Eurojust

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship this afternoon, Ms Ryan.

Eurojust is an EU agency based in The Hague that provides practical support for member states that are investigating or prosecuting crimes with an international dimension. The UK has participated in Eurojust since its creation in 2002.

In 2014, the Government opted out of a number of EU police and criminal justice measures, but decided that the UK should remain part of Eurojust, stating:

“The complex nature of cross-border cases can involve obstacles (including differing legal and procedural systems and languages) but Eurojust provides the facilities, language skills, legal expertise and goodwill required for effective cross-border cooperation. Eurojust also provides expertise and support to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors wishing to set up JITs”—

joint investigation teams. They therefore concluded that bilateral co-operation outside the Eurojust framework would be more costly, time-consuming and inefficient in complex cross-border cases.

Despite that positive assessment of Eurojust, the coalition Government decided not to opt into the European Commission’s proposal for a new Eurojust regulation in 2013. They feared that proposed changes to the powers given to Eurojust national members, seconded by member states, would cut across the separation of powers between the police and prosecuting authorities—a fundamental feature of the UK’s criminal justice system. They were also concerned that provisions on co-operation between Eurojust and the proposed European public prosecutor’s office might undermine their decision not to take part in the EPPO.

The Government made it clear, however, that they would review UK participation in Eurojust once negotiations had concluded. A motion agreed to by the House in October 2013 stated that the UK should not opt into the proposed Eurojust regulation, but

“conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting into the Eurojust Regulation, post adoption, in consultation with Parliament”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 892.]

Following five years of negotiation, the new Eurojust regulation was adopted last November. The Government consider that the concerns that prevented the UK from opting into the Eurojust proposal in 2013 have been addressed; they now wish to opt in, even though the regulation will apply only from 12 December 2019. Given the imminence of the UK’s exit from the EU and continued uncertainty about the terms of the UK’s withdrawal, as well as the risk that the UK might leave without a deal, the European Scrutiny Committee considers that the House should have the opportunity to question the Minister on the Government’s reasons for recommending that the UK opt in at this late stage in the Brexit process.

The report agreed by the European Scrutiny Committee in December raises several questions. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government’s assessment of the operational value of Eurojust has changed since they published a detailed impact assessment on police and criminal justice measures in 2014? What views have the UK law enforcement and prosecution authorities expressed about the Government’s opt-in recommendation? Will the UK be at risk of ejection from Eurojust if it does not opt in? What impact would that have on cross-border operational capability to investigate and prosecute serious crime?

While opting in would secure the UK’s participation in Eurojust during a post-exit transition or implementation period, what type of relationship do the Government envisage with Eurojust after transition or in the event of a no-deal exit? How would operational co-operation on standard third country terms compare with the UK’s current level of co-operation with Eurojust? What assessment have the Government made of the impact on cross-border investigations and prosecutions?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to an informed and lively debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for those additional questions. I welcome his contribution and, indeed, the Committee’s scrutiny of the process and the calling of the debate. It is extremely important that these decisions and processes are scrutinised properly and that the Executive are held to account, particularly at this pivotal, highly emotive stage of the negotiations and the reshaping of our relationship with our European partners.

The key word here is “co-operation”. We are seeking to maximise continuity, and these are co-operation mechanisms that work. They are valued by our partners and are an integral part of our collective effort to protect our citizens and pursue justice. We have invested a lot of time and money over the years in building these mechanisms, and it is our shared desire to continue them. That is my experience from direct conversations with other interior Ministers. I have yet to meet one who does not want to continue the way we are. Obviously, politics might override that in the short term; none of us can know how this will work out. In seeking to opt in, the UK Government’s primary motive is to seek continuity in the existing arrangements. We recognise that if we opted out, we would be out, and we feel that the opportunity costs of that are too high.

My hon. Friend and others asked about operational co-operation on standard third country terms and about what that might look like in the future. Our White Paper, published in July 2018, outlined that if the UK’s participation in Eurojust were limited to the existing third country terms, there would be a reduced capability for the UK and the EU to co-operate in tackling serious cross-border and organised crime. We would have a reduced role in operational activity at Eurojust, and there would be limitations to the extent to which Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Office prosecutors could work with and at Eurojust.

It would not be a disaster—other areas of our security participation toolkit would be more damaged by our being limited to third country status—but our starting point is that we should try to maintain, as far as possible, the capabilities that we have, because that is where we have a mutual interest with our European partners. We will therefore go into these negotiations with a determination to move beyond standard third country status. We are not a standard third country: we helped to build these platforms, we helped to fund them and we are core to their success. That will be the core of our argument to the Commission as and when we get to that point.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am not a lawyer, but we pick up some understanding of these things from our lawyer friends over time. In reading the European Scrutiny Committee statement, I touched on some of the differences between the legal and policing systems across the EU. There are some fairly profound differences in the history of our legal systems: ours derives from common law, and continental systems derive largely from Roman law, which is quite different. How helpful has Eurojust been in bridging that cultural gap?

[Mr Hurd]

My understanding is that Eurojust has been extremely valuable. The value of having 28 representatives of criminal justice agencies of member states in the same building, working together, with access to the files and the ability to co-ordinate prosecutions and criminal justice processes, cannot be underestimated in an age in which the crime that we are pursuing and investigating is becoming increasingly complex—crossing borders and requiring that degree of co-ordination. The simple virtue of having people in the same building, sharing information and working together in that way, has been extraordinarily valuable.

The proof lies in the facts and figures, our participation, the volumes of requests for support and the levels of co-ordination meetings. As of 6 July 2018, the UK desk had 544 live cases. As of January 2019, the UK was participating in 50 live joint investigations—the highest number of any desk at Eurojust. It is a mechanism that a lot of information and co-ordination is flowing through in the increasingly complex world that we are trying to police. Therefore, as a nexus of co-operation it has already proved its value. That is why the Government have reached a very clear view that that co-operation is a capability that we want to maintain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I have another question. Does he agree that entering an international arrangement voluntarily is very different from having an arrangement imposed by a supranational body, and that if one can voluntarily join something one could choose to leave if it did not suit over time? Does he agree that there is a profound difference, and that one is much more democratic than the other?

[Mr Hurd]

As the hon. Gentleman framed it, it is hard to disagree. I sound cautious. Being a bear of limited brain, I am not quite picking up the undercurrent, but I know that there is one.

Coming back to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I would say that the British Government did have some profound reservations about what was being proposed before, because it crossed some borders as far as we were concerned in terms of the power at national level versus the power at pooled level. We were very uncomfortable about losing operational autonomy, not least for our police service, so we pushed back on that in a way that I hope he agreed with. We got support from EU member states and got the changes that we wanted, not least in a very clear separation of duties with the EPPO proposals.

Having made those arguments and, frankly, won those arguments, we are now comfortable with opting in to regulations, the primary motivation being to maintain the continuity of the existing arrangements, which work well.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of Regulation 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2002/187/JHA; endorses the Government’s decision to request to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and supports the Government’s assessment that Eurojust provides a valuable service to the UK and that opting in would enable us to maintain operational continuity and minimise disruption for UK law enforcement and prosecution authorities during the proposed Implementation Period.—(Mr Hurd.)

Question put and agreed to.

Drugs Policy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered drugs policy.

The UK’s drugs policy is not just a combination of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, and a host of schedules and classifications; a range of laws has been developed and put in place over the years, guided by our perceived knowledge and our current attitude. We put those laws in place because we thought it was the right thing to do, and I believe that we got it wrong.

