Passport Applications

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why the Home Office should compensate those who have had to pay the extra upgrade fees to get their passports on time.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We share a concern to make sure that people get their passports as quickly as possible, as I hope everyone would agree. Can the right hon. Lady point me to any line in her motion that would help someone who is currently waiting for their passport? What has she proposed that would help someone, as opposed to putting blame about?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will set out today what we think the Government should be doing. First, they should help the families who have had to pay extra, but the Home Secretary will have to do more to make sure that people get their passports on time.

HM Passport Office

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe). The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) has used one of those opportunities, but there are other opportunities to bring those details to the attention of the Passport Office and to Ministers so that that case can be looked into.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Many people are grateful to have heard the announcement from the Home Secretary about the free upgrade process for people who need their passport urgently. Can she clarify exactly what that process entails and explain what counts as urgent? Many people need that reassurance.

[Mrs May]

It will be for people to bring it to the attention of the Passport Office that they have an urgent need to travel. We intend to make it clear on the website so that people can go online and see that in detail and see what the process is. In that way, they will be absolutely clear about what they need to do and how they qualify.

Home Affairs

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am about to come to the provisions on asset recovery.

Organised crime evolves, and we need to keep pace. Under this Government, approximately £746 million of criminal assets has been recovered. However, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is under sustained legal challenge from criminals who are constantly seeking new ways to avoid its reach and frustrate asset recovery, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The Serious Crime Bill referred to in the Gracious Speech will close loopholes used by criminals to get round confiscation orders—for example, through attempts to hide money with spouses, associates and other third parties. The Bill will ensure that assets can be frozen more quickly and earlier on in investigations and reduce the time that the courts can give offenders to pay. It will also significantly increase the time in prison faced by criminals who fail to pay confiscation orders, to deter offenders from choosing to serve time in custody rather than paying up.

Targeting and convicting those in the wider criminal group, such as corrupt and complicit professionals, can prove difficult under current legislation. The Bill will close this gap by creating a new offence of participation in an organised crime group. That will allow the National Crime Agency and the police to go after those who knowingly turn a blind eye to organised crime from which they profit, and it will send out a strong signal that no one should be beyond the reach of the law. Those convicted could face up to five years in prison and be subject to further civil measures.

The Bill will also close a gap in our current legislation in relation to terrorism, which is particularly pertinent in the light of the ongoing crisis in Syria. The UK faces the very serious threat that British nationals travelling to Syria are exposed to terrorist groups there, become radicalised, and on returning may be prepared to radicalise others or carry out an attack here. The Bill will therefore extend extra-territorial jurisdiction to offences under the Terrorism Act 2006, so enabling the UK to prosecute individuals who prepare for terrorist acts and train for terrorism abroad in the same way as though they had carried out those activities in the UK.

Those who act for the good of society and for the benefit of others play a valuable and often largely unrecognised role in this country. Good works and good deeds are to be encouraged. There is some evidence, however, that people are put off from volunteering or going to help in an emergency owing to fears of being held liable if something goes wrong.

The social action, responsibility and heroism Bill will reassure the public that if they act for the benefit of society and demonstrate a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity or when assisting someone in an emergency, the courts will always consider the context of their actions in the event they are sued for negligence.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

When I used to do voluntary work, my understanding was that, essentially, that was already the case. Could the Secretary of State explain whether the Bill will change what the law means or how confident people can be in terms of how they act, or will it change both?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there has always been an understanding, but the problem is that, sadly, people do not see enough clarity in legislation to give them the confidence that that is the case. Indeed, they sometimes see reports of cases where the opposite has been the case. It is, therefore, important to give greater clarity in the law and that is what the Bill will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He said a number things that I agree with and made a number of points I disagree with. The idea that we should have a more sensible, rational debate is one I completely support. I cannot let go the comments made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). The idea that we would say to students that they have to leave the country before they can graduate strikes me as profoundly damaging.

[Mr Frank Field]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

If the right hon. Gentleman would like to change what he is saying, I would be delighted to hear him clarify his remarks.

[Mr Field]

I will not change what I am saying, but I will say it more slowly and clearly so that the hon. Gentleman actually understands it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) suggested that one way to modify the immigration figures is to take students out of them. One of the problems with doing that is that we have a large number of students coming here. They say they wish to study here, but continue to stay here and work. The change I would like to see is to challenge vice-chancellors to have as many students as they want, provided they undertake, on behalf of the Home Secretary, to ensure that those students fulfil their promise to come here, graduate and leave. The universities do—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

He spoke at a reasonable speed; there were just too many words.

[Dr Huppert]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying and I continue to disagree with what he suggests. One issue he raises, on whether students would have to leave before they graduate, concerns the process of graduation. There is also the question of post-study work visas, which are incredibly valuable. If he talks to the vice-chancellors of Cambridge university and Anglia Ruskin university—two universities in my constituency—he will hear that there is demand. We want people to come here; it makes sense. Once we have trained some of the brightest and best people here, we want them to contribute to the economy. We want them to set up companies that will employ people here locally. I have to say that what he suggests would be incredibly damaging to the economy in my constituency and in many other areas. I hope that is not somewhere we will go.

There are issues around immigration, and huge issues around the rhetoric used. There is far too much negative rhetoric that is, frankly, xenophobic. That is something we have to try to avoid. It has no place in the discussions we are having.

We benefit massively from immigration. We benefit financially—there is a lot of evidence of that—and culturally and socially. It is a good thing for us to do. There are, however, associated downsides and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough was absolutely right to highlight them. The solution is to try to fix those problems. Where people coming in means that we run out of school places, the correct solution is not to throw people out of the country, but to create school places so they can be educated and to make sure there is housing. The correct solution is to deal with the problems. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say—many people have pointed it out—that there are problems with the violation of the national minimum wage. That is why we should ensure that people are paid the national minimum wage and why the Government have acted. We have just had the first naming and shaming of people who have been failing to pay it. Immigration is a good thing and we should tackle the problems associated with it.

It frustrates me that so many people are following the concerns raised by UKIP and trying to tack towards them. That is self-defeating. The more that Conservative and Labour politicians chase the UKIP line, the stronger UKIP becomes, because that tells people that it is even stronger.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—he probably does not—or concede that he sounds terribly out of touch, given that 77% of the public say that immigration is a huge problem? His arguments would carry more conviction if he were prepared even to look at the free movement directive. I have some sympathy with him on non-EU migration, particularly in the higher education sector, but he cannot have it both ways. People want immigration to be reduced, so he must look at—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have got the point. I am going to keep on saying this: interventions are not speeches. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is waiting patiently to make his speech.

