Wanless Review

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: I did want this report to be published separately today. I thought it was appropriate to do so, rather than publishing it on the same day that I was making the statement about the panel inquiry, so that there are opportunities for this House to look at the document, which has been put in the Library. I recognise that hon. Members at this point will not necessarily have been able to look at the inquiry report as fully as I have, but obviously that opportunity will be open to them.

The right hon. Lady said the review terms of reference were too narrow. I disagree. The review was set up to give the public confidence that the reviews that had been commissioned by the permanent secretary were rigorous and fair, and the review confirms that they were. Unfortunately, of course, it does not prove or disprove that the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s, but, as I said, that is not the only aspect of this case, and we should not give up now.

The right hon. Lady asked about the historical allegations and how they were being dealt with. A number of historical allegations are already being dealt with and are under police investigation. For example, there is Operation Pallial in north Wales and there are also all the Operation Yewtree investigations around the Jimmy Savile case, and, indeed, we have seen some historical allegations against individuals being brought to court already and some people being prosecuted as a result of that work.

In relation to the specific question about Don Hale and the comments he made, I did not hear his whole interview on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning, but I recognise the allegations he has made, so my office has been in discussions with the Metropolitan police today and the Metropolitan police have agreed that they will now look into those allegations.

The right hon. Lady referred to investigating cover-ups. The point about the panel inquiry is that it will be looking at what the institutions did: it will look at what happened and ask, for example, why was it that children in care homes were abused to the extent that they were; why was it that allegations were not properly dealt with; and why was it that institutions—bodies of government, of the state—that were there and should have been protecting people, and investigating and properly dealing with allegations of criminality, did not do so? Sadly, obviously as we have seen in relation to the Rotherham inquiry and the work in Greater Manchester, some of these issues still pertain today. So that is what the inquiry will look at. Of course if it uncovers anything that relates to criminal activity that has taken place, it will be appropriate for that to be properly investigated by the police. I have said before that I am discussing the question of resources in relation to this, and I have already had a conversation with the national policing lead about these matters.

I want to confirm two further things. Some people have expressed concern about what evidence can be given to these inquiries in relation to the former officials who had signed the Official Secrets Act. I am very clear that the Official Secrets Act should not get in the way of anybody giving evidence to the panel inquiry or bringing forward any evidence that they have that is relevant to this issue. If anyone who knows something is worried about the Official Secrets Act, they should come forward and speak out.

Also, in their report Wanless and Whittam found that there was no inappropriate behaviour or cover-up when the Home Office recently reviewed these matters. However, as I said, that does not prove or disprove allegations about the Home Office in the 1980s. Their verdict is “case not proved”, rather than “not guilty”. I cannot stand here and say that the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up during the 1980s. There might have been a cover-up, and that is why we have set up the inquiry into child abuse. We are determined to get to the truth.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to leave no stone unturned in addressing the deficiencies of the Home Office’s record keeping in the period between 1979 and 1999. Will she give me an assurance that the recommendations of the report have now been adopted, that child abuse allegations received by the Home Office are being marked as significant, that a record is being kept of what is passed on to the police and that there is a procedure for following up what happens after that?

[Mrs May]

As I said earlier, the permanent secretary has accepted all the recommendations, and they are being put into place at the moment to ensure that the systems record information appropriately in the way that Wanless and Whittam have recommended, so that it will be possible to follow through any matters that are passed to the police to ensure that they are being properly recorded and dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I shall certainly try to be pithy, as you request, Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are introducing exit checks from next spring and they will do what he has sought, which is counting people out—the previous Government got rid of that. On benefit reforms, I hope he will welcome the fact that we have introduced changes to ensure that people from the EU cannot claim benefits until they have been here for three months and that that benefit entitlement is then limited to six months, reducing to three months next month.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the socialist taxation policies of its Government, which some in this place would seek to introduce here, France remains a safe and wonderfully civilised country, as no doubt are the many other countries that have been crossed by those who are camped at Calais and seeking to launch asylum applications in this country?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Dublin regulations and the fact that we do return people to other EU member states, because it is right that people seeking humanitarian protection should claim it in the first country in which they arrive. Obviously, we are stepping up security around Calais, and he will be aware of the announcement the Home Secretary made last month about the work we are doing with the French Government to ensure greater security around the port of Calais. Indeed, we are working very closely with the French authorities.

Passport Applications

James Clappison Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have said that we are making arrangements —I said the same in the House last week—to ensure that people who have an urgent need to travel but have not received their passports within three weeks can be upgraded free of charge.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach as I welcome the measures she has put in place to deal with these matters. In response to what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just said, will she confirm that, particularly in the case of first-time applications and cases that are not straightforward, these are important and sensitive documents, and security must always come first?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why those applications take more time and why it is important to have first-time interviews. Some people may have applied thinking that they had a straightforward case, but because documents are missing, the form has not been completed properly, or the Passport Office has a query about the information provided, their case ceases to be straightforward and becomes more complex, thus taking longer to deal with.