Outwith drugs law, we have laws that regulate the production, distribution, marketing and consumption of alcohol. Alcohol is an interesting case, because it is not included in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It remains socially acceptable. It is consumed openly at christenings, naming ceremonies, weddings, civil partnerships and even funerals—society finds a place for alcohol at hatches, matches and dispatches. However, it was not always that way. Prohibition and abstinence were once very strong movements. In the 1920s, some states in the USA made alcohol illegal, and something strange happened. Prohibition, rather than stopping people drinking alcohol, delivered production, distribution and consumers into the hands of criminals who recognised a money-spinning venture when they saw one. The product became more potent, because that meant distributing smaller quantities while maintaining profit margins, and criminal gangs used extreme violence to protect their territory from rival gangs or gangsters. Levels of violence spiralled, and more and more people were criminalised for using alcohol. According to the academic and historian Michael Lerner:

“As the trade in illegal alcohol became more lucrative, the quality of alcohol on the black market declined. On average, 1000 Americans died every year during the Prohibition from the effects of drinking tainted liquor.”

When prohibition ended, levels of crime dropped dramatically and people’s health improved. They continued to drink alcohol, but the product was quality controlled and monitored, and nobody had to use violence to protect their market.

To this day, alcohol continues to damage people’s lives and ruin their health, but it is legal and regulated. Increasingly, people can find educational support, because they have no fear of being criminalised. Maybe in an ideal world, everybody would be so happy and content—so free of stress and anxiety, so confident and self-assured—that there would be no requirement for alcohol, or indeed any recreational drugs. However, we do not live in that ideal world, and we never have. Throughout history, for a variety of reasons, people have taken drugs. One hundred years ago, people could buy cocaine, heroin or morphine at pharmacies and department stores. During the first world war, Harrods sold kits with syringes and tubes of cocaine and heroin for the boys on the frontline. Queen Victoria recommended Vin Mariani—wine laced with cocaine. Anthony Eden was prescribed purple hearts throughout the Suez crisis. Those people lived under what was termed “the British system,” which was a light-touch approach to drug consumption, one of tolerance and treatment.

Things changed during the 1960s. In 1961 the UN single convention on narcotic drugs was passed. It was not popular in the UK, because we could see that the British system was working. That convention, driven by prejudice, became the only UN convention ever to use the word “evil”. Torture, apartheid and nuclear war do not warrant the term “evil”, according to the UN. Genocide is referred to as “an odious scourge” or “barbarous acts”. The term “evil” is reserved for drugs—drugs that had previously been available in many different guises in high street pharmacies. The stigmatising of users went up a gear. In 1971, through the Misuse of Drugs Act, criminalisation became the name of the game. The result has been years of violence, tensions and organised crime, and a monumental increase in addiction.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a first-class speech. Could he say roughly what proportion of people in prison are there because of the drugs trade? What are the costs to the criminal justice system, and what is the total social cost of drugs? I hope he will cover those points in his speech.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I did not know there was a quiz. I have a prison in my constituency—I was talking to its governor two or three weeks ago—and the majority of the prisoners are there for offences related in some way, shape or form to the consumption or sale of drugs, or to the drugs market and the violence around it. We also know that there are more drugs, particularly synthetic drugs, available in our prisons than out on the streets.

Members will be glad to hear that the Office for National Statistics began collating consistent data on drug deaths in England and Wales from 1993. Those figures show an increase in drug misuse mortality rates among both men and women since 1996. UK opioid-related deaths rose between 2012 and 2015, increasing by 58% in England, 23% in Wales, 21% in Scotland and 47% in Northern Ireland. UK Focal Point on Drugs estimates that the number of problem drug users is 300,000 in England, 60,000 in Scotland and 30,000 in Wales. Those statistics are the result of current drugs policy, and behind those statistics are lives in ruins.

I fully understand why people exposed to the cruelty inflicted on their loved ones by current drugs policy would want to lash out in retribution. If somebody provided one of my loved ones with a pill at a music festival, and that pill killed them, my initial reaction would be to hunt the seller down like a dog and have them strung up. I would be wrong. At the next festival, another person would be selling the same drugs to other people, and another tragedy would unfold. This understanding is exemplified by the members of Anyone’s Child, who have been directly affected by the loss of, or damage caused to, a close friend or family member. Those people understand that vengeance will not bring back their loved one or undo the damage done. They understand that unless we change our current drugs policy and how we enforce it, more innocent people will die. It is their desire that their experience of loss does not fall on anyone else’s family member or friend. Is the Minister prepared to sit down and talk with members of Anyone’s Child? Nothing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing the debate. It will soon become apparent that I disagree with large parts of what he has said; in a democracy it is quite correct that we can take two sides of the same argument. However, I agree that the effects of drug use, and the deaths caused by it, have an impact on each and every one of our constituencies.

Drugs and drug addictions are among the worst scourges of our society today. According to the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, the cost to the UK economy of drug misuse is more than £15 billion a year. Far more importantly, drugs destroy lives and livelihoods, tear apart families and communities, and fuel crime and exploitation. Although the number of drug users is falling, the number of people dying or being admitted to hospital due to drug use is on the increase.

In Scotland, it is nothing short of a crisis. The rate of drug-related deaths in Scotland is considerably higher than in England and Wales. It is estimated to be the highest in Europe, yet every year the number of deaths hits a new record high. The same goes for hospital admissions. In 2016-17, the rate of people being admitted to Scottish hospitals in relation to opioids, cannabinoids, cocaine, and sedatives and hypnotics reached new records.

The crisis can and will get worse. The county lines operations, which the hon. Member for Inverclyde mentioned and which are spreading across the UK, bringing a supply of drugs to rural communities across the country, are particularly concerning for me as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency. We know from examples abroad, most notably in America, how the supply of drugs to rural areas can bring devastation to those communities.

The challenge facing the Scottish Government, the UK Government, and all of us is not just to stop the problem spiralling out of control, but to turn the tide altogether and tackle the havoc that drugs are wreaking on so many lives. More certainly needs to be done to treat people who have become addicted to drugs.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost to society and to the Government of £15 billion a year. How much would it cost if the Government changed their policy, and heroin addicts went to their local NHS clinic to get their fix in the morning and evening and there was no drug crime at all because it was free at the point of need, administered by the national health service? How much would the Government save? The financial arguments might have greater appeal than other arguments.

[Douglas Ross]

To borrow the phrase of the hon. Member for Inverclyde, I did not realise that this was a quiz. I do not have those figures to hand.

Labour Members mentioned past cuts to alcohol and drug partnerships, and received some sympathy from the Scottish National party Member leading today’s debate. Yet the SNP-led Scottish Government have not helped, especially considering their cuts to alcohol and drug partnerships in Scotland. The money spent is being reduced not just here in England, but in Scotland under an SNP-led Government.

Likewise, the forthcoming revision of the Scottish Government’s national drug strategy cannot come a moment too soon. The current strategy is a decade old, but reflects a much older approach, where instead of helping people to defeat their addictions, they are put on, for example, endless methadone programmes. Is it any surprise that the proportion of people dying from drug overdoses who are on methadone has risen from 21% in 2009 to 37% in 2016? The new strategy, which comes out next month, must address that, and focus on beating addiction completely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Lady will be aware that we have made a very firm commitment to no hard border, and that we will continue to update the House as negotiations progress.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

15. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of alcohol abuse on levels of crime and costs of policing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

As a proportion of overall violence, alcohol-related violent crime climbed steadily from 41% in 1995 to 55% in 2009-10. More recently, it has fallen back to 40% of all violent crime in 2016-17. The cost of alcohol misuse to society is estimated to be around £21 billion a year, with alcohol-related crime estimated to account for around £11 billion a year. We continue to work with the police to equip them with the right powers to take effective action.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister is obviously aware of the terrible damage that alcohol does, but is she aware of a recent report implicating alcohol as a major factor in child abuse among other things? When are the Government going to take serious, comprehensive and effective action to reduce alcohol abuse, and the suffering and cost that it still inflicts across our society?