[Dr Huppert]

I think it unlikely that the hon. Gentleman and I will ever reach agreement on this issue—we certainly have not yet. There are concerns but we have to fix the problems it causes, not attack the fundamental basis. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at studies—I do not have the reference immediately to hand—by University College London, for example, that show the fiscal benefits from EU migration. The trend is badly wrong and is being followed by far too many people.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is an academic; he deals in facts. He mentions tacking to the right because of UKIP. Is it not a fact that there was a manifesto commitment by the Conservative party to reduce net migration to tens of thousands? That was in 2010 when UKIP was at 3% in the national poll. It is now at 12%. I am afraid the facts do not bear out his comments.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is correct on that point: it is true that the Conservative party had a commitment to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I did not think that that was a good idea at the time. It is very hard to see how it can be implemented. Part of the problem is that the only way to implement it—the Select Committee on Home Affairs has criticised this specifically —is to adjust some of the measures until we see very disproportionate changes in some areas. He is right that the Conservatives have been consistent. We saw a larger number of Conservative Members signing amendments to try to stop Romanians and Bulgarians coming into the country than we saw Romanians and Bulgarians flooding into the country, which seems to be the wrong way around.

It is not just Conservatives. I was interested to see that even the National Union of Students specifically passed a motion that called on the Labour party to stop pandering to “anti-migrant politics.” That is something I hope the Labour party will live up to.

I was not planning to spend all my time talking about migration because I wanted to talk more broadly about the Queen’s Speech and where we are four years into this Government. The Government started in a difficult position. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough was keen to say that the finances were not the fault of the last Government. We can have that interesting discussion, but there is no doubt that in 2010, this country was in a difficult situation. One pound in every £4 the Government spent had to be borrowed. Whether we accept the right hon. Gentleman’s case that everything was fantastic and it was just unfortunate, or whether we take the view that it was in some sense the fault of the Labour Government over 13 years, it was a difficult time. I would not have chosen the first opportunity for my party to be in government to be at a time when, as the former Chief Secretary said, there was no money left.

Where are we now? We see a growing economy with unemployment substantially reduced. In my constituency, unemployment has gone down by some 40%. I welcome that; more people in employment, and in full-time employment. That is a great success and there are successes in other areas, such as renewable energy. Relevant to home affairs, the main subject for today, crime is down consistently. I welcome that. Every year that we debate police funding there has been a suggestion that crime is about to start shooting upwards. Every year it continues to go down.

We have made some progress on something very dear to my heart: civil liberties. That was what got me involved in politics. Before I came here, I was on the national council of Liberty. We have dealt with the Government’s storing of the DNA of innocent people on central databases. We have got rid of authoritarian identity cards. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims in his place. The first Bill from the Government passed by the House got rid of identity cards, which were expensive, intrusive and unnecessary. [Interruption.] We see that the Labour party continues to want to bring in identity cards at great expense. It is a shame, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, that the only thing Labour has apologised for is their immigration policy and not many other measures.

We have got rid of control orders and the idea of internal exile without trial. Even yesterday, however, we heard the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) complaining that the Government have stopped people being exiled inside this country without having a trial. We have improved libel laws, provided same-sex marriage and ended child detention as a standard thing for immigration purposes, putting that into law recently. We have ended discrimination against illegitimate children who used not to be able to inherit their citizenship if they were unfortunate enough to have been born too early. We have done many things. But there is more still to do. I look forward to doing much of it.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), in her address on the Gracious Speech, said that the Conservatives had been held back by their coalition partners. I am very proud that we have stopped many things where we have disagreed. There are a number of things that we have simply not allowed to happen: for-profit schools; firing at will; the removal of housing benefit from the under-25s. There are a number of things that we have stopped.

However, it is not just a question of the things the Conservatives have been prevented from doing. There are things we have done, and things we would like to do that we have been prevented from doing because of the Conservatives. These include the mansion tax, to make sure that the richer in society pay more towards our finances, electoral reform and House of Lords reform. They also include getting more housing built, and environmental measures have been blocked. On reviewing surveillance post-Snowden, we have seen very little movement from the Home Office; indeed, we have no idea what the status is of the data retention directive rules. We would like to go further: to strengthen the Information Commissioner’s office and extend freedom of information. We want to have more evidence-informed policy so that when the expert advisers to the Government say that something is inappropriate and disproportionate, we do not see the Conservative party interpreting that to mean that it should go ahead with it or, indeed, the Labour party backing it. There is much more that we would like to do.

But there is good stuff coming. There is very good stuff in the Queen’s Speech where we have been able to agree and show that coalitions can work, and that two very different parties can find areas on which we agree.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow as he sets out all the things that he thinks are so good. Perhaps he could say when the Government are going to do something about the fact that most people in poverty now are in work. Perhaps he will say something about people affected by the bedroom tax and by having to pay council tax for the very first time, or about the thousands and thousands of people who as a result of his Government’s policies are having to rely on food banks. How proud does he feel of those?

[Dr Huppert]

I do not in any sense think that the economy is in a perfect place. The hon. Lady did not mention the fact that the last Government tried to suppress people getting help from food banks. I am very pleased that there are food banks to help people. The problem is not people getting help from food banks; it is people who are unable to get help from food banks because they do not know about them or because there is not a food bank available for them. The hon. Lady should have a look at why it was that under the last Government, whom she presumably supported for 13 years, inequality increased. Why did the richest pay less of the share of taxation? This Government have changed that. Why did unemployment go up under the last Government? I have a lot of sympathy for many of the stated aims of the Labour party on equality, but the problem is that they simply did not deliver it.

Let me return to the Queen’s Speech, which contained very good things. There was a shared agreement that we needed to do much more to help small businesses to thrive, something which we can agree will make a big difference. Small businesses make a huge difference to our economy, and will build our prosperity. I have been working hard on issues to do with local independent shops in particular, and this will be very helpful.