Stop-and-Search

James Clappison Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has more experience in this House than me in terms of the number of years served. The first issue he raised is absolutely one of the problems. I attended a public meeting held by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in the House of Commons, when she brought people from black and ethnic minority communities to the House to talk about their experience, and they very forcefully made clear to me what that experience was. I more recently met a group of young students from a school in Wandsworth who were very clear about the impact stop-and-search has on their attitude towards the police. Their assumption is that it will happen to them, whereas, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) says, the figures show that the assumption of a young white male is that it will not happen to him.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the package announced by my right hon. Friend. It is wide-ranging, long-needed and, as has been said, in line with what the Home Affairs Committee has been saying for a long time. Does she share my hope that it will take some of the controversy out of stop-and-search, and that in future there will be a consensus whereby stop-and-search is used effectively in the interests of protecting the public and that it will recognised in all quarters as such?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree. We need to restore the public’s confidence in stop-and-search, but all the evidence —as we are already seeing from the steps taken by the Metropolitan police and one or two other forces—is that when the power is targeted and used effectively and well, not only is it more effective in its purpose of protecting the public, but the public have greater confidence in it.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that on issues of this sort—and on the violence against women and girls agenda generally—we work with the Welsh Government and others. We are always willing to look at experience and practice, as well as at what others have found useful in dealing with this appalling crime.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the Government’s declaration on female genital mutilation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that political or cultural sensitivities should never get in the way of tackling what is an awful abuse and crime?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. This is an appalling abuse of young girls and we should ensure that we deal with it as such. It is right that we should not allow cultural sensitivities or concerns to get in the way of dealing with what is, at root, a crime.

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession

James Clappison Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Despite all the evidence and warnings, the Labour party in government refused to impose transitional controls in 2004, but now it seeks to lecture us about immigration. I do not know whether the shadow Home Secretary has seen a copy of today’s Daily Mail, but it contains a fascinating article written by Britain’s ambassador in Warsaw in 2004, who describes the “incredulity” of the Poles when he told them that Britain would not be imposing transitional controls. He writes that the Polish Government

“instinctively knew what Tony Blair’s Labour government consistently denied: the immediate abolition of all border restrictions would lead to a surge of”

their people coming to these shores.

The Labour Government told us that only 13,000 people would come; the truth was that more than 1 million came. It was the biggest single influx this country has ever experienced, and who suffered as a result? The right hon. Lady talks about doing something about wages and jobs. In the five years following Labour’s failure to impose transitional controls, more than 90% of the increase in employment in Britain was accounted for by foreign nationals. Under this Government, thanks to our measures to control immigration and reform welfare, two thirds of the increase in employment has been accounted for by British people.

But if the right hon. Lady does not want to listen to me or the former British ambassador to Poland, perhaps she should listen to the succession of former Labour Home Secretaries who have admitted what the British people already knew. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) describes the failure to impose transitional controls as a “spectacular mistake”. And let us remember: it was not just European immigration that Labour let get out of control, but all forms of immigration. Under Labour, net immigration reached 2.2 million, which is twice the population of the city of Birmingham.

I come again to the right hon. Lady’s point about what is being done on wages and jobs. The Labour Government knew just what they were doing. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), the Leader of the Opposition’s policy guru, has said that Labour were

“using migration to introduce a covert 21st century incomes policy.”

Labour, which claims to be the party of the working man and woman, admits that it used immigration deliberately to keep down wages.

In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question, I have gone through what the Government are doing to prepare for January: we have been making full use of transitional controls; we are tightening the immigration rules so that we do not gold-plate EU free-movement rules; we are limiting the pull factors that attract people to Britain; we are ensuring a strong operational response to the challenges brought by free movement; and we are working with other member states to cut out the abuse of free movement. She claims we have done nothing about the habitual residence test, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has tightened it, and that is already in operation. We want to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and ensure we address the problems caused by free movement as part of that renegotiation.

In its 13 years in government Labour did nothing about those issues. The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today show that she has not learned any lessons from 2004, has failed to come up with any solutions of her own and has failed to support our plan to fix the problems caused by free movement in the renegotiation. On this issue, as on others, she has no credibility whatsoever.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly adverted to the fact that the previous Government, virtually alone among the major economies, allowed unfettered access to this country to the large populations of the accession countries in 2004. Will she assure me that this Government will not do what the previous Government further did, which was, at the same time, to grant a large number of work permits to workers from outside the EU, in a policy that has never been properly explained and remains mysterious to this day, even though it sounds very much as though the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) would like to repeat it.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

TPIMs remain on the statute book as a tool that can be used when it is most appropriate to do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we would prefer to see anyone who is in any way involved in terrorism being prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail. As David Anderson has said, the only really secure place for someone who is a terrorist is behind bars. TPIMs remain on the statute book as a tool to be used when it is operationally appropriate to do so.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I also offer my full support to my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that we would do well to remember the long saga of detentions, control orders and absconding under the previous Government, following hard on the heels of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, which has made it so difficult to deal with dangerous people in our society? Can we now expect some humility, common sense and realism from those on the Opposition Benches regarding their responsibility for that?

[Mrs May]

We might expect that, but from everything we have seen today and on previous occasions, I fear that we shall not see much sign of getting it.

Immigration Bill

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Is it not also the case that the previous Government not only did nothing to encourage people to leave the country when they had overstayed, but instituted a series of amnesties that undermined the credibility of the whole system for overstaying people?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why any complaints we hear from Labour Members today will ring hollow with the people of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that the system has to be fair for people who have come here over many generations and who have contributed to this country and continue to do so. It is right that people who come here must contribute and be able to support themselves. Equally, the system has to be fair to all. There are considerable concerns that the system is not fair. The Home Secretary’s proposals do not address those concerns.

[Mr Clappison]

In the light of the right hon. Lady’s comments, will she tell us whether she would have a target for net migration if she were Home Secretary?

