Modern Slavery Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful additional point on why the Government’s approach is flawed.

My overriding concern is that, despite the Government’s stated commitment to tackling modern slavery, the Bill is still far too dependent on the victims rather than the state to identify the perpetrators of trafficking and slavery. That is not only morally wrong; unfortunately for the Government, it is also illegally flawed. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the state has a positive obligation to protect victims of trafficking and to investigate potential trafficking situations. Lords amendment 72 brings us much closer to meeting that positive obligation. It provides victims with a clear safety net: the ability to leave an exploitative situation without hesitation.

We all need to play our part to combat the horrific crime of modern slavery, but the agencies of government are legally obliged to take a proactive role in identifying potential cases. It seems that in the absence of an effective prevention strategy to meet that aim, the Government are depending on victims to pick up the slack when they really need proactive labour inspection and enforcement. That is a point I will make further, if I have the opportunity, in relation to Government amendment 77.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entered the Chamber during the speech by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who made some compelling points. I intended only to listen to the debate before making up my mind between the Government’s and the Opposition’s approach, and I am pleased that the differences seem to have narrowed. There appears, at least in the Home Secretary’s amendment, to be something of a spirit of compromise. I am surprised by the temperature of the debate on both sides of the House, because Parliament is acting in one of its better ways.

This debate has risen up the agenda very strongly in recent years. I do not think the Government should be criticised for putting a Bill through Parliament only just before Dissolution and I do not think the Opposition should be criticised for not having acted during 13 years in government. Politicians and society as a whole have turned their minds to this issue only recently. As far as I am concerned, I do not think I turned my mind to it before 2011. I apologise if I have got this wrong but it may have been a report from MigrationWatch UK that drew my attention to the sharply rising numbers of people—I think they were referred to at that time as being in the domestic servants category—coming into the country. The report asked whether that was right and appropriate.

The Government’s changes to the visa in 2012 were, overall, positive and they reduced the time that somebody could be an overseas domestic servant. It strikes me as understandable, if not necessarily right, that a family from overseas visiting this country for a relatively short period and who have a long relationship with the people who have been working in their household might wish to bring those people with them. They may be very well-off and used to having a level of service from particular individuals. What struck me as much less reasonable was for that relationship to persist for a very long time: very wealthy families coming to this country and permanently continuing to have staff who had previously worked for them, or bringing in new staff from their country of residence and using only those staff rather than employing people domestically.

In terms of immigration control, I fear there is something about the overseas domestic servant category that is liable to exploitation. I wonder whether there are shades of grey or whether there is a lack of clarity on where precisely the line is drawn when one moves from service to servitude and then to slavery. To try to change the law to mitigate, reduce and minimise—it would be wonderful if we could eliminate it—that exploitation is the right thing for this House to do. Moving from people being employed in that way for very long periods to a maximum of six months strikes me as definitely the right thing to do.

What the Government have done is really positive. Whether it is right to see this more from the criminal justice perspective, or whether we should simply allow people to switch to different employers in a more liberal way, as the House of Lords wants, is a difficult question. However, I believe there is a sincerity of approach on both sides of the House and that we have moved on hugely.

I assume the Lords amendment will be defeated in a Division and that the Government’s alternative amendment will pass. I hope that if the Lords come back again, it may be to find perhaps even further compromise, or to take some of the positives of the Lords approach and to consider some of the criticisms that the Opposition have made of the Home Secretary’s amendment. However, I agree that what is absolutely key is to pass the Bill.

We still need to focus on the diplomatic domestic service category, where people can work still for up to five years although I think it used to be six. I think that the prospect of prison is likely to have a persuasive effect on an abusive employer who employs someone in a private household for six months, although it will be a challenge to communicate to both overseas domestic workers and the families employing them that that consequence is a real one. In the diplomatic sector, however, given diplomatic immunity, I fear that that incentive might not be so great because the period that people are in service is much longer. I worry that, given the Government’s understandable concern for our relationships with foreign countries, we might not come close to eradicating servitude, if not modern slavery, in those categories. We must continue to focus on that area not just in legislation but through our foreign relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Unlike the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), having been here throughout this debate, having sat through the Public Bill Committee and having been present for all the Bill’s other stages in the House, I am not surprised at the heat generated by Lords amendment 72 and the Government amendment to it.