I am particularly pleased by the announcement on pub reform, which will make a big difference to people who have tied pubs across England and Wales. It is a great tribute to the fantastic work by a number of people who have campaigned. The statutory code and the independent adjudicator will make a big difference to keeping pubs open. My constituents have been able to open pubs again. We have been praised by everybody from the Campaign for Real Ale to the Labour shadow Minister for our work to try to save pubs. This will help us to do it.

We are also helping people who have any sort of income to be able to spend money in those pubs, businesses or anywhere else by increasing the personal allowance to £10,500. That is 26.6 million people who have had their income tax cut, making them better off and allowing those on low incomes to pay no income tax at all. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) prompts me to point out that the last Government increased the tax on the very low-paid when they got rid of the 10p tax rate; they doubled the tax rate paid by some of the lowest earners. I am proud that we have reduced it instead. That is a much fairer and more progressive system, and I am proud that somebody on £10,000 a year will not pay anything. I am proud that we managed to persuade the Prime Minister, who originally opposed it, to go ahead with the proposal.

We are also making a difference on apprenticeships, something my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is very proud of. We should aim—this is a shared aspiration—for 2 million apprentices by the end of the Parliament. In my constituency I am seeing the difference that that is making, with the fantastic Cambridge regional college now having something like 5,000 apprentices studying. I have gone to see many of them to see how much of a difference it makes to their lives. It is helping them to get on.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate my regional college, he is very welcome to do so.

[Michael Connarty]

I would congratulate anyone who introduced proper apprenticeships, particularly the 5,000 in his constituency. How many of those people are doing three-year courses that will be recognised by City and Guilds to make them tradesmen, which we are very short of? How many are bogus apprenticeships with people doing short-term courses that are basically work experience?

[Dr Huppert]

I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman attack these people. I look forward to his meeting some of the apprentices he thinks are bogus. He can come to see them and the programmes that they think are making a difference in enabling them to get training, to set up their own businesses and to make money, and tell them that he thinks what they are doing is bogus. I do not have the exact number of how many apprenticeships are for three years. I am sure that he can find out, but I find it depressing that he is so obsessed with attacking what the Government are doing about apprentices that he will attack the people who are making something of their lives by doing apprenticeships. Unfortunately we saw for many years—this predates the last Government—that apprenticeships and vocational education were simply not given the importance and standing they deserve. That is something we absolutely have to change.

Let me move on to some of the Home Office Bills. We have a Serious Crime Bill. Serious crime costs us something like £24 billion a year, so it is essential that we make more progress in dealing with it. We have huge problems with our confiscation legislation. Matrix Chambers has said:

“The confiscation legislation of the United Kingdom is complex and difficult to construe.”

That is absolutely right. We should be making sure that we can recover more money. That has been a weak link for a long time.

It is right to clarify the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—something for which Liberal Democrat Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) have long campaigned—to make it clear that emotional cruelty that is likely to cause psychological harm to a child should be an offence. The current law on neglect is outdated and goes back to Victorian times. It is right to transform it.

Extending FGM-related offences to acts done outside the UK by UK nationals and residents is also very much welcome. My hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for Crime Prevention have been working very hard on this issue. We should finally take action on female genital mutilation.

We also see progress on a sensible drugs policy aimed at reducing harm, which should be our aim for all of what we are trying to do through our drugs policy. We see decisive action on trying to deal with the cutting agent. A huge amount of the harm caused by illegal substances is, in fact, caused by the cutting agent with which they are mixed. By taking action against them, we will make a difference to people’s lives and stop the harm. I hope we can go even further. I am looking forward to the international comparative study on drugs policy and on new psychoactive substances, on which my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention is also working hard. We should do what works, and what will reduce the harm caused to thousands of people around the country—not do just what sounds as though it is tough. We need to do things that actually make a difference.

That is also the case with modern-day slavery, on which I hope we will see cross-party agreement. We are definitely not dealing well enough with trafficking at the moment; we have to get it right. UNICEF estimates that something like 10 children a week are being trafficked into the UK, which is simply unacceptable. It is right that the Government face scrutiny by the Joint Committee. I wish all Bills could go through a proper scrutiny process because I think this House is at its best when it discusses things rationally, rather than there being two sides having a row.

I was pleased that there were various things we did not see in the Queen’s Speech. We did not see another immigration Bill. We have already had some discussion of this, but immigration, like many issues, is not always about passing more legislation; it is about getting things right. To my mind, the biggest problems surrounding immigration are not about our laws; they are about whether the right decisions are made—by what used to be the Border Agency, but is now back in the Home Office—correctly and promptly. Bringing back exit checks will, I think, make more difference to public certainty and the control of our borders than any piece of legislation we could propose in this area.

There is much more I could say about data retention directives and cybercrime, but I would like to raise one issue about which I have been concerned. I have spoken to a number of colleagues about it—my hon. Friends and also, for example, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). I was approached by someone about the issue of revenge porn, which is happening more and more often. People take naked or indecent images of partners and then, once the relationship ends, they share them online, publishing them very widely—to the great mental torment of the people concerned. It is mostly but not always women who have agreed to have an explicit photo taken, but never agreed for it to be broadcast to all and sundry on the web as a means of revenge. It destroys people’s lives because of the psychological effect, the shame and the great humiliation caused when these images can be seen by anyone. The problem is getting worse, as Women’s Aid, the National Stalking Helpline, UK Safer Internet Centre and everybody increasingly accept.

Talking recently to a constituent of the hon. Member for Guildford, I was shocked to discover that there is currently no sanction to deal with this problem. At the moment it is not a criminal offence to share the image because the photo was taken legitimately. Consent was given for the photo or the film, but not for it to be shared. Typically, the problem is not covered under the harassment legislation, which requires something to have happened more than once, but once the image has been published online, it is broadcast for ever more. Reputable websites will take down these images when asked, but the person involved has to ask each website to do so, and for that to happen they normally have to prove that it is them in the photo, which means going through the rather humiliating process of taking a photo of oneself with a sign and sending it off. That makes the whole process much worse.

I do not often call for new criminal sanctions—it is not my natural style. In this case, however, I think we need to make a criminal sanction available when people share indecent images in the knowledge that consent would not have been given. I hope that the House will look further at this. It will need careful work to get the details right, ensuring that we do not accidentally criminalise activities that should be allowed, but we do need to take action in this area.