[Yvette Cooper]

As we have said before, the problem with a net migration target is that it encourages more British people to leave the country or to remain in other countries. The Prime Minister has promised—no ifs, no buts—that he would reach the net migration target of tens of thousands by the time of the election. On the Government’s own figures, net migration is going up.

We believe that the pace of migration matters. It is right to support measures that will bring the level of migration down, but we must also have serious measures to tackle illegal immigration and to ensure that the system is fair, including in its impact on employment and the workplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a landlord, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This has been a good debate with eloquent speeches from Members on both sides of the House, including excellent speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and many others. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill, which is—let it be said—the first major Immigration Bill of this Government and one that contains a number of sensible measures that I believe should have a beneficial effect.

I welcome the reforms to charge for national health service use, to deal with sham marriages and to reform article 8 as it relates to foreign criminals. I think that reform will strike a better balance with the public interest, for which I have called for a long time. It is worth pausing to remember that the people whose cases we are discussing have come to this country and have committed serious offences, sometimes really serious offences, which should call into question the public interest of allowing them to remain here.

I also welcome the measures that are designed to streamline the appeals system, as effective immigration control has, I believe, all too often been undermined by multiple appeals and procedures. To be fair to the previous Government, they made some well-intentioned efforts to reform the appeals system. In some cases, they made it less complex, but it remains a complex system. I can remember the expression “a one-stop shop for appeals” being bandied about under the previous Government. That was their aim, but they did not entirely fulfil it—although, to be fair to them, they did try. Some Labour Back Benchers would do well to remember that.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition are not opposing the Bill and will examine the measures in Committee. That is the proper approach to take. I would part company with the Opposition, however, on the question of net migration and effective immigration control. During the course of the debate, Opposition Members have made a big point about whether net migration has fallen by a third or a quarter, and have argued over the statistics. That shows a little brass neck, to say the least, given what happened to net migration under the previous Government. It increased from 50,000 to 250,000 per year over the lifetime of that Government. I would calculate that as a fivefold increase, yet now Labour is debating whether net migration has fallen by a quarter or a third while often opposing some of the measures needed to bring about that reduction.

I believe the issue should be an important objective of government and that we should have proper immigration control. I recognise the contribution of immigrants to society and their worth as individuals, and I believe that when they come to this country and are legally entitled to be here they should certainly be welcome. We must bear in mind, however, that demand to come to this country from less economically developed countries is almost unlimited. It is one of the major duties of a Government to impose proper immigration control in the light of that demand, which our constituents know about and can see reflected in news stories and developments in other parts of the world.

As the demand to come to this country is almost unlimited, to keep our quality of life we must have regard to population growth and population density. Immigration is a major driver of population. Our population is 62 million, and to keep it below 70 million net migration must be carefully controlled, and certainly brought down from 250,000, which is what it was at the end of the previous Government’s time in office. Otherwise the population increase—5 million, as has been said, would be due to migration—would produce a population of 70 million, which is equal to the populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol and Oxford added together, and accommodation would have to be made for that.

On the Opposition’s policy, I was not encouraged by the response from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to my question about whether the Labour party would have a target for net migration. The Opposition draw attention to the fact that we cannot control all the factors that relate to net migration. Of course we cannot control how many people choose to leave the country, but that does not mean that we should not control those factors that we can control, including the number of people who are permitted to enter the country. If we give way to the demand for lots of people to come to this country, net migration will run much higher than the figure to which it has been brought down by the Government.

I am not encouraged by the policy on migration adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. In his first foray into that policy area, he told readers of the Sunday Mirror that he wanted a new policy on migration linking foreign workers to apprenticeships. He said:

“We think that can create up to 125,000 new apprenticeships over the course of five years. And that is a massive boost in skills of our young people and that is really important.”

No doubt it is: many of us would say that that is something that we should do anyway without linking it to migration. The right hon. Gentleman also made the point that he wanted to link every one of those apprenticeships to the admission of a foreign worker into this country, which means 125,000 extra people, as well as their dependants, as it is the custom to admit dependants with foreign workers who are allowed into this country for work.

With other things being equal, and without any change in policy in other directions by the Opposition—there has certainly been no indication that there will be a reduction to compensate for this in other migration flows—over the lifetime of a Parliament we would see an increase of 125,000-plus in net migration, or 40,000 a year, which would go a considerable way towards doing away with the reduction achieved by the Government. That puts into context the Opposition’s quibbling about whether net migration has fallen by a quarter or a third. If he has time, I invite the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who speaks knowledgeably on these matters, to confirm that that is the Labour party’s policy, and that 125,000 foreign workers would be admitted in line with the 125,000 increase in apprenticeships. Will he confirm that in addition to those foreign workers, their dependants would be admitted, and will he provide an estimate of how much extra net migration would result? In my calculation, that would produce at best some several hundred thousand net migrants over the course of a Parliament.

We need a much more serious approach to the question of migration control. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their approach. This is something that is important to our constituents—certainly to my constituents—as we do not want to live in a grossly overcrowded country, with all the consequences that would flow from an increase in population to upwards of 70 million as a result of the policies that have been outlined by the Opposition. This is an important subject. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends for their approach. “Firm but fair” is an expression used by the Opposition. I believe that this is a coalition Government with a firm but fair immigration policy, and I exhort my right hon. and hon. Friends to stick with it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Jeremy Corbyn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but if he reads the record, he will see that my right hon. Friend devoted the bulk of her speech to positive measures, which I will talk about at the end of my speech.

