Backbench Business

Debate between Keith Vaz and David T C Davies

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). We are taking part in a very important debate. He may have lamented the fact that there are so few Members here, but it is the quality of the debate that counts. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and I may be regarded as usual suspects at debates such as this, but the Minister and shadow Minister have to be here.

The hon. Member for Monmouth was missed on the Home Affairs Committee when I was chairing it. He went on to chair his own Committee with great distinction. I hope he will continue to do that in the next Parliament. He has raised an important subject. I fully support the concept behind the European arrest warrant. It was right that the previous Labour Government signed up to it. It was a mechanism by which those who had been responsible for criminal offences in one country could almost immediately be transported without question to another country, so the concept and the principle are right. The hon. Member for Monmouth gave examples of the Costa del Crime, as it was sometimes referred to in Spain, where people ran away to hide from the authorities in this country.

However, what I have seen in the operation of the European arrest warrant is that the current capacity of the warrant still causes concern, because in certain cases—the hon Gentleman has talked about some; I will refer to others—it tramples on the rights of individuals. I accept the important principle of the European arrest warrant, which is an integral part of our involvement in the European Union, which, as we know, will come to an end by 19 March 2019, if not sooner. It is a part of our being involved in the justice and home affairs agenda of the European Union.

The Minister has a task when he returns. I hope he will again return to the same post after the next election, because he has done the job extremely well in the time that he has been the Minister for Policing, although we still do not have a police funding formula, but we will leave that to another debate. The measures are complicated and they need to be dealt with carefully. We need the arrest warrant to be a critical part of our negotiations with the EU.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Monmouth, who is one of Parliament’s leading Brexiteers, did not put the issue at the forefront of his speech, because, if we come out of the European Union, as we will—the people have voted for us to come out—we will also have to come out of the European arrest warrant, unless a great deal is done by the Minister or the Home Secretary to ensure we remain a part of it. That is why this debate is so important. It sets a strategy as to what we expect Ministers to do. If they come to an arrangement whereby we remain part of the EAW—I do not know how they will do that under the current arrangements—and if we do a deal that gives us the benefits of the EAW, the problems with it, as eloquently set out by the hon. Gentleman, need to be addressed.

Of course there are benefits from the European arrest warrant. It enables us to track down criminals. In London, 28% of those arrested are foreign nationals, half of whom are EU nationals. We therefore commend the success of the European arrest warrant so far. When the shadow Minister for Policing comes to speak in this debate—I have heard her speak on this subject in the Chamber, and she made one of the best speeches that I have seen her give—I am sure she will tell us of all the successes, as will the Minister. However, the problem is that it is a disproportionate measure at the moment. The United Kingdom receives disproportionately more warrants than it issues. Not only does that undermine the credibility of the system, but it is extremely costly to the taxpayer.

In 2015—the Minister might have more accurate or up-to-date figures—the United Kingdom issued 228 requests for arrest to other EU member states. In that same year, 12,613 requests were sent by EU member states to the United Kingdom. Between 2009 and 2016, 55,838 requests were sent to the United Kingdom; 10,532 arrests were made in the United Kingdom; and 7,436 surrenders were made here. However, in that period 2009 to 2016, the United Kingdom sent only 1,424 requests; 916 arrests were made on our behalf; and only 800 surrenders were made to us. That therefore points to the disproportionate nature of the way in which the European arrest warrant has operated. That is why this is such a good opportunity for the Government to be able to negotiate a better deal with the European Union. I hope this will be very much a part of what is going to happen when we look at the justice and home affairs agenda.

The hon. Member for Monmouth gave us examples of individuals and miscarriages of justice. Deborah Dark, a British woman, was pursued across Europe because of an EAW issued by France, although she had been cleared of drug charges years previously. Other cases include that of Michael Turner and Jason McGoldrick, who were extradited under a European arrest warrant in 2009. These men were ably supported by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) after being imprisoned in Hungary without trial in a process that continued for eight years.

There are other examples, but my point is that, if we have reached a situation in which the warrant is used against citizens conducting their lawful business because of mistakes in other countries, that really affects them. It is no good the other country’s apologising at the end and saying “I am sorry; we got the wrong person,” or “We should never have arrested this individual.” The fact is that that damage remains with the individuals for years to come. Edmond Arapi, an Albanian chef, was arrested while arriving at Gatwick airport in June 2009. An EAW had been issued after he was tried and convicted in his absence by a court in Genoa for carrying out a murder in Italy. He was to face a sentence of 16 years in prison. He possessed documentary evidence to prove his innocence but he was held in Wandsworth prison for two weeks before being granted bail. He was subjected to 12 court appearances before the Italian court admitted that it had sought the arrest of the wrong person, following a brief check of Mr Arapi’s fingerprints. That is a classic example of where the EAW has gone wrong.