I will not rehearse the issues raised in Committee. Instead, I will concentrate on some of the issues heard this afternoon. It has been argued that because this is such an important and welcome Bill, it is untoward to argue over amendments. It is an abuse of the procedural requirements of this place for Government Members to suggest that anybody pressing a point in relation to these amendments threatens the Bill at large or would be happy to see it frustrated or set aside. The attempt, here in this Chamber, where we talk about being mature legislators, to create the impression of an abuse of process and a scaring process should give us pause for thought about what is at play in these amendments.

The Government amendment provides that if an overseas domestic worker wants to exit a position of slavery, they can do so only if they participate in the national referral mechanism. They will have to engage in a process they might not know about or understand, and they might have their own particular fears, misgivings or hang-ups. They will have been subject to intimidation, having effectively been employed as chattels of their employer, courtesy of the kafala-style system that operates for domestic visa workers. The idea is that these victims—people on the margins of the margin—should have confidence that their position will be transformed by the national referral mechanism. I wish that were the case.

The Minister has emphasised that the Government amendment aims to ensure that when a domestic worker leaves a situation of slavery, that can help to ensure prosecution. The national policing lead and the director of crime command for the National Crime Agency have been quoted as saying that the Lords amendment would be at fault because it would undermine the capacity of the authorities to secure more prosecutions. When I asked the Minister about the experience of the national referral mechanism in terms of the number of conclusive decisions made compared with the number of successful prosecutions, she did not answer, although the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) subsequently gave us an indication. In quoting the figure from the legal advice to Anti-Slavery International, she gave the example of Kalayaan, which supports victims, and mentioned that 29 conclusive decisions had been made. However, there is only on record one conviction of an overseas domestic worker employer, so the link between the national referral mechanism and successful prosecutions is not strong. For that reason, the argument used by Government Members—that supporting the Lords amendment would undermine or wash away any prospect of prosecution—is entirely false.

I understand that the Minister will probably argue that that has been the case with the national referral mechanism historically—we all accept that it has had its flaws—but the reform of the mechanism that is to be implemented follows last autumn’s publication of a review, and of course that review will be subject to pilots that will have to be implemented and then evaluated, which will probably take a year or more. Separately, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and others, we know that the Government have instituted a review of tied visas by James Ewins. If the Government are conducting a review of tied visas, and if we have acknowledged that there are issues with the national referral mechanism—issues that I hope will be addressed by the reforms that are to take place but which are as yet untested and unproved—surely it would be reasonable for the Government to accept the Lords amendment and then revisit the issues around tied visas, first, following the review and evaluations of the changes to the national referral mechanism, and secondly, after the review by James Ewins has reported. At least victims on overseas domestic worker visas would then have the autonomous right to escape their victimhood.

It is interesting that in one of her interventions today the Minister said that the reason the Government amendment rested so much on the victim co-operating with the national referral mechanism was to give victims control. Surely victims would have control if they could vacate their exploitative employment autonomously and then have the right to seek alternative employment. If the Government are worried that the abusive employer might then escape scrutiny and employ somebody else, that brings us back to the hole in the bucket, dear Liza, of this whole question: the tied visa system is a licence to employers to exploit and abuse employees. If the Government’s best argument against the Lords amendment is the likelihood of employers using the device of the tied visa system simply to repeat the same abuse, the Government should be questioning their position more fundamentally, rather than relying on their amendment.

[Mark Reckless]

Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that subsection (b) of the Lords amendment, which would allow workers in these categories to extend for up to 12 months each time, might create a sub-category of foreign domestic servant, separate from the domestic labour market, and that would make exploitation more likely?

[Mark Durkan]

As any evidence emerges, we will have to consider what it suggests about this sector of employment in general and individual employers in particular. This goes back to some of the arguments the Government have used in support of their own amendment and against the Lords amendment. If a domestic worker were to change their employer under the visa entitlement the Lords amendment would give them, it would be known to an authority, and the authority should be duly asking questions. It would then be for somebody else—perhaps not the victim—to notify the national referral mechanism and for issues to take place there.

In separate interventions today, the Minister seemed to make different arguments. On the one hand, the Government amendment was defended on the grounds that it would lead to more prosecutions of abusive employers by ensuring that victims co-operated with the national referral mechanism and therefore that their victimhood would translate into active cases. That is what we were being told by the policing lead and the National Crime Agency. Then, in another intervention, the Minister made the point that the national referral mechanism was not of itself hidebound in achieving prosecutions and not necessarily police or prosecution-driven in any way. We cannot have both arguments being used in contradictory ways here.