It will be an interesting year. I do not think this Parliament is over. If it focuses on scrutinising what is happening and ensuring that we look carefully at legislation rather than rushing it through in an effort to pass more and more Bills, that would be helpful. Over the last four years, we have contributed to a more liberal and fairer Britain, but there is much more to do. Some of it will happen this year; some of it will happen in later years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Extremism

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Across the Government, we are absolutely clear that we need to reach out to and work with people in Muslim communities in the United Kingdom to ensure that we address the real issues of potential radicalisation and extremism, which many people in those communities are as concerned about as we are. That work is led by the DCLG through its work on integration at a local level. It is also work that we, as constituency Members of Parliament, can take forward. Last Friday, I was talking with a group of Asian women from my constituency about their experiences, what they wanted to do and how they wanted to work with the local council and others to ensure that people in Muslim communities feel able to be true to their Islamic faith and play a full part in British society.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

There are many issues on which the Home Office has to work with the Department for Education: extremism, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, gangs, drugs and many more. Will the Home Secretary be able to work with the Education Secretary to ensure that there is compulsory personal, social, health and economic education for everybody, including sex and relationships education?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has worked hard to get that issue into a statement about extremism in our schools. The Education Secretary and I talk about those issues, and our Departments work together on them. We are constantly looking to ensure that what we do in our schools provides the right education for our children, and one that helps them to tackle a range of issues that might make them feel pressurised, including the important one—extremism—we are talking about today.

Immigration Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

Although the Government are confident that our original proposals would have affected only a small number of people—given the pre-existing utilisation of the power and the high hurdle that needs to be cleared, most people would have been able to acquire their former nationality or another—we are now seeking to address the concerns expressed about leaving individuals permanently stateless and with no recourse to another nationality. Our amendment (a) provides that deprivation of nationalised citizens under clause 60 can take place only when the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that, under the laws of a country or territory, an individual is able to become a national of that country or territory.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Amendment (a) is certainly a helpful move on some, if not all, the concerns, but how will the provision be interpreted? For example, if somebody who is not a British citizen leaves another country and would otherwise have claimed asylum in this one, will that factor be taken into account? Will the Home Secretary be able to take into account the idea that a country may refuse to give citizenship because we had taken away their British citizenship? How will she make it work in practice?

[James Brokenshire]

It may be helpful if I say that the Home Secretary will consider the relevant nationality laws of a person’s country and that person’s circumstances, and she will make a decision based on whether, under those laws, the person is able to acquire another nationality. The test is whether there is a route under the law, but she will have regard to other considerations—for example, about practical or logistical arrangements. Those considerations will obviously vary from case to case, but she will consider them in forming a view. We have reflected that in the concept of the reasonable grounds. The Home Secretary will need to be satisfied about those reasonable grounds in determining whether the proposed power can be utilised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That is largely in the hands of the individual. When the power is exercised, it will be open to the individual to seek the citizenship of the other country. We are unable to compel them to act in that way. That goes to the heart of the problem that we have identified. It is open to the individual to seek the citizenship of the other country, so it depends on what action they take.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister is being very generous; I am sure that there will be questions on later sections of his speech as well. It is possible for the Home Secretary to have reasonable grounds to believe something, but for it not to be the case. What will happen if somebody in the UK goes through the process, the Home Secretary believes that they are able to get citizenship from another country and they make a bona fide application for that citizenship, but it is turned down?

[James Brokenshire]

In those circumstances, the Home Secretary would have exercised her power to deprive, so the case does not relate to the specific power under discussion. Obviously, we are able to deprive somebody of citizenship, whether they are in the UK or outside the UK, under the existing powers. That is an important mechanism for maintaining national security and ensuring that the actions of an individual who may be involved in terrorism are addressed by restricting their ability to become involved in terrorism-related activity and by preventing travel that might be a key component of terrorism-related activity. That underlines the importance of deprivation as a means of addressing the very small cohort of individuals who would seek to do us harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.

The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.

I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Minister is talking about the process and that is very interesting, but can I press him on the Labour party’s view on the policy principle? Some of us, including some Labour Members, voted against the measure on principle. He says that it may be a positive thing to have this sort of deprivation. His party abstained, with Whips quite forcefully stopping people voting. What is the Labour party’s position on the principle at stake?

[Mr Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point in a moment. We abstained on 30 January because we wanted to ensure that we gave proper consideration to this matter, and we supported the amendment in another place to ensure that we did consider this matter. My noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon signed the amendment before the House today. We want to support the amendment today and return it to the Lords.

The Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will not do anything that puts the security of the United Kingdom at risk. I want to ensure that we do not remove citizenship without a proper right of appeal. I want to ensure that people know the grounds of that removal of citizenship and that the consequences are considered. I want, with the Minister, to tighten up how the Government intend to exercise that power. How do the Government intend to ensure that what is “reasonable” is deemed to be reasonable? I want to give the Minister the opportunity to explain that. This is a serious matter that needs proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have had a very short time in another place and one day in this House to consider this matter. We need to look at it in much more detail and we need to take evidence. A large number of people outside this place have raised concerns and we need to ensure, and not just in one-and-a-half hours, that the Minister justifies the opportunity and practice over a period of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I will be brief. I spoke in 1997 in the debate on the formation of SIAC, and I was wrong. I thought that the changes that were being made from the previous system were sufficient to protect people who are accused of terrorism. I reminded the House then that the previous arrangements had been used against not just people who wanted to blow up our country but journalists and others such as Mark Hosenball. One reason why we need to have a publicly accountable system, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), is that, without it, there cannot be a guarantee that a Home Secretary will not end up doing the same again.

I said in the debate about the formation of SIAC that transparency is the most effective protection against terrorism. I am really concerned that this arrangement not only risks creating statelessness but depends on a grossly untransparent system. I think that we should adopt the route that the Lords has offered us: yes, it is kicking the can down the road, but it is stopping and thinking so that the can is not mashed, thus destroying the reputation of our country.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I pay tribute to her for her acceptance that SIAC was an error and a big problem. Indeed, it is rare in this place for any of us to admit making a mistake. The encroachment of secret justice started with that commission and has continued in a number of other ways.