[Victoria Atkins]

Both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care take this issue very seriously. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State for Health recently announced a report on helping children of alcoholic parents. Violent crime is down and alcohol consumption overall is down, particularly among young people, but of course it is very important to look at this issue, particularly in relation to domestic abuse. We will be looking at how we can deal with it, in combination with the Department of Health, as part of our modern crime prevention strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, and we very much work alongside USDAW on the national steering group that I mentioned. I absolutely back up his call that everybody should report crime. There are some excellent initiatives in town centres all over the country through which businesses and the police are working well together to ensure that such an increase in reporting happens.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

3. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of current legislation on controlling and coercive behaviour; and if she will make a statement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Minister Newton.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

Mrs Newton indeed, Mr Speaker.

We introduced the new offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to shift the focus of the criminal justice system from single incidents to identifying and addressing patterns of abuse. The Home Secretary will chair a working group to drive change in how we think about and tackle domestic abuse, and this will include closely monitoring the implementation of this new offence.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but existing police powers to remove perpetrators of domestic violence from a property are tremendously under-used, largely because costs and cuts in police funding have made the situation worse. What is the Minister going to do to help protect women affected by domestic violence?

[Sarah Newton]

This new offence was brought in right at the end of 2015, so the Office for National Statistics will not report on the level of uptake of the new police powers until later this spring. From my conversations with the police up and down the length and breadth of the country, I know that they are making very good use of the new powers.

European Agenda on Security

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 General Committees

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, the internal security strategy, which was renewed by member states in June of last year, sets out a clear agenda. It contains much of what is in the Commission’s communication, although the Council very much leads on it: the strategy is being implemented by the Council and that implementation is being led by COSI. We welcome that, as it ensures that member states are clearly in the driving seat of the agenda’s implementation and will get regular feedback on it. As has been indicated, a Europol counter-terrorism centre was established in January of this year, in response to a call from the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers at Council on 20 November. That new centre, which acts as a platform for member states to increase information sharing, is a good example of how the agenda is being implemented.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Ashford drew attention to the fact that temporary internal border controls have been erected in a number of EU countries inside the Schengen area. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the breakdown of Schengen and those temporary internal border controls are likely to remain permanently?

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, the UK is not part of Schengen and therefore the actions that are being taken by individual EU member states in concordance with the arrangements underpinning Schengen are a matter for them. The UK’s focus is on seeing a strong external Schengen border and ensuring that, although we are outside Schengen, we support other EU member states through the mechanisms of Frontex and other bodies. We will continue to work with other member states to assist them in securing the external EU border, given the direct relevance of that to our own security.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Going beyond that, does the Minister agree that it would actually be sensible for countries inside Schengen to impose permanent border controls? That would frustrate the movement of terrorists and serious criminals across borders and make the job of the police and whoever much easier.

[James Brokenshire]

That is a matter for the EU member states that are part of Schengen. Our focus is on better communication of criminal record information. Indeed, I commented on the second-generation Schengen information system. We must ensure that data are put on that system so we can benefit from them at our border and have better intelligence and information on people who may wish to come to the UK. The Government have sought to underline that practical co-operation to get better data sharing and, in so doing, enhance our own domestic security.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call—

[The Chair]

Order. I can only call those who are standing. Only one Member was standing at that moment, and that was Kelvin Hopkins.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. Fortunately, we are not in Schengen and we take our borders seriously—but perhaps not seriously enough. There have been reports this week that people enter Britain clandestinely via beaches using rubber dinghies across the North sea. Does the Minister not think that we ought to have stronger border controls and a bigger border force to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government take their border security responsibilities seriously. We check 100% of scheduled passengers arriving at the border. Every year, millions of passengers pass through the border in that way. That is why I made the point about having better data at the border to assist those checks through our partnerships and co-operation with other EU member states. In respect of the general maritime sector, we have invested in intelligence and a field intelligence officers network, which has resulted in the successful interdiction of suspect vessels, disruption of people smugglers and significant seizures of class A drugs. We must work with our European partners as well. The action that the French, Dutch or Belgian Governments may take in stopping vessels leaving their shores is a powerful way of ensuring our own domestic security and underlines the need for good, practical co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Turner, as a fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Britain was very wise not to join the Schengen agreement and to retain a significant degree of border control. What has happened recently on the continent of Europe demonstrates that point. The porous border between France and Belgium was clearly an assistance to those who committed the outrages in Paris and in Brussels. One would hope that there is a move towards restoring more effective border constraints within the European Union. Regrettably, some countries have already put up barbed wire fences, which is a hostile act, but if border controls had been tighter, there would not necessarily have been such a problem.

I think there are still problems with border controls in Britain, as I have said to the Minister. If everyone was required to have biometric passports and everyone leaving Britain as well as entering it was required to be checked at borders, we would have more of a handle on movements, which would be beneficial. About six years ago, I was a member of the team from the European Scrutiny Committee who visited Frontex in Warsaw. It was clear that the Frontex official was very nervous about talking about anything that could threaten the shibboleth of free movement. That shibboleth is now looking a bit tattered. Frontex did not have any resources of their own, nor a border force of their own, and in theory they were the administrators, not the enforcers. The current situation is much more worrying.

When will there be a requirement that everyone in Britain has a biometric passport and that all those who leave and enter are properly checked at borders? Even when we travel on holiday, checks should be made to make sure that we are not carrying dangerous weapons and so on in our cars. That may mean that we spend longer at borders, but if that is the price that we must pay for security, I accept that. The Government will have to move in that direction if and when—we hope that it will not ever happen again—we have further outrages. Also, we should not forget criminality. The automatic guns that are used on the streets now are quite terrifying and we should make sure that they are under serious control.

The majority of the population are very concerned about such matters. A Government of any colour would in future be required to ensure that our borders were properly protected and to encourage fellow European Union members to strengthen their border controls between member states. Those are my thoughts; I hope the Minister will take some of them on board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in doing exactly that, as we see in Northamptonshire a very good example of the benefits collaboration can bring. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims was in Northampton last week to open a joint fire station and police station, which shows the benefits of collaboration, not only in saving money, but in providing a better service to the public.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

18. Fire services for the six largest cities outside London will have had their budgets cut by half between 2010 and 2020, and thousands of firefighters will have lost their jobs and many fire stations will have closed. Firefighters do a superb job, as we know, but can the Home Secretary say honestly that community safety is not being compromised and that no lives will be lost as a direct result of the cuts?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of incidents; from 2004-05 to 2014-15, the number of incidents fire and rescue services went to declined by 42%. As I said in response to the question from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), although firefighters do still find themselves being called to fires, a lot of their work is also about other services to the community. They are doing an excellent job but we want to see how that can be done even better and how they can work better in collaboration with the police, as we have seen in places such as Northamptonshire.

Combating Terrorism

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 General Committees

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Bailey. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris have increased awareness of the threat presented by foreign terrorist fighters and radicalised individuals who have travelled to conflict zones and returned to the EU to carry out acts of terrorism. Widespread use of the internet and social media have made it easier to disseminate terrorist propaganda, radicalise and recruit new activists, and plan and co-ordinate operations.