I ask the Government to listen to their own arguments and to think about some of the things they are relying on in respect of their own amendments. They should think again about pressing those amendments; the chances are that they will have to revise them in the light of subsequent reviews and evaluations. The sensible thing to do—and most in keeping with the spirit claimed for this Bill, as being “world-leading” legislation—would be to accept the Lords amendments and, if necessary, qualify them by revisiting the issues in the light of subsequent reviews.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my hon. Friend on some of the incredibly good work being undertaken at the northern French ports, particularly the work of Border Force, and the investment that has been provided there. We are investing further in security at Calais. We continue to have discussions with the French authorities on how we can strengthen the response, and those discussions will continue in the weeks ahead.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Given these discussions, why have the French authorities set up a Sangatte 2 camp in Calais? What effect does the Minister think that will have on the situation?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

We did consider those matters and I originally drafted an amendment that sought to do that. I could have tabled it last Thursday but I decided to focus our debate on whether the legislation is fit for purpose. I am not saying that it is not; I am simply saying that there are severe changes in the Bill that restrict individuals, give powers to police officers and others, set out a new code of practice and give a range of powers to the Secretary of State to do what they wish with detained individuals. If the Opposition are to support the clause this evening, as we will, it must be reviewed at some point in the future. The mechanism we suggest means that a Minister, whoever that might be, must review the situation and either table a motion or, if the legislation ultimately falls, table a replacement piece of legislation in time for 31 December 2016.

I am not seeking to cause difficulties for the Minister with amendment 29. I simply want him to consider in detail his proposals in clause 1 and schedule 1 and whether we should have a sunset clause. We want such a clause because one of the gaps in the legislation means that there is no mechanism for appeal in the event of the powers in schedule 1 or clause 1 being exercised against an individual. An individual's travel documents will be removed for 14 days, and potentially for 30 days, but in the meantime there is no mechanism through which they can appeal effectively against that decision. Amendment 17 allows for an appeal in the courts on the subject of

“the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met”.

The Committee will agree that the right of British citizens to travel freely, unrestricted by state interference, is crucial and historical.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, would not the right approach be to accept his amendment 17 and the judicial right of appeal rather than having a sunset clause? Does he plan to press that amendment to a vote?

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to this place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I shall wait to see what the Minister says, but I am minded to say that it is important that the right of appeal is paramount. The Minister might or might not accept the amendment and I will have to listen carefully to his argument, but if he does not accept it there will be an opportunity to test the will of the Committee should we so wish.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

I have only the patchiest knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman has just described, so I cannot really comment on it, but we could sit here for hours swapping examples of important evidence that has disappeared and of leads that have not been followed up.

When we see some of the stories that we now know to be true, it is not hard to understand why there are pockets of conspiracy. I am not convinced that there is a grand, overarching conspiracy, but there are without a doubt lots of pockets of conspiracy and cover-up, and that has been happening over the past few decades. We know, for example, that a former deputy director of MI6, Sir Peter Hayman, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. That is not disputed. We know that he was investigated in 1978 for having grotesque images in his possession. We also know that absolutely nothing happened with that evidence.

Thanks to the new Operation Cayacos, we also know about the convicted paedophile, Peter Righton, whom the hon. Member for Rochdale has mentioned in many contexts. He was once regarded as a leading child protection specialist in this country, but he ran a sophisticated network of abusers. When he was raided in 1992, 25 years-worth of correspondence between him and other paedophiles was found, but again the leads just dried up. I could provide endless similar examples—I suspect that many other Members could do the same—but I hope that I have already made my point. I will not dwell on the examples any further.

This is why the inquiry is so important, and why we must bend over backwards to ensure that it is credible even to those who are most suspicious of it, particularly the survivors who have direct experience of cover-ups and are unwilling to blanket-trust the establishment and the authorities to be on their side.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for a few minutes. The debate has been going on for some considerable time. The normal convention is that Members should be in the Chamber to hear more of the debate—rather than just a few minutes of the current speech—before they intervene. The hon. Gentleman is returning to the House and he should know the courtesies of the House well. He should not need to be reminded of them.

Child Abuse

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the atmosphere and attitudes against which these abuses took place. We need to be very clear about what amounts to abuse today. That is why, in a related context, the Home Office has run a “This is Abuse” campaign for teenagers to help them identify when abuse is taking place. Sadly, some might have seen abusive relationships that were portrayed to them as normal. We need to ensure that everybody understands what abuse is, and understands their ability to say no.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Home Secretary mentioned political parties. On alleged child abuse by past or present Members of Parliament, will she confirm whether the inquiry will consider any allegations or evidence held by the Whips?