We need to deal with this complex issue in a measured way. We do not need to ramp up the rhetoric—I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) to that effect. No one is saying that immigration is easy. It was complex for Labour in government and mistakes were made. It will be complex for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in government. However, when I look at the Bill, I ask whether it achieves any worthy objectives, and whether it develops and deals with the concerns of the EU, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) because of the pressures he faces in his constituency. Does it deal with the problem in a way that does not increase tensions, which Labour Members mentioned? That is what we need to test in detail when we deal with the Bill in Committee.

Let us look at the Bill in detail. Part 1 deals with removals. The Opposition have supported that principle and will support it again, so I do not wish to deal with it now, but part 2 has generated the most discussion in the House today. My hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Lewisham East, for Sheffield Central, for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), made extremely valid points on the implications of part 2. I happen to believe—the Opposition will test this in Committee—that the right of appeal is a fundamental tenet of British values. We need to deal in Committee with the fact that we are removing it—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary says we are not removing the right of appeal. We are giving the right of administrative review, but we are not currently giving a right of appeal. If that is so important for the Home Secretary, I should tell her, as Opposition Members have, that approximately 50% of appeals are currently successful. If part 2 stands as drafted, without clarity of examination, detailed discussion and the real concerns of my hon. Friends being reflected by Members in the Committee, what will happen to the 50% whose appeals are currently upheld? It suggests that they will no longer be upheld. That is an issue that we want to look at in detail in Committee to ensure that the provisions will work effectively, but we will also want to return to the real concerns expressed by my hon. Friends.

The provisions on landlords were supported by the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Poole (Mr Syms). We do not have an objection in principle, because we have already supported similar measures on employment. But concerns were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and the hon. Member for Brent Central on bureaucracy, on changes in immigration status during the course of a tenancy and the costs to landlords of implementing the policy. While the principle may be good, the Committee will need to examine in detail how the policy will work in practice. The concerns of the landlords themselves, and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, will need to be considered in detail during the passage of the Bill.

Nor do we oppose the health charge in principle. It was supported by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), but my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) made some very pertinent observations on it, not least of which was that health is devolved in Scotland, as it is in my area in Wales and in Northern Ireland, but we have had no clarity from the Government about how any charge raised will be distributed, whether it will go to the Consolidated Fund or to the health service or to regional Administrations. We will need to test that in Committee.

The driving licence provisions will enshrine in law what the Labour Government did. I still think that someone who is here illegally is not going to worry too much about not having a driving licence, but we can test that idea in Committee. Sham marriages, enforcement of borders, biometrics and bank accounts are all issues that we should look at in Committee and may potentially support. Whatever the outcome of the vote tonight—if there is one—we will seek to amend parts 2 and 3 in Committee.

I have not yet mentioned the issues that the Bill does not deal with. Opposition Members have recognised that immigration is an economic issue, but right hon. and hon. Government Members made no positive suggestions as to how we could tackle the issues of European immigration that are having an impact on labour market issues. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary signalled that Labour will table amendments, which we hope will be accepted, to make it illegal for recruitment agencies to target and recruit only foreign workers; to make it illegal for employers to deliberately run shifts only for foreign workers; to increase civil penalties to up to £50,000 for not paying the minimum wage—which, by the way, the Conservatives opposed in the first place; and to treble the fine for employing foreign workers illegally.

As my right hon. Friend said, and in answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), we will also table amendments to ensure that the aspirations of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are put into play on the question of EU apprenticeships—

[Mr Clappison]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Hanson]

I cannot give way now because of the lack of time. The points that the hon. Gentleman has made are worthy of debate, and I assure him that we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue of apprenticeships linked to foreign employment after we have tabled our amendments.

We need to look at banning unsuitable accommodation from being used as tied housing to offset the minimum wage; at giving local councils powers to enforce the minimum wage; at extending the Gangmasters Licensing Authority; at changing tier 2 regulations to ensure that companies take on apprentices; and at setting higher and minimum fines for employing illegal migrant workers. Those proposals are clear blue water between the Opposition and the Conservative party, which it will never ever bring forward measures to ensure labour market regulation of that sort. I was here when it voted against the minimum wage and other measures to improve workers’ conditions. This is about fairness, and we will table amendments to test whether the Government are serious about those matters.

The Government’s record is one of reduced border controls, reduced numbers of foreign criminals being deported, reduced numbers of people being fined for employing illegal immigrants and just two prosecutions over the minimum wage. There is a real difference between the Opposition and the Government. The Opposition will give the Bill a Second Reading today, but we will table amendments in Committee to deal with its inequities.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), the immigration figure—the gross number—is down by 100,000 to its lowest level since 2003. My second point concerns people in the United Kingdom who have no right to be here. I actually want them to leave, which will contribute to reducing net migration. Thirdly, on the in-flow of people from the EU, as he will see from the numbers, the EU is not where the bulk of net migration comes from; the majority of people coming to Britain come from outside the EU.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