In the interests of time, I will not go through all my concerns. I have expressed them on a number of occasions in debates in the main Chamber and in the Home Affairs Committee and in discussions with the Minister. The reasons for my concerns remain the same, which is why I was proud to oppose the measure when we discussed it previously, and acted as a teller for the other side. It is a shame that more people did not join us, and I pay tribute to those who did, especially those Labour Members who braved the wrath of their Whips to fight their way into the Lobby, where we saw some interesting rows. It is also interesting to see people who voted for it on that occasion now opposing the principle. I still oppose the principle. There has been much more debate, both in the other place and on the Home Affairs Committee, which has helped to clarify how the measure might work. The Select Committee’s report on counter-terrorism is due out shortly, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at what it says. Obviously, I cannot presage its comments on anything, but I am sure that he will be interested to see it.

There are many issues relating to what happens if somebody is stateless in this country. If we end up leaving someone stateless because they cannot get the passport that we thought they could apply for, we have taken somebody who is apparently dangerous to us and prevented them from leaving the country. That does not seem a great success to me. There is also the issue about what happens if they are overseas. It also fosters the idea of two classes of citizen—people whose citizenship can be taken away without them being convicted of something and those who cannot have it taken away. It is about how the legal process works and much, much more.

In the interests of time, let me talk about the Government concessions, which I welcome. They are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough for me. There are two of them. I welcome the concession about the independent reviewer, and I was pleased to hear the Minister imply that it may be the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for whom I have huge respect. I would be more encouraged if he, rather than others, was taking on the role. I understand that no decision has yet been made. Will the Minister clarify whether the reviewer will look at specific cases, or just the overall process? Will they be able to trigger a review if a particular case has gone wrong? Will they have full access to all the information that SIAC has? If the independent reviewer does not have all that information, it will be hard for them to make a proper judgment.

Let me turn to the other amendment about reasonable grounds for belief. I welcome this step, because it addresses the key issue of avoiding statelessness. We should all be very concerned to avoid anything that will leave people stateless. My concern is about how certain we are. It was helpful to hear the Minister say—I ask him to correct me if I misquote him—that if someone wanted to claim asylum from a country, that would be deemed to mean that the Home Secretary could not act. If it was not possible to get the citizenship without travelling and the person was stuck in this country, that would be an issue.

I am still concerned about the appeal rights and about what will happen if the Home Secretary makes an error. What will happen if she acts reasonably, but it turns out that she is wrong and someone cannot get citizenship? That would be very alarming and I hope that the Minister will consider the issue and perhaps even tighten this up in the other House.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The administrative review process is already effective in identifying and correcting caseworking errors. From April to December 2013, 93% of these administrative reviews were completed within 28 days, and 21% of the administrative reviews requested resulted in the original decision being overturned. This shows that the review process can provide an effective way of correcting errors, and it does so in a speedy and efficient manner, so that periods of uncertainty are addressed. I do not think it does anyone any good to have long and protracted periods of uncertainty. Indeed, we are in the perverse position of having 17 rights of appeal, which are being reduced to four, to ensure that matters are dealt with effectively and appropriately, supplementing the administrative review process outlined in the Bill.

The Bill also requires landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. That is dealt with in Lords amendments 12 to 15. The scheme includes statutory codes of practice giving the technical detail of how it operates. Lords amendments 12 to 15 address concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to ensure that those codes have parliamentary oversight.

Lords amendments 25 to 28 deal with student accommodation. The Bill already excluded some student halls of residence from the proposed landlord checking requirement. We concluded that there was scope to go further and broaden the exemption for student accommodation. Educational institutions already have a duty to check the immigration status of their international students, and we do not want there to be double-checking of these persons. The changes therefore strike a sensible balance and minimise regulatory burdens on higher education institutions.

Lords Amendments 17, 35 and 36, which were proposed by Lord Avebury in the other place, correct an historical anomaly relating to the treatment of illegitimate children. Nationality law is complex, and anomalies arise, particularly as aspects of family life have changed since the time of the British Nationality Act 1981. In 2006, amendments to the 1981 Act enabled illegitimate children to inherit nationality from a British father in the same way as a legitimate child. Those amendments were not made retrospective. To have done so could have itself caused problems for individuals who were now adult and had made a life for themselves in a different nationality. These amendments enable illegitimate children born to British fathers before 2006 to register as British if they choose to do so, correcting a historical anomaly by providing a route to citizenship for those who want to take it.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for the Government’s support for these amendments, which I tried to put in the Bill but encountered some technical difficulties. Will he join me in paying tribute to those who campaigned for many years to get this injustice changed? People such as Tabitha Sprague, Antonia Fraser Fujinaga and Maureen Box tried very hard, and the many thousands affected by this will be delighted that the Government are now fixing it.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise those who have made the case for this change for some considerable time, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to support these amendments in the other place. I hope that this House will be equally able to support them here. It is important to recognise that they have addressed an historical anomaly and now allow that opportunity to the individuals affected of a route to citizenship that was not available to them before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. As I said at the beginning, the vote was 282 to 184 in favour of the proposal. If we reject the proposal today, we are left with no proposal. We are left with a promise of a pilot and a Bill after the Gracious Speech, following the scrutiny rightly given to it by my right hon. Friend.

[Dr Huppert]

A few of us are slightly confused about the procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have, so perhaps he could help us. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, the Lords would not discuss this again; whereas, if we rejected it, the Lords would have the chance to discuss it. Regardless of merit, is that not the right way round?

[Mr Hanson]

That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.

Stop-and-Search

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for the explicit work he has mentioned, but for raising the issue over the years during his time in this House. The Roberts case has established case law in relation to the interpretation of section 60, and that makes it clear that there must be necessity rather than just expediency.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement and her work to control these important but overused and discriminatory powers. More than 500,000 stops are drugs-related, but 93% of those stopped did not have anything illegal on them. Does she agree with the Runnymede Trust and StopWatch that heavy-handed policing of the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use is damaging community relations?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend and I have had discussions on these matters in the past and we take a slightly different approach to drugs and dealing with them. The Government have a very clear drugs strategy. Where he is right is that when there is a stop-and-search of somebody who is innocent and there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion or purpose behind it, it engenders exactly that distrust and lack of confidence. That is why targeting it more carefully, and changing and making absolutely clear what reasonable grounds for suspicion are, will help to address the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) what we will have completed by the end of this Parliament. I am happy to repeat the list that I read earlier. We will have delivered exit checks, increased advance passenger information coverage, introduced second-generation e-gates, developed primary border security systems, and improved the resilience of all our current business-critical systems.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is clearly very important to have exit checks back, because without them it is hard to have a sensible immigration policy. Sir Charles Montgomery from Border Force told the Select Committee that full e-borders capability would not be provided by the time of the general election. What is not going to be in place, and do we need it?