[Mrs May]

The intention of the inquiry panel is to be able to look as widely as possible at these issues. I should perhaps clarify a point: the inquiry panel will not be conducting investigations into specific allegations, which would properly be matters for criminal investigations. It is looking across the board at how these matters have been approached in the past and asking the question—I intend this to be drawn quite widely—whether the proper protections for children were in place, and if not, whether those gaps still exist today, and if so, what we need to do to fill those gaps. I expect as much information as possible to be given to the panel to enable it to achieve that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s rightful focus on the need for strong community engagement. The Prevent programme is about seeking to prevent people from becoming involved in terrorism, with measures that are able to channel individuals towards programmes that might take them off that course. However, he misunderstands the fact that the Government undertook a clear separation between broader integration work and Prevent, with its specific focus on counter-terrorism. It was right to have that focus and to ensure that actions and programmes were not misinterpreted as being about involvement in or prevention of terrorism rather than community integration.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It was reported this weekend that MI5 could have stopped Michael Adebolajo committing murder if it had more powers. Is the Minister aware that when the Home Affairs Committee was in Kenya, senior ambassadors at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told us that in all likelihood he would have been in prison in Kenya had it not been for the UK authorities requesting that he be returned to this country?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Intelligence and Security Committee is currently completing its review of the investigations related to that case, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further in that regard. The Home Affairs Committee has conducted a broad review of counter-terrorism powers—indeed, I gave evidence to it. Clearly, we keep powers under review, and we have sought to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction for a number of terrorism offences in relation to the Serious Crime Bill, which is currently before Parliament.

Migration Statistics

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Walker, for the opportunity to present to the House the Select Committee on Public Administration’s report of the 2013-14 Session on migration statistics. It has proved one of the most controversial that we have produced during this Parliament.

Migration statistics are of supreme importance to public policy and the debate about immigration in this country. National and local government depend on those estimates in planning public services. For reasons of security, we need to know not only how many people are arriving in and leaving the UK, but who they are. Migration statistics help us understand what is happening in British society and the British economy.

Accurate and reliable migration statistics are also important for public trust. How can the public trust politicians’ promises on immigration if we do not have reliable numbers on which to base our policies? One reason why the debate on immigration has become so toxic is that people no longer believe they are being told the truth; they do not even believe that Governments understand what is happening to their own country.

We conducted our inquiry last year and came to a conclusion that everybody in the know about immigration has understood for years, but been loth to say too clearly for fear of the consequences: the immigration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office are but blunt instruments for measuring, managing and understanding migration to and from the UK, and they are not fit for purpose.

The current sources of migration statistics were established when migration levels were much lower than they are today. Those sources are not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows, despite attempts in recent years to improve their accuracy and usefulness. Most people are astonished when they learn how the inadequate estimates that we do have are compiled. When a person checks in or out of the country, their passport is scanned, but they are not counted in or out of the country, even if they are a foreign national. The headline immigration, emigration and net migration numbers are annual estimates based on interviews of about 800,000 people stopped at random at ports and airports each year—a tiny fraction of the overall flow of passengers and people in and out of the UK. The method is called the international passenger survey.

The number of non-UK citizens identified from the sample as migrants entering or leaving the UK each year is fewer than 5,000. Most of the numbers that we hear in the immigration debate are based on that tiny sample of people, many of whom might be reticent, to say the least, about giving full and frank answers about where they have come from, who they are, why they are here and where they are going. To be clear, that group includes people entering and emigrating from the UK, so the sample number of immigrants in the survey may be as small as 3,000.

Unsurprisingly, migration estimates based on the international passenger survey are subject to a large margin of error, known to statisticians as the confidence interval: that is, the degree of confidence that it is possible to have about a particular margin of error. As we all know, the Government have stated that they intend to bring net migration—the difference between annual immigration into and emigration out of the UK—down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. That is not a 90% cut; in fact, it amounts to about 50%.

On the ONS calculations for net migration as measured by the unadjusted IPS estimate, the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus 35,000, meaning that we can only be 95% certain that the true figure lies within 35,000 of the estimate either way. In other words, the error range is 70,000.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the error margin he gave is one of random variation in a bell curve distribution? Another potential source of variation could be systematic bias in the survey. For instance, if immigrants are not likely to complete the survey or if they say that they are not planning to stay for a long time when they actually are, that would make the margins vary even more.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the survey relies on full and frank answers from those being interviewed even to include them. If people say that they are just visiting a relative for a week, they are not counted as migrants. To that extent, the 70,000 range for potential error within the 95% confidence interval is of significant size for the estimate.