In the light of the recent upwards revision of the migration figures between 1997 and 2010—an additional 500,000 migrants were found, meaning that overall immigration in that period was 4 million and that net migration under the last Government was 3 million, which amounted to three cities the size of Manchester—can my hon. Friend assure me that in the future we will have robust statistics and no return to the open-door policies favoured by the last Government?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will know that Migration Watch has written to the Office for National Statistics about that historical period, and I understand that it is engaged in a dialogue about it. I also understand from the ONS that it has revised its methodology so that its current recording of statistics is accurate, but his general point is very sensible: we had a period of uncontrolled immigration under the last Government—a mistake that this Government are not going to make.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the points that my right hon. Friend has just made. Will she bear it in mind that this is part of the EU’s overall ambition to establish an area of freedom, security and justice in which the European institutions, not this House, take the decisions, and European Courts, not our courts, take the legal decisions?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the indications of some of the intentions about the future of Europe. We have made it clear—it is in our coalition agreement—that we will not support anything that, for example, establishes a European public prosecutor, which we do not believe is the right way to go. Furthermore, on the new Europol regulation, which I will mention later and on which we will have a further debate tonight led by the security Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), we do not wish, as I said, to do anything that leads to anything akin to a European police force.

We have concluded, however, that some of the measures in the opt-out decision help us to tackle crime and keep our country safe, and we should therefore seek to opt back into them. We believe that there are 35 such measures, as I indicated last week. I will deal first with the most controversial of the measures we plan to opt back into: the European arrest warrant. It is a controversial measure because, although we clearly need strong extradition arrangements in place to see justice done, when extradition arrangements are wrong, they can have a detrimental effect on our civil liberties. Hon Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), will remember that last year I stopped the extradition of Gary McKinnon and then secured changes to the operation of our extradition arrangements with the United States.

I believe that the operation of the European arrest warrant is in similar need of change, which is why I propose new safeguards to increase the protection offered to those wanted for extradition through the European arrest warrant. First, as I indicated earlier, the Government have tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in Committee in this House, to ensure that an arrest warrant can be refused for minor crimes. Secondly, we will work with other member states to enforce their fines and ensure that, where possible, an investigation order is used instead of an arrest warrant, meaning that police forces and prosecutors would share evidence and information without requiring the extradition of a suspect at the investigative stage.

Thirdly, I will amend extradition legislation to ensure that people in the UK can only be extradited under the European arrest warrant when the requesting member state has already made a decision to charge and a decision to try, unless that person’s presence is required in that jurisdiction for those decisions to be made. Fourthly, I will amend our law to make it clear that in cases where part of the alleged conduct took place in the UK and where that conduct is not criminal here, the judge must refuse extradition for that conduct. Fifthly, I want to ensure that people who consent to extradition do not lose their right not to be prosecuted for other offences.

Sixthly, we propose that the prisoner transfer framework decision should be used to its fullest extent so that British subjects extradited and convicted can be returned to serve their sentence here. Seventhly, where a British subject has been convicted and sentenced abroad—for example, in their absence—and is the subject of an arrest warrant, we will ask, with their permission, for the warrant to be withdrawn and will use the prisoner transfer arrangements instead. Eighthly, I plan either to allow the temporary transfer of a consenting person so that they can be interviewed by the issuing state’s authorities or to allow them to do this through means such as video-conferencing in the UK. Where the suspect is innocent, this should lead to the extradition request being withdrawn.

Those are all changes that can be made in our own law, and which could have been made at any time by the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

In fact, having sovereign arrangements with no ability to extradite without having to go through a very long, legal process that may last 10 years does not help us to get rid of the suspected criminals whom we want to send back to Europe, and it does not help us to bring back to Britain the suspected criminals who have fled abroad. For very many years, people fled to the costa del crime, and Britain was unable to bring them back.

I shall make some progress, as I want to refer to the points that hon. Members have made about the measures that the Home Secretary wants to opt out of. Again, it is hard to take a full view without proper scrutiny and without Select Committees being able to look at this. The Prime Minister described this last week as

“a massive transfer of powers”.

The Home Secretary has described it as an historic moment, and said that we should celebrate the sovereignty involved in this particular opt-out process and in the Command Paper that she published last week. But we should look at the details in the explanatory memorandum of some of the things that we would opt out of. Britain would no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway as part of other plans for the European investigation order. Nor will we sign up to the European judicial network, which offers a point of contact in each country for judicial queries, but that, too, will still happen anyway, again because of the European investigation order. We will not sign up to having someone to act as a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but UK bodies plan to do so anyway. We will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we are already doing it so we will carry on doing so. I suspect somebody will send it to us in the post anyway. We will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures which apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway. Time and again we are opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate any more or cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out.

[Mr Clappison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. Of the 130 measures, are there any at all that she does not want to opt back into?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a whole series of measures in respect of which it will make no difference whether we are in them or out of them. We have no objection to opting out of a series of redundant measures. However, there must be proper assurances and guarantees about the measures that we need to opt back into. Rather than a massive transfer of powers, this is, as the Prime Minister said, more like a massive transfer of hot air. There is not the substance in this to justify the Home Secretary’s parade of historic significance and celebration of sovereignty.

Although the Home Secretary has not set out any major benefits from opting out of these measures, we know that there are risks to the serious measures where even she now admits we need to opt back in. She has no guarantees in place and no assurances from the Commission or the Council that at least on the most important measures—the arrest warrant, data sharing, joint investigations—we will be able to opt back in. She will know that the House of Lords pointed out that when Denmark exercised its opt-out,

“the Commission had frequently refused permission for the Danes to conclude agreements in certain areas”.

Nor has she any guarantee on the timetable or, for example, whether we will simultaneously be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant, whether there will be a gap in its operation, or whether complex or risky transitional arrangements will need to be negotiated.

