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Straw]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his train of thought when he says that demystifying what happens in the courts will automatically lead to a rise of public confidence in them?

[Damian Green]

As a former Lord Chancellor, as well as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will surely wish to join me in paying tribute to the judiciary, who will be the first people to be televised giving verdicts in the high courts. I am sure he will agree that that will help to explain the decisions they come to.

Returning to detailed points in the debate, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) congratulated the Government on clause 38. Having been a Member of the House for 15 years, I have to say that this is the first time I have ever heard him do so for any Government, and I look forward to many more such occasions in the coming months and years.

Olympics (Security)

Jack Straw Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that has not previously been raised with me. I will look into it, but it is of course for G4S to decide how it will provide the numbers. It has had significant difficulties in scheduling both existing staff and the new staff that it is bringing in, but I have noted his point.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Given the scale of the shortfall between what G4S contracted to provide and what it is now providing, which must have been obvious upon inquiry, is the Home Secretary saying that G4S was guilty of wilful deception of HMIC, or was there some failure in the monitoring of what G4S was doing?

[Mrs May]

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks at some of the comments that G4S has made about its situation. It may be of interest to the House to know that the accreditation process has accredited more than 20,000 G4S personnel. The problem for G4S has been allocating personnel to particular venue security tasks through its scheduling programme. It was when it examined that situation and saw the difficulties it was having that it came to the Government last Wednesday and said that it could not meet its full contractual obligation.