The Commission considers that changes are needed to existing EU laws to keep pace with the evolving nature of the terrorist threat. It proposes a new directive that will bring EU rules on terrorism together in one legal text and update them to reflect recent developments in international law. The changes proposed will require member states to make it a criminal offence to travel abroad to receive training, or to organise or facilitate such travel, for terrorism purposes. The proposed rules also enhance the rights of victims of terrorism to receive free assistance and support in their member state of residence.

The proposed directive will apply only to the UK if the Government decide to exercise their right under the EU treaties to opt in. The deadline for that expires on 23 March, but, if the Government wish, they could have a second bite at the cherry and seek to opt in after negotiations have concluded and the directive has been adopted.

The European Scrutiny Committee welcomes the fact that the Government’s opt-in decision is to be debated before the UK’s opt-in deadline expires. Obvious though that may seem, it has not always been the Government’s practice to schedule timely debates. It is none the less disappointing that the Government have not heeded the Committee’s clear recommendation for a debate on the Floor of the House to allow the House as a whole to consider and weigh up the factors that resulted in the Government’s decision not to participate in the proposed directive. There can be few more important decisions, given the questions about the security of the EU’s external borders and the fact that member states in the Schengen free movement area are taking unilateral action to protect their borders. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the Government’s opt-in decision does not merit the exposure and scrutiny of a Floor debate.

The Minister’s explanatory memorandum on the proposed directive set out a comprehensive list of factors that the Government would weigh in reaching their opt-in decision, which include long-standing concerns about ceding competence to the EU in areas of policy that affect national security as well as the implications of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. However, he also acknowledged that the UK’s opt-in decision could have both practical and symbolic effects. Might, for example, UK participation in the proposed directive make UK citizens safer or demonstrate that the EU is united in its response to recent terrorist atrocities? I trust that he will explain how the Government have weighed all those factors and concluded that the risks of participation outweigh the benefits.

A debate was recommended to find out whether, despite the Government’s decision not to opt in, the Minister considers that the proposed directive will ensure a more coherent and consistent approach to tackling terrorism and foreign terrorist fighters across the EU. What assurances can he give us that there will be no legal or operational gaps in the ability of the UK and other member states to investigate and prosecute terrorist offences, particularly when there is a cross-border dimension? Will he confirm that the Government’s decision not to participate in the directive will not impede UK law enforcement authorities in co-operating and exchanging criminal intelligence with their counterparts in other EU member states?

Finally, the European Scrutiny Committee pointed to questions such as: how active a role does the UK intend to play in the negotiations and what are its negotiating objectives? How soon does the Minister expect agreement to be reached within the Council? What is the European Parliament’s position, and do the Government intend to review their decision not to opt in once the negotiations have concluded and the final content of the directive is known?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now have approximately 52 minutes for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that questions should be brief and not speeches? There is an opportunity to make speeches in the debate that will follow the question section. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

An important question that I raised in my introductory remarks is: why did the Government choose once again to refer this matter to Committee, rather than have a debate on the Floor of the House, as requested by the European Scrutiny Committee? This is a matter of great importance and deserves to be discussed in a much more public forum than a Committee.

[James Brokenshire]

There is always an issue with the scheduling of such debates. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his opening comments, the Government recognise the need for these issues to be debated in a timely fashion before the opt-in decision is taken. I hope this debate provides an opportunity for Members to question me and debate this important issue and the EU’s relationship with the UK with respect to counter-terrorism matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s presence this afternoon. He underlines his own Committee’s scrutiny of and focus on these measures, which I appreciate and welcome. Indeed, I have given evidence to his Committee, and it rightly holds Government to account on these matters.

My hon. Friend asked whether we will somehow reopen consideration of this matter post the EU referendum. It is not the Government’s intention to do so. As I have indicated, we did not opt back into the 2002 framework decision that this directive will replace. Because this directive is minimum standards-related, and because of the issues I have highlighted—for example, member state competency, national security and the role that the directive might give to the Court of Justice of the European Union—it is our clear view as a Government that we should not opt into this measure, whether that is now or in future, post-adoption. I hope that that clarity is helpful to the Chair of the Select Committee and to other right hon. and hon. Members.

The Government take such scrutiny seriously. Where the European Scrutiny Committee recommends that there should be a debate on a particular paper or dossier, we should do so, but there is always a question of parliamentary time and the nature of debates available to us. Therefore, on the opt-in decision, we felt that we could grant and respond positively to the need for a debate. That debate is in this format rather than on the Floor of the House, but that should not in any way limit our consideration of these serious matters. This is an important measure, and in this Committee we are considering the relevant directive and the Government’s decision that we should not opt into the measure. I welcome the scrutiny that this Committee is able to provide.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I take with a pinch of salt the Minister’s suggestion that time restrictions meant the measure could not be discussed on the Floor of the House. Time and again, business finishes short and we go home early, but that is not my question. My question is this: what conclusions did the Government draw on the implications for the UK of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and on the impact of participation in the proposed directive on the UK’s ability to act in its own right in negotiations on terrorism-related matters in international organisations such as the UN and the Council of Europe?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, we have considered this matter in the context of the UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Under the previous legislation considered by the House, we decided to give extraterritorial jurisdiction to certain measures in the 2006 Act. This matter was certainly considered carefully at that time. Obviously, this is a new measure, but our judgment remains that there is no need to extend our territorial jurisdiction for the issues outlined.

On the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, we have obviously considered the measure against the backdrop of national security being a member state competency that we have upheld. Regarding the renegotiation, the legally binding decision supports the UK in reiterating its sovereignty in relation to matters of national security. Our new settlement includes a legal confirmation that the UK’s national security is the sole responsibility of the UK Government and helps us to ensure that we can exercise our sovereign responsibility for national security without interference from the EU, while retaining the freedom to collaborate closely with our EU counterparts where it is right to take collective action to tackle the threats we face. The decision makes it clear that EU institutions will fully respect member states’ national security responsibilities. The text is a signpost to institutions such as the Court to act in a particular way. As the Court confirmed in the Rottmann case, it is required to take the provisions into account when interpreting the treaties in future, which gives our decision force before the Court.

We have considered the matter carefully. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it was reflected on in terms of whether to opt in or out over and above the points that I have made about the directive being one of minimum standards. That affirms the fact that we can benefit from collaborating and having operational relationships with EU partners. Indeed, I can point to many issues in respect of Europol and other mechanisms that add real weight to our ability to protect UK citizens. Nevertheless, the judgment on this measure is that we should not be part of the directive itself, because we gain the operational benefit in any event, without being bound by the directive and all that that might bring in terms of ECJ jurisdiction.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Personally, I support the view of the European Scrutiny Committee and support the Government’s decision on this matter. I will make a few more comments on that when we come to make a decision. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the rights of victims. Victim Support has made representations to the European Scrutiny Committee; I assume that it has made them to the Government as well. As the Government are minded not to opt into the proposed directive, is the Minister willing to commit to introducing comparable rights for victims of terrorism into UK domestic legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

We already have in place measures to provide compensation for victims of terrorism. For example, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 provides powers for compensation schemes for blameless victims who have sustained criminal injuries, including as a result of terrorism. Victims of violent crime, including terrorism, have been eligible to apply for criminal injuries compensation since the inception of such a scheme for Scotland, England and Wales in 1964. The victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme came into force in 2012, following the introduction of powers for such a scheme in the Crime and Security Act 2010. Before the establishment of that scheme, there was no compensation scheme for victims of overseas terrorism, aside from an ex gratia scheme also introduced in the same year. I underline the support and compensation arrangements that have existed.