Given how important the Home Secretary herself has said the European arrest warrant and various other measures are, surely it is important to ensure that there is no gap in operation. She can provide no assurance for the police that there will no interruption, therefore, of their use of the arrest warrant. The House of Lords report also said that

“the Government have not provided us with even a summary of the reactions of the other Member States to the Government’s intention to exercise the opt-out”

which

“may be critical in assessing the potential success or otherwise”

of the UK’s negotiation to rejoin particular measures. Surely on these most important measures she should seek assurances from the Commission and the Council before she asks this House to opt out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

If that were the case for scrutiny, I would simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the Standing Orders of this House that make it crystal clear that the scrutiny process must be as good as it possibly can be. Indeed, there is an inquiry into the scrutiny process to improve it even further in line with concerns that have been expressed by the House on a number of occasions. The process is also being reviewed throughout Europe through the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union. Everybody is anxious to ensure that European scrutiny takes place properly, precisely because of the democratic basis on which such decisions must be taken.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) does not look completely overwhelmed at being told that he is heavily wrong by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), but never mind that. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) moves away from the issue of national interest, is it not part of our national interest for our law to be determined in this House of Commons and subject to the jurisdiction of our judges rather than European judges?

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and I personally take that view, which lies at the heart of the matter that I raised with the right hon. Member for Leicester East. The expression “judicial authority” leaves a great deal to be desired and has given rise to a lot of problems not only in this country but elsewhere throughout Europe. It is not just a question of whether we adjust our domestic law in certain respects, but of whether the European arrest warrant can properly fulfil the judicial role allocated to it. As I said earlier, other matters such as dual criminality must also be considered. Many questions looked at in 2001 were, as the shadow Home Secretary knows, considered by the European Scrutiny Committee, although she was not over-anxious to go into the detail. No doubt she will when she has an opportunity to come back into the Chamber, and she is very welcome to do that later on.

As the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, the original motion was withdrawn but it did not mention the role in this process of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees, despite repeated promises that those Committees would be consulted. There were also undertakings that we would be given explanatory memorandums on measures covered by the opt-out by the middle of February. In my view, and that of my Committee as a whole, the Government’s failure to provide explanatory memorandums in line with their timetable has been the major factor impeding Select Committee consideration of the block opt-out.

The history of those various exchanges and undertakings is set out in our report, “The 2014 block opt-out—engaging with Parliament”—that has been seriously lacking—which is tagged in this debate along with the Government’s response.

In my view, the way the European Scrutiny Committee and the other Committees have jointly sought information from the Government is an excellent example of the various elements of the scrutiny process working together in a consistent and co-ordinated manner. In that context, the fact that the Government’s revised motion does not provide for a scrutiny stage to be concluded by the end of October is to be welcomed. The amendment to the revised motion, which we have tabled jointly, centres on the scrutiny process and aims to ensure that the Select Committees can undertake meaningful scrutiny of the Government’s proposals. I hope that the Government will listen to that.

As Chairs of these Committees, we are concerned that the inclusion of the words

“on the set of measures in Command Paper 8671”

is likely, implicitly or explicitly, to endorse the Government’s list of 35. The amendment would simply leave out these words, so as to avoid a prejudgment of the Committee’s conclusions. That was the substance of the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I begin by welcoming the revised motion tabled by the Government and their acceptance of the amendment from the Chair of the Justice Committee, which I think reflects well on the role that each of the Select Committee Chairs has played and on the Government’s preparedness to listen to the views of Select Committees. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, I look forward to taking part in the scrutiny that we now understand will take place.

I cannot separate the question of the European arrest warrant, or the other measures that the Government have announced they intend to opt into, from the European area of freedom, security and justice. My view on these matters is determined by my view of the European Union’s so-called area. I do not believe that it is a question of simply looking at individual measures and deciding whether opting in or out or co-operating here or there is in the national interest; my view is that the national interest is a question of this House and this Parliament determining the laws to which we are to be made subject.

I have heard the case that has been made for the European arrest warrant. It might be that, on balance, it is helpful in co-operation, but I do not know about that. If one accepted that view, one would have to ignore the many cases that have been brought to attention where it has been used disproportionately, for example for the theft of a piglet, a pudding, a wheelbarrow, as we heard earlier, or some wardrobe doors.

There are also cases in which the extradition of UK citizens from this country has been sought by European Union member states in which the standards of justice to which they have been exposed have been well below those that we would expect to see in this country. That includes people being put on trial for very serious offences, having already been acquitted of those offences, only to be told much later that the whole charge against them was to be dropped. There is a long list of such cases in which the European arrest warrant has gone wrong, and they have been well documented, and I think that was reflected in the critical testimony that Lord Justice Thomas, the senior extradition judge, gave the review on extradition led by Mr Justice Scott Baker.

It has been interesting to hear in the debate how the civil liberties guns have in some cases fallen silent as the guns for pro-European integration have been fired on all cylinders. Even if one accepted that, on balance, the European arrest warrant was a good thing and that it was necessary in fighting serious crime and bringing serious criminals and terrorists to justice—we have certainly heard a long list of those cases produced—heaven help us if it occurs to those serious criminals and terrorists to move from a European Union country to a non-member state because, on the basis of what we have heard today, it would seem impossible to bring about their extradition unless the European arrest warrant was involved, which it would not be in those cases.