If annual immigration is 120,000 or 150,000, there is only a 5% or one in 20 chance that the official figures are on target. The figures could say that the Government are missing their net immigration target by tens of thousands when in fact they are meeting it, or they could show that the UK is meeting its target when in fact it is missing it by tens of thousands. We do not have enough confidence to know. It is clearly a completely inadequate measure of net migration, but we must be careful before dismissing it, because it is all we have.

That degree of confidence applies only to the headline numbers. The ONS estimate simply does not provide sufficient detail to judge properly the social and economic consequences of different types and origins of migration, and the effects of immigration policy on, for example, students or people from particular countries. Nor does it provide any useful idea about international migration in and out of local areas. Efforts to achieve a blunt net migration target are therefore bound to have unintended consequences, such as skills shortages and effects on universities.

The shortcomings of relying on the IPS were highlighted when the 2011 census showed that the population of England and Wales was 465,000 higher than expected, given the recorded number of births and deaths and the estimated level of net migration during the decade since the previous census. The ONS identified several possible causes for the difference but considered that the

“largest single cause is most likely to be underestimation of long-term immigration from central and eastern Europe in the middle part of the decade”,

which of course was not picked up by the international passenger survey. The ONS concluded that the underestimation came partly from taking samples of people from the wrong airports. That is, the IPS sample under-represented airports such as Cardiff and ports such as Newcastle, where more immigrants are coming in than was previously understood.

As a result, this April, the ONS published a revised set of net migration estimates for the United Kingdom for the period 2001 to 2011. Total net migration during that period is now estimated to have been 346,000 higher than previously thought; the original estimate of 2.18 million has been revised to 2.53 million, plus or minus 35,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: of course it can be done. It is an easy win for this Minister, who is a hard-working Minister—I think he has now been in the House three times this week and there is another Adjournment debate before six o’clock; I do not know whether he knew that. It is an easy win for him to announce this change. It needs the co-operation of security staff at Heathrow airport, of course, as well as that of BAA and others, including the airlines, but it can be done.

When I went on my last visit abroad and I gave my details to the people from the Office for National Statistics—they wanted to know my details; I do not know whether the Minister had sent someone to the airport to check whether I was coming back or not—I referred to this report by the Public Administration Committee. They were extremely grateful. They knew about it and they said, “When you go back, please remind everybody that we would like to do this survey for everybody, but we’re not given the resources to be able to do that.” I then asked whether it was the quick survey or the long survey and they said, “We’re happy to do the quick survey, but we would like to do everyone rather than the limited number that we do,” so there is a willingness. People want to be helpful. It is not a case of civil servants and other officials wanting to thwart the will of Parliament and the will of the British people; they want to help. Given that and given the arrangements that are made at airports, why on earth can we not bring this change into effect before 7 May 2015?

[Mark Reckless]

Can I clarify what is being suggested here? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was talking about quadrupling the size of the international passenger survey. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, instead of quadrupling the survey, it should be made universal? If so, would we then not be talking about the count, and would there not be a better way of doing that than having a separate person with a clipboard asking questions?

[Keith Vaz]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee, that we should be open to offers. Let us look and see what is available and what is the best way to do things. That approach may not be the best way to do things—I like what the Public Administration Committee has recommended—but it would certainly be an improvement on the existing situation.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he and I went on new year’s day to check how many Romanians were arriving at Luton airport. That was because we did not trust the ONS or the media hype, so we went to see for ourselves what was going on. Unfortunately, we cannot do that when every single plane or coach arrives in the UK—because if we did, he would never see Mrs Reckless and I would never see my wife. The key thing is that there should be a practical way of getting over the problem. It is not rocket science.

Let us consider the options that are available, some of which have been described very eloquently, not only in the speech by the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee but in the Committee’s report. Let me say this about e-Borders. Whenever an immigration Minister has appeared before our Committee—certainly in the seven years since I have been Chairman—we have always asked him about e-Borders. I give the current Minister a free pass: he will be asked about it when he appears before us on 22 July, or possibly before, if the passport crisis is not sorted out very quickly.