On the broader issues relating to victims, the UK previously transposed the EU victims directive into our domestic legislation. Because of that, taken together with other statutory provisions, we are compliant with most of the measures for victims in the proposed directive. However, article 22 of the proposed directive, which provides that all victims of terrorism should receive free legal advice in a broad range of circumstances, might not be fully compatible with the current legal aid scheme in England and Wales because legal aid is means-tested and not always free. Under the Government’s proposed residency test, civil legal aid will normally be available only to those currently lawfully resident in the UK who have previously lived in the UK for 12 continuous months. The scope of the legal aid scheme does not generally encompass all civil proceedings—for example, damages claims, which the directive appears to envisage should be included. It is therefore possible that the scope of the existing legal aid scheme would need to be expanded to comply.

Legal aid is obviously paid for by the taxpayer and means-testing is a long-standing feature of the civil legal aid scheme. The Government believe that in principle, for individuals with a strong connection to the UK to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme, that is the appropriate way to structure it. That is why we intend to introduce a residence test for most types of cases funded by civil legal aid, as a fair and appropriate way to demonstrate that connection. We judge that the legal aid arrangements are fair, just and appropriate and that we have mechanisms rightfully in place to enable victims to seek compensation. Those schemes are available.

We consider the matter carefully through all the debates and in the light of the horrendous circumstances that many hon. Members have had to face up to in the wake of terrorist incidents. Many of us will have met families who have been seriously affected by the loss of loved ones, or people directly affected by lifelong injuries. The Government consider the matter carefully and have arrangements that respect the victims’ rights and ensure that compensation can be available.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We are having this debate here this afternoon, and I have already explained our consideration of the matters; and the letter from my right hon. Friend the Security Minister in response to the report of the Committee sets the matter out very carefully. Obviously, we continue to keep the matters under review, and I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the debates on the Serious Crime Act 2015, when issues of extra territoriality were considered; that was precisely to do with assessments by our operational partners of how value could be added and how there could be a benefit.

There has been a great deal of consideration and the House has reflected closely on issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction. There is an assessment that we make on whether alternative offences are available—particularly the offence of preparing for terrorism, under section 5 of the 2006 Act, which is quite wide-ranging in its scope. Significant numbers of charges and prosecutions have been brought under it, and we judge that it is an appropriate way to see that action is taken against those preparing acts of terrorism, and we work with our operational partners to see that that happens.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have one more question on legal aid. Some of us strongly deprecate the Government’s cuts in legal aid, and their impact on many people in different walks of life, with different cases. Is there a possibility—the Minister touched on this—that legal aid might be differentially applied or provided to individuals, depending on where they live in the United Kingdom, such as in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales? The Minister has talked about England and Wales, but not about Scotland or Northern Ireland.

[James Brokenshire]

To clarify and be absolutely clear, I said the UK. I meant the sense of having a connection to the UK and was explaining why we intend to look at a residence test for most types of cases funded by civil legal aid, in respect of a connection with the UK.

Female Genital Mutilation

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 General Committees

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady is also champion of the FGM issue. I thank her for her support and for her work as a member of the Serious Crime Bill Committee, in which we debated so many of these issues. She is right to highlight the point about figures, because one of the problems we have is identifying the prevalence of FGM. It is very much a hidden crime. We are only just touching on accurate evidence and information about the prevalence of FGM. Estimates are made but we need to know exactly what the position is.

The work that we have been doing with the NHS and the work that the Department of Health has been doing to ensure that we understand the prevalence of FGM across the NHS is incredibly important, as is the mandatory reporting. At the moment, I do not have the updated figures but, with mandatory reporting coming in, we are very confident that that will give us a much better estimate of the number of women and girls who have been affected by FGM in the UK. It is only by understanding the prevalence and the size of the problem that we can begin to tackle it and get into the communities to make sure that they understand what it is that we are trying to do, which is to show that this practice is totally and utterly unacceptable.

The hon. Lady asked about specialist training on FGM and I talked in my statement about the work that the Department for Education is doing to make sure that there is outreach to people, to the communities that may be affected. That includes training, of course, for those professionals who will come into contact with individuals, but there is always more that can be done and I am in no way complacent about this. We need to make sure that there is thorough awareness of this problem, that people do not feel frightened of confronting it and that they know they have the support of the Government and the public in confronting this issue.

The hon. Lady also asked about a review of FGM protection orders. We do not yet have the figures for the number of FGM protection orders—that information will be coming out shortly. Clearly, the Government look at these things constantly to make sure that they are working, they are appropriate and they are delivering what we want, which is to stop this crime happening in the first place.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I do not mince words on this. It is absolutely barbaric and incredibly cruel—we ought to say that loudly and many times so that people who indulge in this practice get the message. The figures may well be out of date but there was a table on page 10 of the document that shows—an estimate obviously—that for the number of women with FGM, of the 11 EU countries listed, Britain is the highest. For the number of girls at risk of FGM, Britain is again the highest but so far, according to this table, there have been no prosecutions at all. We are talking about tens of thousands, and possibly many more than that. Can the Minister explain why we have not had any prosecutions, or none up to that date anyway?

[Karen Bradley]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in this issue. He is quite right, it is barbaric and cruel. It is child abuse. There is no way in which it can be excused or tolerated. He asked about prosecutions and pointed out the figures showing the UK to have the estimated highest prevalence of FGM in the EU. The problem with prosecutions is that this is such a hidden crime that victims have not wanted to come forward and that, often, a prosecution would involve a victim giving evidence, perhaps against their closest family members. Although the practice of FGM was originally made a criminal offence in 1985, there was not a single referral to the CPS until 2010. Referrals are now coming through. There was a prosecution that unfortunately did not result in a conviction earlier this year, but it did at least establish many of the issues that had been of concern; for example, whether infibulation or reinfibulation was part of the offence. It was quite clear from that case that they are part of the criminal offence.

I know that the CPS is looking to make sure that we can have a prosecution with a successful conviction. I think that is what we all want to see—that successful conviction. By introducing life-long anonymity for victims so that they can come forward to give evidence and know that this will not be exposed in public, by introducing mandatory reporting and by introducing, for example, the failure to protect a girl at risk of FGM as a criminal offence, I am confident that we are doing the right things to give law enforcement and the prosecution services the tools they need to get that prosecution that we all so desperately want to see.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Although the prosecution rate is still low, France has had 29 prosecutions. We have had none. Obviously France is doing something that we are not doing—is there anything we can learn from France?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that France has a different legal system and a different evidence threshold but, absolutely, we can always learn more. We need to learn what it is in France that has given those victims the confidence to come forward and has enabled the prosecuting authorities to get the evidence they need. We believe that the measures that we have taken following the girl summit go a long way to doing that—we now need to see that prosecution. If we do nothing else today, I want to make it clear, on the record, that this Committee and this House urge law enforcement and prosecuting authorities to take this seriously and to get that prosecution.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Obviously I support and applaud what the Minister has said. Is there a confidential helpline where a family member could say, “My sister is at risk”, or something of that kind? Many young women have adjusted to a more western way of life and would want to prevent terrible things from happening, especially if it has happened to them. Is there a confidential helpline?

[Karen Bradley]

There are a number of confidential helplines and apps. I was at the launch of one app earlier this year. It provides a confidential way for people to submit their concerns to an independent, non-Government body that can help and support them. However, we need to do more, and mandatory reporting is incredibly important. I know that some professionals have had concerns about taking on that burden, but if a healthcare professional saw a patient who had been the victim of another crime, we would expect them to report it. In the same way, they should report FGM, which is clearly a horrendous crime.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also runs a confidential helpline for victims and professionals, so there are places that people can go. I would be very happy to write to members of the Committee with details of those helplines if they want to share them with their constituents.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have one more question, about girls being taken out of school for significant periods. Is there some reporting method for that? It is partly to do with forced marriage, but in certain communities, mainly from Africa and the middle east, girls are taken out of school for significant periods of time, either being taken abroad to have the FGM done there or even having it done within Britain and not being well enough to go back to school.