Even if we accept that, the question is whether we should be part of the European area of freedom, security and justice at all. There will be those who say that that would be a good thing, that it would help to fight crime and that we should sign up to it lock, stock and barrel. I think that if the Opposition were honest, that would be their stated position—their underlying position, at any rate. I notice that no dissent is coming from the Opposition Benches to that last comment.

However, if we sign up lock, stock and barrel, or to individual measures in the area of freedom, security and justice—including, obviously, the 35 suggested measures—we will, in each case, be handing legislative and judicial supremacy to the European Union institutions and the European Court of Justice. That means that voters in this country will no longer be determining through their choice of Government the laws to which they are subject; instead, the law will be made through EU processes, with the European Commission having the right to initiate proposals, and qualified majority voting and co-decision operating at a European level. In such cases, British courts can be overridden by a European Court.

I note in passing a point well made in an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg): henceforth we would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the infringement procedure of the European Commission in respect of whatever measures we decided to opt into. I find that curious, particularly in light of the cases that have arisen in the past week as a result of this country’s being subject to the overriding jurisdiction of a European Court—another European Court admittedly, but a European Court none the less. Those cases have been an example of what happens when we sign up to supranational jurisdictions. What frustration have our voters felt over the years over the case of Mr Abu Qatada and the repeated occasions on which—

[Martin Horwood]

If we establish that we are participating in a body of European law or any international law, we obviously need some kind of jurisdiction process to judge whether those laws—not all laws—are being fairly applied. Otherwise, every member state would make up the rules as they went along. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would be the first in line to accuse other countries of not sticking to the rules.

[Mr Clappison]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the frustration felt in the House, which led the Government to say that they were leaving open the option of leaving the European Court of Human Rights altogether. Such was their frustration, which, obviously, he does not feel. The frustration is that British courts and the Supreme Court of this country have been overridden by a supranational jurisdiction. Through the measures under discussion, we would be signing up to more supranational jurisdiction. Heaven knows how much more frustration the voters of this country will feel in the future when that jurisdiction is exercised as it has just been.

[Martin Horwood]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is hopelessly mixing up his European Courts. The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the fair application of European Union law; we abide by it through our own choice by virtue of our membership of the European convention on human rights.

[Mr Clappison]

The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair, as I made it clear that I was referring to another European Court. My point is about supranational jurisdiction conferred on courts outside this country. That applies in this case because we are signing up to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction, just as we are signed up to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. That means that British courts and the will of the British people as expressed through this Parliament can be overridden.

One can add to the case of Abu Qatada the frustration that voters have felt over whole-life sentences no longer being allowed as a result of the European Court of Human Rights. There are multifarious other cases as well.

[Mark Reckless]

I felt I should intervene on my hon. Friend following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I do not think the European Court of Human Rights can dictate to our courts. In the Abu Hamza case, it said that the nine injunctions were not binding on our courts. They are certainly not binding on this Parliament. If the Government choose to act on them because of the ministerial code, that is for the Government, but the injunctions are not binding on our courts or Parliament.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will reflect, as I do, on the position taken by the Government in light of that fact. However, the European Court of Justice will have authority over this country in the case of the measures under discussion. Its decisions will be final and beyond appeal, and we will have to abide by them if they go against us. We are voluntarily subjecting ourselves to that jurisdiction.

Those who want us to be part of the European area of freedom, security and justice should be under no illusions as to the extent of the European Union’s ambition to take away sovereignty from this Parliament in that field. That is, after all, one of the specific objectives spelled out in the EU treaty:

“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers”.

There are those who say that instead of signing up to the EU area of freedom, security and justice, we can pick and choose which individual measures we should adhere to and suggest that they stand on their own merits rather than being part of the EU system as a whole. In a way, that is choosing to dine à la carte from the EU menu. However, the problem with dining à la carte is that if someone keeps on doing it, they end up trying everything on the menu.

[Chris Bryant]

And it becomes very expensive.

[Mr Clappison]

Yes, and it has other consequences for the waistline, although I will not go into that now.

History teaches us that every concession made to the EU—every measure opted into, every pillar knocked down and every red line crossed—leads to a demand for more concessions; they are put into the pocket and the EU asks for more and makes more demands. That has been the case going back to the treaty of Maastricht, the constitutional treaty of the European Union and the treaty of Lisbon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) asked why the previous Government negotiated the block opt-out from the treaty of Lisbon at all. That was a good question; the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was so strongly in support of all the measures, particularly the European arrest warrant, that one wonders why the possibility of opting out was ever raised.

The real answer to my hon. Friend’s question is not the one that the right hon. Lady gave. I think it is that the then Labour Government said that the fact that the UK was not part of the area of freedom, security and justice was the key difference between the defunct constitutional treaty and the treaty of Lisbon. They said that a referendum was not required so that Labour could withdraw its promise to hold a referendum, which it did virtually overnight. A referendum that had been promised to the British people was then withdrawn. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) looks curious, but that is a fair answer to the question about why the previous Labour Government negotiated the block opt-out at all. They certainly did not have the eventual decision in mind.

I well remember the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, appearing before the European Scrutiny Committee. When asked what he thought would happen when it came to the decision on the block opt-out, he said, “Who knows?” That was the background. The decision was taken to help get the Labour party out of its commitment to a referendum, and that shows how easily a promise for a referendum can be withdrawn.

I am pleased that the coalition Government have made their commitment to a referendum and that a private Member’s Bill is passing through the House that I hope will put that commitment into legislation. That is where the decision finally needs to be taken—by the British people. They need a decision on the extent to which they wish to be part of the European project.