[Mrs May]

I have already established twice in my answers what is going to be completed during this Parliament by the time of the next general election. My hon. Friend is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and has obviously heard Sir Charles Montgomery, the director general of Border Force, give evidence on a number of occasions. One of the points Sir Charles has made in his evidence is that we have been increasing the amount of advance passenger information available to us so that we now have 80% coverage in all transport and more than 90% coverage in aviation.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not think the value of cash and non-cash support is ungenerous when taken as a whole. He talks about the position of children and families. A family of four on section 95 support would receive £178.44 per week to spend on essential needs, with their accommodation, utility bills, council tax, household equipment, health care and schooling provided. In that context, we believe the support given is appropriate.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of detailed questions. On the support provided under section 95, accommodation is provided to 22,372 people and the cash-only payments are provided to about 2,688 people. He sought to press me on whether we would seek to appeal this judgment. The judgment was handed down yesterday, it is lengthy and detailed, and it is right that the Home Office should reflect carefully on it to determine whether or not an appeal is appropriate.

The judgment does not seek to challenge the current levels of support provided; it simply seeks to comment on the detail of the review undertaken last year. I maintain that that review was properly assessed and took into consideration relevant details and matters for an assessment of the level of support. It concluded that the support should be frozen at its current level. The right hon. Gentleman gave a churlish characterisation of the steps that the Government take in their support on asylum. We work to uphold this country’s proud tradition in ensuring that those fleeing persecution can receive support and humanitarian assistance in this country. That is long standing, and we should welcome and cherish it. His comments were entirely ill-judged.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The level is clearly too low—it is about half that of income support—and of course we are talking about people the Minister will not allow to work for themselves. Is not the big problem simply that the Government are too slow to make decisions? Some 36% of asylum seekers wait more than six months for an initial decision—surely that should be speeded up, which would save the Government a lot of money in supporting them.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the process on asylum claims. It is important to recognise that there has been a growth in the number of people seeking asylum in this country—the increase has been about 8%, although that is not as big as has been seen in some other European countries because of continuing crises in various parts of the world. Some decisions do take too long, but the Government are addressing the problem: most decisions are dealt with quickly. In 2012-13, 78% of decisions were made within six months. I agree that decisions should be taken more quickly. Our visa and immigration command is looking at this work carefully and is putting more caseworkers in place to support that activity, which is important.

My hon. Friend makes a connection in respect of the rate of support and Department for Work and Pensions levels, but asylum support is provided for different purposes. It is provided to meet essential living needs only and is temporary in nature. I highlight the fact that there are other services—accommodation and utilities—that are provided free which other benefits would seek to take into account.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for setting out the reason behind the joint report from the three Committees. I will go on to explain exactly where we are in the process. He talks about the package coming before the House before it is adopted. We have made it very clear that there will be another opportunity for Parliament to debate the matter and vote on it.

I should remind the House of the background and the stage in proceedings we have reached. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government signed in 2007, the UK had a specific and limited period of time to opt out of roughly 130 justice and home affairs measures covered by the treaty. That opt-out—Labour negotiated it, but never made it clear whether it would use it—had to be exercised en bloc, and before 31 May this year. Last July, the Government informed the House that we intended to exercise the UK’s opt-out. After debates in both Houses, Parliament voted for us to do so.

Accordingly, on 24 July 2013, the Prime Minister wrote to the then President of the Council of Ministers, informing her that the UK had exercised its right to opt-out from all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. That decision is irreversible, and will come into effect on 1 December 2014.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Paragraph 85 of the Home Affairs Committee’s ninth report, which dealt with the matter, states:

“The Government should…be explicit on what would happen if the proposed opt-in could not be agreed”—

in other words, they should be explicit on what would happen if the negotiations failed. That did not get a substantive response. Will the Home Secretary be explicitly clear about what will happen if the Government fail to agree the opt-in terms?

[Mrs May]

I will refer to one or two specific measures in relation to that, but as I have just indicated to the House, the Government have exercised the block opt-out. It is open to us to seek to rejoin any of the individual measures covered by it. If we do not negotiate to rejoin those measures, we will no longer be part of them from 1 December 2014.

When I came to the House last July, I explained that my ministerial colleagues and I had concluded that a number of the measures subject to the opt-out decision added value in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice, and that it would therefore be in our national interest to seek to rejoin them. We believe that there are only a limited number of such measures—we set those out in Command Paper 8671 for the House to see before it voted on our decision to exercise the opt-out.

They were always separate decisions, and the Government have always been clear that Parliament and its Committees should have adequate time to scrutinise both. To make that explicit, we listened to the concerns of hon. Members, and particularly to the Chairmen of the Committees to which I have referred, and amended the motion for last July’s debate to invite the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to submit reports before the Government opened formal discussions with the European Commission, the Council and other member states.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

No it is not, and I have to say to my hon. Friend that he is not party to the discussions that we are party to, but I am interested that he mentions Germany because it is one of the countries that has a greater ability to deal with the proportionality issue than the United Kingdom. As I say, there are other member states who have themselves already, either automatically because of their constitution or because they have taken powers, taken steps to ensure they can deal with the very issues we are dealing with in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act I referred to earlier.

Florian Baboi is a Romanian national who was returned to the UK from Romania under an arrest warrant to stand trial for the murder of David McArthur in Birmingham in August 2011. He was found guilty in May 2012 and sentenced to life in prison. That is another case where the EAW has helped to bring dangerous offenders to justice.

So it is unsurprising that the Association of Chief Police Officers’ evidence to the Home Affairs Committee made clear its view that the arrest warrant is an “essential weapon” in the fight against serious criminality. This view was echoed by the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, who was clear that the streamlined process of the arrest warrant makes it easier to bring serious criminals back to face justice. I agree wholeheartedly with those assessments.

[Dr Huppert]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to highlight the huge importance of the European arrest warrant. I am constantly surprised by people who are so fanatically anti-European that they would jeopardise our safety by trying to opt out of it. Is she aware that, last Friday, the Daily Mail wrote about a case involving Magdalena Ferkova, who was brought back to this country using the European arrest warrant? If even the Daily Mail is happy about it, there must be something to be said for it.