[Karen Bradley]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The reason why we introduced protection orders at the beginning of the school holidays was that we know that is a time when girls can be taken out of the UK to be cut. The families know that the girls will come back to a new class, and possibly even a new school if they are moving from primary to secondary school.

The hon. Gentleman is right that girls leaving school for a significant period of time can be an indicator of FGM, and I know that there is multi-agency working across the country to look carefully at that. Reports can be made to multi-agency safeguarding hubs and, of course, to the NHS helpline. We have also published multi-agency guidance, which, as I have said, we are putting on a statutory footing. That includes information for schools and teachers on what to look out for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

The fact that we have had no prosecutions for FGM gives the impression that we are approaching it on a softly, softly basis, which is not right. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for her words, but we have to take it much more seriously. Until we start getting prosecutions and punitive measures for those who commit these terrible acts, we are not going to make inroads. People believe they can get away with it because nothing is going to happen to them. When they think something will happen to them, they might start to take it seriously.

FGM is not a matter only for the Muslim community in general; it is associated with particular parts of the world, and there are many non-Muslim communities in Africa that practise it as well. It is right that it should be looked at in cultural terms. A news programme recently showed an interesting documentary from Kenya, where a man campaigning against FGM spoke to male tribal leaders. Although most of the operations are apparently carried out by women, men need to think about these things as well. He was making inroads and people were starting to accept that the practice was no longer acceptable in a modern civilised society. It was an impressive news item.

When things are happening that are not right, people have to be shamed. Beating up women is appalling and people have to be shamed about that. We have to think of a world in which that sort of thing does not happen at all. That is the sort of world that I want to live in and move towards. While these things go on we have to say over and again that they are barbaric, cruel and completely unacceptable in a world in which we believe—and many do—that men and women should be absolutely equal. Nobody should be oppressed because they are a woman, or indeed a man, although most of the time it is women who are oppressed.

We have to take this much more seriously than we have done so far. The practice has been illegal for more than 30 years, yet no prosecution has taken place, even though tens of thousands of women and girls have suffered. That says that we are not taking it seriously, and that we will not be until we get a number of prosecutions, with people sent to prison for doing this terrible thing. Someone who was caught torturing a person with a knife would be sent to prison. This practice should be taken that seriously.

When I first heard about FGM 20 or 30 years ago, I did not believe what I was hearing. I could not believe that sort of thing could be going on, but it clearly is and we have to be much more forceful in how we deal with it. I like to think that the message will get through to Ministers and to the legal profession that it has to be prosecuted much more effectively.

When it comes to evidence, it has been said that many girls and women have lifelong medical problems—both psychological and physical—as a result, so evidence that girls have had this done must come to medical practitioners fairly frequently. There must be ways of getting that evidence into the legal system, and perhaps persuading girls and women that it is time to speak up. Anonymity is of course crucial, because intimidation can take place. Nevertheless, we need to help women and girls to deal with this so that it does not happen to their daughters, their sisters or to future generations.

I know that I am a man, and perhaps I should not be speaking in this debate because it is about an issue that affects women, but I think that men’s attitudes have to be changed as well. We must not turn a blind eye to this. We must take it very seriously indeed. We need to see serious prosecutions, and people who commit these appalling acts should be sent to prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity or the concern of the Government and Members of all persuasions, but the reality is that there has not been a prosecution in all this time. People in the communities involved come from countries that are much rougher and tougher than ours, and they think, “They’re not going to pursue us, because there have been no prosecutions.” The reality is that, however we try to approach it in a sensible, law-abiding, modern way, people in those communities really think that they can get away with it.

[Karen Bradley]

I must correct the hon. Gentleman: there has been a prosecution; it just did not lead to a successful conviction. If we look back at that situation, the reason the prosecution was brought in the first place was that this was not a family member, but a doctor who reinfibulated a woman who had just given birth; and one of the problems with that prosecution was that the victim was called as a witness for the defence. That shows the difficulty we have with this situation. We are talking about very complicated, personal situations that involve family members. I commend the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing the prosecution, but it was always going to be very difficult to get a conviction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I dispute that we are not doing enough. I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s frustration about the lack of prosecutions and successful convictions. However, the measures in the Serious Crime Act 2015 were included in response to failings or gaps in the law that this Government perceived. We have taken those steps, but she has to recognise that that does not simply change things overnight. The changes to the law apply to offences committed after the Serious Crime Act commences, and there will be a time lag, which we all have to acknowledge, while evidence is gathered and before a prosecution takes place. I want to see a prosecution and a successful conviction as much as she does but, also, I do not want to see FGM happening in the first place. The hon. Lady is right that a successful conviction would send a clear message, as it has with forced marriage, that the practice is not acceptable. We must have the deterrent of a successful conviction, but we also have to prevent this practice from happening. A conviction is, in many ways, a failure, because a crime has happened. That is not a success; a success is preventing it from happening.

The hon. Member for Luton North and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington made a point about men. They are both absolutely right; we need to change the culture, and not just among women. We need women who have been victims or who are worried about their siblings and members of their family to come forward, but we also need men to speak out.

One of the most heartening things I heard over the summer was when I visited the Border Force safeguarding team at Heathrow terminal 5. The law had only changed a week before, and the team told me about their experiences of families traveling out of the country, often via the middle east, to countries where FGM may take place. It was the men—the brothers, the uncles and the fathers—who said to the Border Force guards, “Thank you for having told us that this is a criminal offence and that if this happens to my daughter, sister or niece while she is out of the country, you will be watching for that on her return and we will face jail for having allowed it to happen. That means I have the power and the authority to tell members of my family who want to do this to my relative that they cannot, because it is a criminal act here in the UK.” That is such an important point.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister makes a good point. Getting across to men the idea that they do not want their daughters to be mutilated because it is wrong, as well as being fearful of prosecution, is fundamental. The idea of this happening to my granddaughter is unthinkable, and we want it to be unthinkable for all men. In societies that are strongly patriarchal, the man’s view counts.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we have to change attitudes among men and women, so that they understand. I cannot imagine how any father could think of this happening to his daughter, but the excuse given is, “You will need to do this to your daughter, otherwise she will not be attractive to men.” Fathers need to speak out and say that that is simply not the case. We need to ensure that as many people as possible speak out and say that. I commend all the campaigners on this issue, some of whom are victims themselves and many of whom make that argument.

I want to make a point about training. I mentioned in my opening statement that the Department of Health is funding a £3 million national FGM prevention programme, which is under way in partnership with NHS England and has reached thousands of professionals. More than 2,000 professionals have attended women’s sessions, and nearly 8,000 GPs have received resource packs. The next stage of the programme includes work to address the mental health needs of those who have had FGM and to improve the NHS safeguarding system.

We have had a good and open debate. I appreciate the support from both sides of the Committee, and I share the frustration about the lack of a successful conviction. We are all sending a message that that is what we want to see. I accept the points made and will write to members of the Committee about the helpline and how this offence can be reported. I assure the Committee that the Government will continue with the range of work under way on FGM, ensuring that best practice and information is shared at both the European and international level.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 17228/13, a Commission Communication: Towards the elimination of female genital mutilation.

Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision)

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point in respect of rights and entitlement to citizenship, but he will know that there are certain tests that we adopt—good character requirements, for example—and other steps that we take to assure ourselves in respect of those who may be granted citizenship, and that that process is conducted over a number of years before someone would be so entitled. Citizenship is certainly not automatic. I underline the point that I made—we maintain our own visa and border requirements in respect of those who come here, and adhere to them clearly for those who are not EU citizens.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There is another problem that arises before secondary movement. What if the refugees do not want to go to the countries to which they have been allocated? If they are put on trains and forcibly sent to countries that they do not want to go to, that has echoes of uncomfortable times in the past.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the operation of the scheme. That has been a practical issue for EU member states that are party to the scheme when migrants have displayed an unwillingness to participate in the relocation arrangements envisaged by the measures to be debated this evening. Such practical issues have to be confronted.

The migration crisis is constantly changing and requires a flexible but robust response. Our approach has been designed to protect the UK interest while making a contribution to helping those in need and addressing the unprecedented challenge faced by our partners. Relocation is not proving to be successful. In our view, time would be better spent on measures that would make a real difference. We must secure the external border, quickly provide protection to those who need it and return those who do not. That is where the focus of this Government will remain, and I trust that the House will be minded to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have been invited to attend four meetings—two in Luxembourg, one in Brussels, and one in Italy this last weekend—bringing together most of the national parliamentary chairmen with responsibilities in the area we are discussing. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Schengen committee in the Italian Parliament, Laura Ravetto, for taking this extremely important initiative.

I would like first to refer to a meeting that took place under the auspices of COSAC—Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union. That body, which consists of the chairmen of the national parliamentary EU committees, is given a very wide remit in matters of the kind that we are discussing. Although its meetings are webcast and published, it does not get anything like the attention that it really deserves. Having served on the European Scrutiny Committee for 30 years, having been its Chairman for the past five years, and now having been re-elected as Chairman for this Parliament, it is important for me to say that I have never seen such an explosion of anger at a meeting of COSAC in all the time that I have been taking part in those meetings.

The reason for that is the lack of democracy that lies at the heart of this proposal. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was with me in Luxembourg, and he will bear witness to the sheer anger about its imposition against the wishes of the individual countries concerned—about five in all, from central and eastern Europe. They were absolutely furious about having these mandatory controls imposed on them. This raises a fundamental question of intense sensitivity to the people who live in these countries. The way in which the issues are debated and discussed in the upper echelons—the rarefied atmosphere—of the European Union in its institutional framework bears almost no relationship to what is going on on the ground as regards the voters themselves. When the national chairmen came together at the meeting, they expressed themselves in very clear language indeed.

Apart from all the other things that are going on with the referendum and our complaints about the single currency—and the exchange rate mechanism before that—this raises the whole question of the straitjacket, ever further political integration, and the compression chamber, which I have been referring to since I led the rebellion on the Maastricht treaty back in 1990. I mentioned then, in black and white, in pamphlets and in debates, the compression chamber that was building up. This is an example of that compression chamber, which is now exploding, as was made clear in the COSAC meeting and replicated yet again in our discussions last weekend on the Schengen agreement. I know that we are not members of Schengen, and we will perhaps have an opportunity to discuss that in a moment.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I was with the hon. Gentleman at the meeting in Luxembourg, as he rightly said. Does he agree that there seemed to be some intimidation of smaller, less economically powerful nations by larger, more economically powerful nations?

[Sir William Cash]

There is the case of Germany, to come straight to the point.

At the meeting it was discussed whether the 28 member states represented there, excluding us and Ireland because we are not part of Schengen, would welcome the proposals that were set out in the motion. In a nutshell, the countries concerned—the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania—were being told that they should go along with these mandatory arrangements irrespective of their resentment about that, their parliamentary votes against it, and their application to the European Court of Justice. As the Minister said, Hungary and Slovakia had brought proceedings in the Court of Justice to challenge the validity of this. These countries were, in effect, being told that they were wrong, and that in saying that the motion should merely “take note” of the relocation proposals, which was almost over-generous of them in the circumstances, they were refusing to accept the notion that they should welcome it. That is what led to the explosion. The debate went on for nearly four hours. This must not be underestimated. It is not just something to be floated over as, with respect, the Minister did; I understand why he probably did so. It is fissile material. It is a perfect example of the total want of democracy in the European Union in imposing, by mandatory arrangements, a settlement on countries that simply do not want it. It is a perfect example of what I have described as the compression chamber blowing up in such circumstances.

That is the background against which we should consider this. It is not just a question of whether we like it or not, but of how the European Union operates in practice. One need only look at how the Greeks were treated by the Germans with regard to the whole austerity programme or how the Portuguese president, a few weeks ago, disregarded, ignored and refused to accept the decision of the voters by not acknowledging the new party of government. The list is considerable, and, as far as I am concerned, that is the basis against which this issue ought to be judged.

I am, of course, delighted, but not surprised, that the Government have decided not to opt into the arrangements. I say with enthusiasm that our policy of trying to deal with the problem of refugees at source, which I have applauded from the very beginning, is the best way to go about it, not to allow these people in. At Friday’s meeting, the issue was raised of why Germany took the line it did. The answer, as I have said on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions over the past couple of months, is that it was very much to do with its desire to have more people working in the country, not just for altruistic reasons but for economic reasons. It wants to compensate for the fact that it will soon have a much lower working-age population. It made the decision because that is what Germany wants, irrespective of the impact it will have on the European Union. Angela Merkel’s popularity happens to have plummeted over the past few weeks because, in my opinion and that of many other commentators, she has misjudged the situation.

The real point is that, to bring in 1 million people to Germany—that is basically what is happening—is not the end but the beginning of the story. Those 1 million people will themselves have their own children and probably bring their families over as well, because the charter of fundamental rights will be made available to them. This is, in fact, an opening of what I described the other day as a tsunami.

On top of that—I have referred to this on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House—nobody can doubt for a moment that there are a number, albeit perhaps small, of jihadists among those people who have come over. The reality is that only a few are needed in order to wreak the kind of carnage and havoc that we witnessed in Paris. To those who would criticise people like me for mentioning that, I say that it is a fact that that is what is happening, and on a scale unprecedented since the second world war.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Is that an apology? I would like the Minister to reply. I want to know whether, in these circumstances, which are unusual and unprecedented—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), should keep his calm. It is very important that he should understand that these matters relate to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, not to purely personal opinions. We are very concerned about that and I have made my point.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s comments on delayed debates on the Floor of the House and even in Committee. The Minister said that matters were fast moving, but I hardly think that having to wait two years for a debate is fast moving. The issue is fast moving when the Government want it to be, but when they do not want it to be fast moving, it moves very slowly indeed.

[Sir William Cash]

I thoroughly agree with my fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee and with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The point has been made.

In the joint address to the European Parliament on 7 October, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, described the Dublin rules as “obsolete”. The French President highlighted the link between the Dublin rules and the proper functioning of the Schengen free movement area and said:

“Calling into question the free movement of people, by returning to internal borders, would be a tragic error”.

He went on to say:

“ But pretending that Schengen, with its current way of functioning, allows us to face border pressures would be another mistake.”

The question, therefore, is whether the Dublin system is at risk of breaking down and whether further fragmentation of the Schengen free movement area can be avoided. An extraordinary contradiction emerged from the meeting I attended over the weekend. The people there were very anxious to be sure that we had a proper border control system, but they also insisted on an external border system. I am sure the Minister is aware of that from his discussions in Brussels and elsewhere. The irony of the situation is that at the same time as they are insisting on greater border controls—as I have said on other occasions, there is almost more barbed wire in Europe today than there was during the cold war—they also want a complete external border system surrounding the whole of the European Union, presumably with the exception of the non-Schengen countries, namely ourselves and the Irish. I hope the Minister appreciates that, under the pressures exerted by the migrant crisis, there is a real desire to go further towards having a complete external border and to go deeper towards having political union. At the same time, they want effective border controls, but those two things are inconsistent.