[David T. C. Davies]

I agree with the points the right hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that another problem is that British nationals who are extradited to countries in the EAW area cannot get bail because they do not habitually reside in those countries? They are denied a right that would be almost automatic in the UK.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Because of the different jurisdictions, legislation and applications of law in those countries, it is extremely difficult. The people who really benefit from the European arrest warrant are the highly paid lawyers—I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister, and I have never done an extradition case—who do well partly out of the uncertainty that people face. When they are told they are about to be arrested, obviously they seek legal advice. They may have to pay a huge amount of money and may in the end not even face charges.

What the issue boils down to is that the automatic transmission of people is the problem—the lack of a test allowing the courts in this country to look carefully at what is happening. I know, although I have not seen his speech, that in replying the Minister will definitely and correctly claim credit for the fact that, when she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister introduced a bar that had to be reached before people could be extradited. There is no doubt that a court test is now applied, but it is not high enough and it does not give the protection required.

The hon. Member for Monmouth does a terrific job in his official capacity as a special constable—it is one of my dreams that one day on the tube I will meet him in his full regalia. He has visited places in the EAW area and says that some of them have better detention facilities than ours. I cannot believe that, because we are the best in the world, and I am extremely jealous to think that any other country’s detention facilities are better.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I had better gently point out that I was asked to resign a year or so ago because the rules had changed and the British Transport police decided they did not want a serving Member of Parliament as a special constable, so we shall not be meeting on the tube in that capacity.

[Keith Vaz]

That is a huge loss to British policing. I will not say it is because of the cuts, because obviously there was an ethical issue, but the hon. Gentleman will be missed, and I hope there will be an opportunity for Parliament to acknowledge his great success. We must put up a plaque or something to recognise his great achievement. He will be sorely missed by British policing and we will look carefully at the next set of crime figures to see whether they have gone up as a result of his retirement.

I have one final point—I hope the Minister will cover it because there is time—about foreign national offenders, including some in our prisons and some subject to the European arrest warrant. I cannot understand why that great invention that allows people to be transferred immediately before they have been convicted of any offence has prevented the European Union from taking back its own nationals from our prisons. The latest figures show that there are 4,217 EU offenders in the UK, costing £169 million a year to the British taxpayer. The top three countries are Poland, with 983, Ireland with 764 and Romania with 635. The EAW is a device by which nationals can be removed immediately, without any restraint, subject to the limited bar that the Prime Minister introduced when she was Home Secretary, but all those foreign national offenders are sitting in our prisons and cannot be removed to other countries, although they cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will tell us what is happening, and that it will be that there is light at the end of the tunnel with respect to offenders and those who have been arrested.

Unlike other Members present for the debate—I know that the Chair is impartial, so we will not mention how he voted—I did not see many opportunities in Brexit, but in the present instance we have a big opportunity to go into the negotiations and iron out the problems. I am for keeping the principle of the European arrest warrant, but we should iron out the difficulties that obviously exist, so that we can reassure parliamentary colleagues, many of whom have raised the matter of the EAW in the past, that, post-March 2019, we will have a good system that recognises the need to arrest criminals, but that also recognises the rights of people who have committed no offence and who, under the present process are, in all innocence, being arrested. Let us keep the benefits and reduce the burdens.

Rights of EU Nationals

Debate between Keith Vaz and David T C Davies

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I echo the comments about how disappointing it is that the SNP chose to play a game of political football rather than to discuss the issues seriously. There is little in the motion that I would disagree with except for the word “should”, to which I will return in a moment. The motion asks us to recognise the huge contribution that people from other EU countries have made to this country. Of course we all recognise their contribution. That point has been made over and over again on these Government Benches, and inside and outside the House by people in both the remain and leave camps. Let me say it again: people from other European Union nations have made an enormous contribution to this country. They are very welcome in this country. They were welcome before the referendum took place, they are welcome now and they will be welcome after we exit the EU.

[Keith Vaz]

May I add the hon. Gentleman’s wife, who is of Hungarian origin, to that list of people?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to mention that. I declare an interest in that my wife is Hungarian. My children are completely bilingual and have dual nationality. It is a cliché, but when I say that some of my closest friends are from eastern Europe, I mean that I go on holiday and share houses with them, which makes us pretty close friends. It is ludicrous even to suggest that people who are involved in the leave campaign—dare I say that I was the leader of the campaign in Wales?—have some kind of xenophobic or anti-EU agenda.

At the same time, we should also be making it clear that we welcome the contribution of professionals from countries outside the EU. I have dealt with many EU nationals who work in the NHS and the public sector in Wales, but I have also dealt with doctors from Egypt, businessmen from India and nurses from the Philippines, and they are also making a huge contribution to our economy. These people from outside the EU nations are also very welcome and will continue to be so. It is ridiculous to suggest that people from EU states should somehow be scared or worried about what is going to happen when we leave the EU, given that we already welcome and appreciate the contribution of so many people from outside it.