[Mrs May]

Today’s debate has probably generated a first in parliamentary history: my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) praising the Daily Mail in a debate in the House of Commons.

I want to turn now to some of the other important measures that the Government are proposing that we should rejoin. We are seeking to rejoin the European supervision order, which allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK rather than spending many months abroad awaiting trial. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) will be particularly aware of the benefits that this could have brought in the case of Andrew Symeou, to which he alluded earlier. I am sure that the whole House also wants to see foreign national offenders sent back to their own country. The prisoner transfer framework decision provides for non-consent-based transfers throughout the European Union, and the Government want to opt back into that measure and send criminals back home.

We also want our law enforcement agencies to be able to establish joint investigation teams with colleagues in other European countries. Hon. Members might ask why we want this to happen. I cite Operation Rico, the biggest-ever operation against so-called boiler-room fraud, which is precisely the kind of practical co-operation we want to encourage. Thanks to the excellent work of our National Crime Agency and its Spanish colleagues, there have been 83 arrests in Spain alone, and 18 in the UK. It is also quite clear that many other EU member states and their law enforcement agencies rely on measures of this sort to provide the necessary framework for practical co-operation in the fight against crime. In most instances, bilateral agreements would simply not work as effectively and our co-operation would suffer.

We therefore owe it to the victims of crime, both here and abroad, to ensure that such co-operation can continue unhindered. We owe it to the elderly who have been scammed out of their life savings, and to the hard-working people who have been conned into dodgy investments by fraudsters and had their hard-earned money shamefully spent on flashy watches, sharp suits and fast cars. I want to protect victims of crime, and I am determined to give our law enforcement the tools they need to do that.

The Government’s policy is clear. We have exercised the United Kingdom’s opt-out and are negotiating to rejoin a limited number of measures where we believe that it is in the national interest to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Yes, I am deeply concerned about the matters that my hon. Friend raises. Indeed, the whole question of the role of the European Court of Justice is a matter of great concern, not only in this country but in many other countries of the European Union. I will not go all the way down the route of discussing the role of the Court. However, there are issues about who is qualified to be members of the Court and whether members of our own Supreme Court are entirely satisfied with the nature of the decisions that come out of it, just as they are concerned about questions regarding the European Court of Human Rights.

The reports of all three Committees are tagged to today’s debate, as is a joint report castigating the Government for their refusal to allow Parliament a debate and vote on the measures the United Kingdom should seek to rejoin before negotiations begin with the European Union institutions.

[Dr Huppert]

I presume the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is much harder for someone to negotiate when their hands are tied. Will he reassure me that he is not trying to ensure that we leave everything by making all the negotiations so difficult that they simply cannot be brought home? Is that what he is trying to achieve?

[Mr Cash]

What I am saying is that voting in this House is a test of our democracy. We have already had ample opportunity to consider the ramifications of the block opt-out and we now know the 35 matters in question. Given the importance of those issues to UK citizens, those who represent their individual constituencies in this House should now have the opportunity to vote on them. That is a matter of principle and it is also a matter of democracy. Once the decisions become irrevocable, the reality is that they will be binding, through the European Communities Act 1972, in a way that would not be the case if this were a general debate about home affairs policy. This debate is tied to the role of the European Court of Justice, against which there is no appeal.

Why have the Government set their face against an open, transparent and informed debate and vote on these measures before negotiations are concluded? In the absence of any convincing explanation from the Government—I say with great respect to the Secretaries of State that we have not had one—we are compelled to conclude that the risk of unravelling a carefully crafted coalition deal weighs more heavily than the desire for democratic accountability. Such an approach is inimical to this House’s European scrutiny system, which is based on our Standing Orders and on early analysis and assessment of the legal and policy implications of EU policies and legislation so that Parliament has a genuine opportunity to influence not only the Government’s position in negotiations, but their outcome as well.

In this case, however, the position is reversed. As I said in an intervention, Parliament will simply be asked to rubber stamp the outcome of negotiations that are being held behind closed doors and hidden from the searching gaze of the public and Parliament. Negotiations are being held behind closed doors not only by the Council of Ministers and the European institutions, but by the coalition itself. We do not know the basis on which these decisions have been reached. It is a double whammy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, after a characteristically entertaining contribution by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I agreed with a lot, though not quite everything, of what he said. It is also interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made a fantastically strong case for the benefits of staying inside larger organisations. It was an excellent case for why Scotland should remain with the United Kingdom. I congratulate him on making such a strong case here, and I look forward to hearing it elsewhere.

It is good that there is general agreement among the three Front-Bench spokesmen of the three main parties, and indeed the Scottish nationalists and others, that the UK needs to remain opted in to many of these measures—the most significant ones. That is very important and I am pleased to have seen it. I pay tribute to both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor for resisting some of the siren calls from their Back Benchers. They understand the importance of these measures and it is important that they stick with that.

I have a number of fears about where we might head. One, which I hope can be addressed, is the fear of a gap—that there may be a pause between us pulling out and going back in—and the consequences that that would have. This was mentioned earlier. There are some provisions for temporary measures and so on, but what would happen to the head of Europol, who is a Brit? Can he continue as head of Europol if we are outside, whether for a minute or a month? Would that cause problems? Would anybody agree to temporary transitional arrangements if that meant that the person in charge came from a country that was not part of Europol? That is a big worry.

The bigger worry, however, is that we might accidentally fall out of all these measures without that being the intention of the vast majority of the House. That could be because negotiations fail and we simply cannot reach an agreement—there was much in what the hon. Member for Rhondda said about the concern that many of our European partners have about our attitude to European co-operation. What happens if someone tries to cause trouble and we cannot close the negotiations? That also applies to other suggestions. If we have a formal, fixed vote before negotiations, that will make it incredibly hard to have a proper negotiation. There are a number of core measures. There are also a number of peripheral measures. If this House says, “These are the absolute lines,” it makes it very hard to create a proper negotiation—actually to have a discussion with the European Union. That could lead us to falling out unintentionally.