I understand that the Government now propose to use taxpayers’ money to increase the effectiveness of Frontex, but when we consider the scale of the borders—a massive area of the European continent is supposed to be completely sealed off along the EU’s external borders—we can see that the costs will be absolutely monumental. Frontex has already proven to be ineffective. It does not work and I doubt whether it is possible to make it work, but through an insistence on its external borders, more and more pressure is being exerted towards the deeper integration of the European Union.

I want the Minister to tell us how we can have an effective system of the kind now proposed, with a full external border for an enhanced Schengen system, and the United Kingdom staying in the European Union at the same time. I see this as a very important moment in terms of our having to leave the European Union. The Schengen arrangements, reinforced by Frontex, to which the British taxpayer is expected to contribute, and the increasing pressures towards political union seems to me to be a subject on which we should speak more and more clearly and loudly.

There are real dangers in all of this. I simply think that bringing the Turkish action plan into operation will make the situation even more intractable. More could be said about that. At this moment in time, with their internal border controls, Germany and several other countries are in breach of the Schengen free movement area. Border controls have been introduced by Austria and Germany, justified on the grounds of public and internal security, and imposed unilaterally without prior notice, whereas the Schengen border code specifies a maximum period of two months. Those countries are in breach of the code, and I understand—the Minister may confirm this—that Germany is facing infraction proceedings. Angela Merkel is facing very substantial pressures from within her own country as a result of the mistakes that have been made.

The reality is that the Commission opinion has shown the interdependence of member states participating in the Schengen free movement area and the risk of a domino effect whereby unilateral action by one member state has an immediate effect on the security of its neighbours. That is causing the most enormous pressure and enormous volcanic eruptions in the countries concerned. People simply will not wear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I will not speak for long, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important to say something in this debate. I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and his emphasis on behaving in a humane way towards migrants, as well as his point about the rather small numbers of people currently being allowed into our country. Like him, I believe that we should consider taking more of those desperate people into this country from areas where they risk death on a daily basis.

I support the Government’s position, and it is right that this country should have its own controls, but I think that that should go further and that other EU countries should also be able to control their own borders—that is what has caused the enormous row that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned. I believe that a fundamental component of democracy is that a country should control its own borders and who comes in. That is sometimes difficult to do, but it is fundamental. Borders matter, and trying to eliminate them in pursuit of the creation of some kind of super-state—that is effectively what has been happening in the European Union—is a mistake and will eventually come to a sticky end. It is noticeable that tensions are rising strongly at the moment.

As I said in an earlier intervention, refugees may not want to go to the country to which they have been allocated. If they are allocated to countries that do not really want them, they may not be made welcome, cared for, or well treated when they get there, and that is another serious problem. A way of helping refugees to go to places to which they want to go, and where they will have some kind of welcome and be looked after, would be much more sensible than a forced allocation policy. The UK can do that and we should not opt in to the arrangement, but other countries in the European Union should be in the same position as us.

I do not accept free movement; I think it has been a mistake. If we want to recruit people from other countries who have the skills we need, that is fine. That could be done on a temporary or permanent basis, but it should be a choice and not that of some supranational body that says, “You must accept people because those are the rules of the club and you ought to accept those rules.” I do not accept those rules, and neither do many people in Britain.

There is a conflict here. We must ensure that we behave in a humane way to other people. We all admire and wish to adopt such humanitarian actions, but large, substantial and unregulated movements of people can militate against the humane feelings that we all have. There comes a point when people think, “We can’t cope”, and destabilising massive population movements are not conducive to humane behaviour.

In the 19th century there were vast open spaces in the United States, South America, Australasia and elsewhere, and countries recruited people because they needed them and it was not a problem. We recruited people from Ireland in particular, as well as from elsewhere. We have also been very humane with certain immigrations. When I was younger in the 1960s, the Ugandan Asians were being seriously threatened and we accepted them into our country. Indeed, one or two Members of the House are descended from that population, and those people have made a massive contribution to our society. We have behaved well in the past, but when movements of people become so large and seemingly unstoppable, our humanity starts to break down—not individually in the Chamber, but as a society—and people start saying, “We can’t cope. There is a desperate housing crisis and unemployment and so on”.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman clearly has a point, but would it destabilise the United Kingdom to take a share of the 4 million people who have fled Syria? How can it stabilise anyone for all 4 million to be left in two or three countries in the Mediterranean?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have said, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras on the Labour Front Bench has said, that we should accept more people from Syria. There is absolutely no question about that. We should play a bigger part in helping refugees to escape their terrible situation. The number the Government have decided to accept is far too low. That said, we are not going to have an open border policy in which very, very large numbers of people come here, because that would be politically destabilising. It would not be good.

Germany’s population was falling. It is a very successful industrial country with a low birth rate, which means it needs workers. Our population is increasing rapidly. We are going to overtake Germany and become the country with the largest population in the whole of the European Union. We are therefore in a very different situation from Germany. If we had a serous labour shortage, and lots of space and vacant housing, we would want to recruit more people.

[Sir William Cash]

Has the hon. Gentleman also heard that our own population is growing exponentially and that we will get up to about 70 million really quite soon? Such an increase is way beyond the space and capacity of the United Kingdom and its expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do not want to get into specific numbers, but our population is increasing substantially. The German population was falling. The population of a number of other European countries is falling too, and they will no doubt want to recruit sufficient young and energetic people to make sure their economies carry on working well.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Médecins sans Frontières estimates that over 466,000 people have arrived on the beaches of Lesbos. The population of Lesbos is about 86,000. Do we not have a responsibility to help them, as they cannot possibly deal with that number of new people arriving in their area?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As I said, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras that we should take more. We should be doing more to help the refugees who need help, but I do not think that compulsory allocation to countries across the European Union or a free flow of migrants across the continent is sensible. In the end, I think it would militate against a humane and managed way of looking after people.

On this occasion, the Government are right. I understand that the Scottish nationalists do not agree and will vote against the measure, but the Labour Front Bench and the Government are together on this and I support them. In the longer term, we have to look to the restoration of sensible border controls within the European Union between member states, and not just the breaking down and the elimination of borders and having an indefensible common external border.

Policing

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend puts her case very well. Crime may indeed be changing, and moving away from volume crime, such as car crime and burglary, but that is not to say that crime is falling. As I have said before, online crime is not adequately reflected in the crime figures. She rightly says that there are worrying increases in the most serious crimes in a number of areas, including in our part of the world, in Greater Manchester.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will make a little progress if I may, and take some further interventions later.

I was just saying that I do not see the evidence to shrink our police force back to the levels of the 1970s, leaving us with fewer police officers per head of population than other comparable countries. That brings me to my second question, which is not for the Home Secretary, but for the whole House. If there is no authoritative evidence that cuts on this scale will not put our constituents at risk, how on earth can we allow them through? We have called this debate today for the following reasons: to challenge the Government on what we feel is a reckless gamble with public safety; to give voice to the deep disquiet felt by thousands of police officers across all 43 forces in England and Wales about the future of policing and community safety; to initiate a proper debate about the future of policing and the needs of our communities, in advance of the spending review; and to alert the public to the enormity of what is at stake by launching a national campaign today to protect our police. Just as with tax credits, I cannot remember the public being told about these plans to decimate neighbourhood policing before they went to vote.