In this context, let nobody be under any illusions. This is not about picking and choosing and dining à la carte; it is not a simple question of co-operation here and there and what would be in the interests of fighting crime. It is about whether we are prepared to concede decision making on our criminal law, on the jurisdiction of our courts and on the work that is being done by our Home Office. It is about whether we are prepared progressively to abdicate from that and surrender sovereignty to the European Union so that jurisdiction and sovereignty are exercised by European Union institutions. I believe that the answer to that must come in a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed; we should all pay great heed to that report.

[Mr Clappison]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the face of it, although the Government’s proposed amendment to the European arrest warrant seems simple, it depends on the view taken by the European Court of Justice—if this area is now to be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—and that we have no way of knowing what that view will be?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Where I part company with the Government is in believing that it would not be better to make these adjustments in the current structure, rather than under the new structure, and to negotiate to maintain the current structure with our European partners, because as it currently stands, if we change the law, that is the law of the land. Once we have opted in, it is not: the law of the land is subject to the European Court of Justice.

Then there is the issue of double criminality. The European Commission’s website, in explaining how the arrest warrant works, says quite clearly:

“If they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence of at least three years, the following offences”—

which are then listed—

“may give rise to surrender without verification of the double criminality of the act”.

Therefore, although we may pass a law saying that double criminality is a requirement before we extradite somebody, the rule of Brussels is not so. Now, in the situation we are currently in, our law is superior, but then their law will be superior.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This is always a complex area. I have never thought that any Briton could ever suffer from xenophobia, because no Briton has ever been frightened of any foreigner.

I should like to continue a little on the detail and look at item No. 48, which is the Council framework decision on the European Union orders freezing property or evidence. Therefore, we are potentially going to give to the European Court and the European Commission rights to freeze the property of British subjects. Item No. 59 deals with the mutual recognition of financial penalties. “Mutual recognition” is the most dangerous part of the agreement on justice and home affairs.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend’s analysis of this list of measures is absolutely scintillating, but before he moves on from that one, is he aware that, as far as the freezing of assets or evidence is concerned, the problem is that in future the Commission will have the right of initiative to propose laws? These will then be determined through the co-decision and qualified majority voting procedure in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. That provision does not currently exist, because the agreement stands on its own and is subject to our law. In future, it will be subject to amendment under European law and we cannot know where that will end.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that is quite it, because I think the process is subject to a Title V opt-out. Therefore, if any of those issues are recast, we then have to decide whether to opt into the recast decision, but the decision we have opted into will be a permanent part of the acquis communautaire and we will therefore be bound by it, even if it is recast.

There are a couple of other measures that are being maintained that it is important to mention, because the surrender of powers is so significant. They include the mutual recognition of confiscation orders, which is similar to the property issue. Then there are measures dealing with the enhancing of procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Therefore, we are going to give mutual recognition to trials that are held without the person accused being present, which I have always thought a potentially highly unjust way of proceeding.

We should be deeply concerned about the proposals to opt back in, because of the lack of sovereignty we will then have over those essential measures. In these important areas—mutual recognition, the arrest warrant, trials without the person present and many others—we are handing over to the European Court the ability to decide whether our procedures are good enough or whether they have to be changed to meet European requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Far be it for me to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is a mendicant in these matters, but he certainly sought this many times. If that is not the definition of begging, I am not sure what is.

Then, of course, we had the bizarre event last Thursday afternoon, which was the classic kick-bollock scramble school of parliamentary drafting that this coalition has made standard practice when the Home Secretary first tabled a motion, then the Chairs of the Select Committees kicked up and tabled an amendment, but then at the very last minute the Home Secretary withdrew her motion and tabled another one, whereupon the Select Committee Chairs tabled another amendment. Now the Home Secretary has backed down on the amendment, which is her third position in a week—no Thatcher she, I would suggest, as we are certainly not going to get a “This Lady is not for turning” speech at the Tory party conference.

The end result of all that is a list cobbled together in a deal within the Government; the House given three days and no more to decide; and a motion tabled just one sitting day before the debate. Yet the Justice Secretary himself—he has been opting in and opting out of this debate; more opting out than opting in, I note—said on 19 March this year to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith):

“I can give my right hon. Friend, and indeed the House, a clear assurance that this Government will go further than any Government in ensuring that the House is involved in the decisions that are taken, and that as we reach agreement within the coalition on the way forward, we will need fully to engage Parliament, his Committee and, indeed, all the Committees with a vested interest in the matter”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 782.]

[Interruption.] I hear some rumblings over there, but the honest truth is that none of the Select Committees has been impressed by the way in which the Government have conducted themselves. Indeed, to be precise, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said that this was a classic case of “scrutiny gone wrong”.

Let us be clear: these are complex matters that need to be addressed. The Command Paper is one of the most impenetrable set of explanatory memorandums that I have ever encountered—[Interruption.] I have read it and understood it, but I am not sure that the Justice Secretary has either read it or understood it. Some of what he says in his own explanatory memorandum is self-contradictory.

[Mr Clappison]

The hon. Gentleman might like to compare this with the one relating to the treaty of Lisbon, which was produced by his Government and was originally supplied to the House in French.

[Chris Bryant]

I have read it only in Spanish. It is obviously a little bit more difficult when dealing not just with one coalition partner but with 26 of them.