I am aware of what happened in the House on the issue of military intervention in Syria. There was a proposal from the Prime Minister to have military intervention without UN approval, and there was a proposal from the Leader of the Opposition to have military intervention without UN approval. There was a small group across various parties—about 50 of us—who did not want intervention without approval, but because neither side would agree with the other’s version of the wording, our small band won. I am delighted about that, but I would not want the small band of people who want us to be out of all these measures to win because of a disagreement between the two sides.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, I thought that the Syria vote was on the option to keep a military option on the table, not an option to go to war.

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend is right on the technicality that there would have been a second vote, but the principle ensconced in both was to have military intervention without the UN approval that some of us wanted. However, that is not the subject at the heart of this debate.

I share the concerns expressed about whether the whole effort has been worth while. The shadow Home Secretary is not in her place. I do not always agree with her, but I did agree when she said that the things we will not remain opted in to are, generally speaking, the less important ones. They are the ones that do not matter; they are more trivial. That is by design, but it also means that the entire balance will not have been changed as a result of this. The Home Affairs Committee agreed unanimously that if the Government proceed with the option as proposed, it will not result in any repatriation of powers. Some of us think that is a good thing—that collaboration and co-operation are worth having—but others have concerns. Has it been worth the huge amount of parliamentary, ministerial and official time and effort in negotiating with partners to achieve what will probably—hopefully—be a very small effect?

It is important to highlight why this matters. We have had a great deal of discussion about process, but we should remember why it is important. Our work with our partners in this area of policing and criminal justice is one of the great benefits of European Union membership. There are other benefits—on trade, free movement and a stronger voice on the international stage—but that ability to share information to catch UK criminals on the run and to bring them back to face justice at home, and to fight international terrorism and crimes such as child abuse, come from our participation in the European Union’s justice and home affairs measures. Europol is an incredibly important element in the fight against organised crime. We would suffer badly if we lost that. Cases such as Operation Rescue involved huge co-operation with 12 other countries, with Europol playing a critical role in intelligence and analytical support which resulted in the safeguarding of at least 230 children worldwide, 60 of whom were in the United Kingdom, and the arrest of more than 180 offenders, 121 of whom were arrested in the UK. That is the sort of thing that would be put at risk by those who are simply allergic to anything that mentions the word “Europe”, and there are a number on the Conservative Back Benches, though fortunately not on the Front Bench. We do take that lead. It is not a coincidence that the head of Europol is a Briton.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman raises the question of those people for whom the word “Europe” evokes all kinds of spectres. [Interruption.] Well, he got very close to it. He is only repeating Bismarck in the late 19th century, when he said, “Whenever anybody uses the word ‘Europe’, I then realise what they are up to.”

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that enlightening quote. He can choose to describe himself how he likes.

It is strange that the Home Office, while trying to stay within Europol, has created ambiguity about the relationship with Europol by, for example, not opting in to other measures. I want the Government to have flexibility on these things so that they can take many of the other Europol measures and not be bound too tightly by the exact details of a vote here. It will make it very strange. As the Home Affairs Committee highlighted, that runs contrary to the logic of the Government’s stated policy.

We get huge benefits from the European arrest warrant. The Association of Chief Police Officers—it nears the end of its career but it continues for now at least to speak for senior police officers—has highlighted that relying on alternative arrangements to the European arrest warrant

“would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”

That is what has to be set against the allergy that many have to this issue.

Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions, said that failure to opt in could lead to an

“uncertain, cumbersome and fragmented approach, which is likely to have a damaging impact on the prosecution of crime in England and Wales.

That is what has to be addressed by those who want us just to leave the EAW. I am glad that Ministers have taken a sensible line on this. We need to reform the European arrest warrant, but we are better off for having it. For example, the Government’s Command Paper highlights that an extradition now takes on average three months, whereas it takes about 10 months for countries that are not covered by the EAW. That is a substantial change, and some people would not be extradited at all. Those who want to go back to the old framework would slow down the process of justice in some cases and stop it in others.

Of course, we need to make some changes to the EAW, and I pay tribute to the principled stance taken by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who I do not think is allergic to this. He has some detailed, thought-through concerns about a number of aspects, and I hope we will hear thoughtful comments from him later.

Changes have been made. For example, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 made some changes to extradition to ensure that our courts can take greater account of these matters, and the judge will have to consider the seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence. Changes are also happening within Europe to try to make the situation better and to deal with cases where people might face a long period of pre-trial detention. Many of our Members of the European Parliament have been working on this. In particular, Sarah Ludford—Baroness Ludford—has been successful in securing a majority in the European Parliament for a package of EU-wide reforms of the European arrest warrant. These recommendations are important. They propose the inclusion of an EU-wide human rights safeguard clause preventing miscarriages of justice, and measures to improve standards of detention, specifically pre-trial detention. I hope that the European Commission and this Government will make sure that these reforms happen by coming up with proposals to enact them that we then get into law.

If we want to benefit from these tools and change them so that they work for Britain, we obviously have to be there at the table leading the negotiations. If we walk out, we give up on any chance of doing that, leaving our citizens vulnerable at home or when they go holidaying or working in Europe. Crime crosses borders and so must we. That means co-operation, information exchange, and justice systems that match our own high standards. We should opt in to these measures and make sure that we do not accidentally walk out, because that is the key to achieving this effectively and efficiently. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor will successfully conclude these negotiations, and that my fears of our sleepwalking out of them do not come to pass, because that is the best thing for Britain.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I can only say that the centre director, to whom I have spoken, has said that additional resources were deployed and that additional support has been given to those in detention. I am sure that all the facts of the case will be pursued and investigated, and that will certainly cover the manner in which the incident was handled after the news broke. The centre director has told me that, recognising the distress caused by this tragic news, reassurance was given to those in detention and that further ongoing support is being provided.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I add my support to the condolences and the plea for common sense in the case of Yashika. There is no doubt that Yarl’s Wood has improved, not least with the ending of child detention, which was simply inhumane—I am glad we have stopped it. However, this country continues to be unique in routinely detaining migrants without any time limit, at huge expense—according to one estimate, it is £75 million. Will the Minister look at alternative, community-based solutions such as in Sweden, which gets a higher returns rate, costs less and is more humane?

[James Brokenshire]

We always look at ways in which detention is minimised. However, in a system in which we seek to remove, detention can and should be a means of managing that process. Certainly, we continue to monitor the situation carefully. I hear the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but there are no easy solutions. Sadly, we need to detain in some circumstances to ensure that our removals process operates effectively.