This Government have put compassion at the heart of their policy. We are spending more money on foreign aid than any other Government in this country has ever done and more than any other country in Europe is doing; we have ring-fenced NHS spending in England—Labour certainly has not done that in Wales; and we are dedicated to ironing out the inequality within the education sector. It is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that anyone on any part of the Government Benches would ever want to round up people from other EU nations and throw them out—that is a fantasy and it will never, ever happen. Nobody wants it to happen and nobody has ever called for it to happen. I am just grateful for the opportunity to say that clearly once again.

Apparently, there have been issues with hate crime. May I say once again, as someone who was heavily involved in the leave campaign, that I, along with everyone I campaigned with, unreservedly condemn any form of hate crime towards anyone, be they from EU nations or outside, and whether it is because of their sexual orientation, the colour of their skin, their religion or their nationality? I, along with every person I have ever worked with on the leave campaign and with every person I have been involved with in politics, totally condemn that sort of behaviour. We should not run away with the idea that people from eastern Europe or from other European nations are constantly being hassled as they walk around; in my experience, which is considerable, that is simply not happening. I have been married for 13 years to somebody who moved here from eastern Europe and who has never been a victim of that sort of behaviour. I am not suggesting it does not happen, but I sometimes think there is a tendency to over-exaggerate.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Keith Vaz and David T C Davies

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

Then I admire his patience in sitting through the entire debate and I wish him well in his ministerial career. I am not sure whether, had he got to the Ministry of Justice before the Bill was signed off, he might have opposed some of these points.

I will start by raising a few concerns. I agree with the shadow Lord Chancellor that there are some good parts of the Bill, and I hope that we can make it better between now and it becoming law, should the House decide to support it. I have about five points to make, the first of which concerns judicial review. The previous Labour Government were embarrassed on a number of occasions when they lost judicial review challenges, and I believe it is extremely important that that remains an avenue of choice for those who feel that the justice system does not provide them with the kinds of solutions they need to their problems.

In particular, I am thinking about those who face difficult immigration cases, who have seen the right of appeal taken from them—not by the Ministry of Justice but by the Home Office—and who now face only the prospect of applications for judicial review to bring their cases to the attention of those who make such decisions. I agree that there are many frivolous cases, and many people go forward and make judicial review applications, sometimes for the sheer hell of it. It is right that citizens should use this power carefully, but once we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, we leave people with no choice other than to apply for judicial review. That is why we have seen an increase in judicial review over the past few years.

[David T. C. Davies]

Have the Government had to consider this matter because with the encouragement of various—dare I say it?—left-wing non-governmental organisations, people who clearly had no right whatsoever to be in this country were able to put in one appeal after another and be legally funded all the way through? Is it not about time the taxpayer had a bit of representation as well?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman served on the Home Affairs Committee and therefore knows how the Home Office deals with such cases. If we were satisfied that decision making was robust and that entry clearance officers and those who reviewed their decisions always made the right decision, we would not need a right of appeal. As he knows, however, having sat through the Committee’s deliberations, 50% of appeals on immigration cases are won by the applicant. That does not mean that judges are cleverer than entry clearance officers, but it does mean that decisions have not been looked at carefully enough. If we take away that right of appeal, all people will have is the ability to challenge in the courts. Of course I do not believe it right for people to play the system and have multiple appeals, but if we take away the last vestige by which they can challenge decisions, we will leave them with absolutely no choice.

As I said, the previous Government suffered because they tried to stop citizens marrying foreign citizens in our courts. They were taken to court and judicially reviewed, and the court said, “You cannot do this”. Spouses had to go back and make applications, but the previous Government—as successive Governments have done—lost a number of such applications. I think we should look carefully at this issue. On its own it may not seem like a bad idea, but if we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, as section 11 of the Immigration Bill does, that will create a number of problems. After all, 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. We must look carefully at the issue.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Keith Vaz and David T C Davies

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee. I suggest to him that if we were unable as a Parliament to look after our own data on the activities of MPs, it will be difficult for the public to have any confidence that we will do a better job with their data.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right; we have to be very careful with data protection and the way in which we look after data. We have not had a lost disc for some time; at least, not for the last three weeks, which is pretty good. The last major loss was several months, if not a year, ago. Maybe the civil servants and others with responsibility for all this will ensure that no further discs will be lost in the future. I hope that we will have assurances about how that will be done.

In conclusion, although the Home Secretary made a terrific case against identity cards—she is always very good at putting the case—the Opposition will not vote against the Bill. Speeches from people such as me should be relatively brief; that is why I will not take up my full allocation of time.