Let me outline the issue. Of course the last Government were wrong to have entered into an agreement with a private company just because that company was able to provide such services in other parts of the world. I believe it was a huge mistake, and it would be good to look back and see who was responsible for it. I was a Minister in the last Government, although not the Minister who took the decision to enter into this agreement. However, it is important to look at the process. When the last Government signed the agreement with Raytheon, they did not put benchmarks in that agreement. As a result, Raytheon was able to turn round and say, “Well, we were not told what to do.” That is the subject of an arbitration that has been going on for, I think, four years. It could well be the longest arbitration in history, and every time our Committee asks for information, nobody wants to tell us anything about what is going on.

It is important to learn, although not so that we can blame Ministers in the last Government—as I say, two of them are in the Chamber today: my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and me. Rather, it is important to learn so that, when we procure services in future and civil servants and Ministers sign off deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government are clear about what they want and when they want it done, clear that it is being properly monitored, clear that there are penalties if what they want is not being done and clear that the company is clear as well. We are talking about £750 million. This is not chickenfeed. We need to treat taxpayers’ money carefully.

[Mark Reckless]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why many parties to contracts provide for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that arbitration takes place in private, so people do not hear the detail about the case? Is that appropriate in any public contract, let alone one worth £750 million?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is about the public knowing—it is public money that has gone into this—and we need to know precisely what was going on. We also need to know why it has taken four years. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was right to cancel the contract when he did, otherwise it would have drifted on, year after year. At the end of the day, however, we need to know what went wrong so that we do not do it again. For all we know, if we do not know what went wrong, this problem could happen again and again. It is vital that we get to the bottom of the problem of e-Borders.

I welcome this excellent report, which says some valuable things. The Home Affairs Committee continues, of course, to look at immigration and migration issues. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the best way to deal with the issue of migration and immigration is to have accurate statistics that everybody can sign up to. At the moment, we are conducting a debate without knowing the full facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I anticipated that question and looked at the matter prior to today’s debate. The Library of the House of Commons, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is independent and provides impartial advice, informed me that exit checks were abolished by the Conservative Government in 1994. A Library briefing paper states:

“Paper-based embarkation (‘exit’) controls for passengers departing from the UK were ended in two stages. Checks on persons travelling from sea ports and small airports to the EU (which covered 40 per cent of departing passengers) were abolished in 1994. The remaining checks were abolished in 1998.”

The Labour Government, having been in government for three years, decided in 2000 to reintroduce checks, which is why we began the e-Borders programme.

The e-Borders project still has some issues outstanding, including, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the dispute with Raytheon. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister, asking him when the dispute might be resolved, what the terms of any final resolution will be and when he intends to bring the matter back to the House, all of which is integral to the objectives suggested by the Public Administration Committee’s report. We need political consensus to ensure that over the next three or four years, whoever the next Government are, a system of exit checks is put in place that meets the objectives desired by every Member who has spoken today.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the shadow Minister share my concern that an implication of contracts providing for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that that arbitration takes place in secret?

[Mr Hanson]

I take two points from major computing contracts. First, there is a lack of public scrutiny and transparency about the methods, the drawing up of contracts and the terms and conditions. It would be helpful if Parliament and the public could have that scrutiny. I would like agreed final contracts to be made public and open to scrutiny and benchmarking and testing by the public. Secondly—this is not meant to be critical of anyone in particular—I was fortunate to be a Minister for 12 years and I often got involved in a major computing contract after it had been agreed by somebody else or at the end of a review and found that Governments are good at policy, but not at delivery. Benchmarking, the methods of control over major contracts and whether or not the expertise is there to implement major contracts are issues that we need to consider in detail.

Immigration Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to ensure that we propagate good practice. There are many states that currently remove citizenship from individuals. It has happened in Iraq and it has happened in other countries before, and we have been critical of that. We are trying to ensure that any action taken by a Government, particularly when it is one of Executive power by the Home Secretary, is supported by both Houses of Parliament.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman the opinion of international lawyer Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who says that:

“any state that admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and as a matter of right return that person to the UK.”

That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). We need to consider this in considerable detail.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The shadow Minister did say that this was in breach of our international obligations, but he now says it is only a matter of good practice. He has quoted another international jurist and many Members from the other place, but we are the elected Members. Some of us have come to this debate to try to make up our minds. If we could hear more of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the principle of the Bill and the arguments around it, we could make a decision today, and I for one would enormously appreciate that.

[Mr Hanson]

I could do worse than to cite what Lord Deben, a Conservative peer, has said—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman looks as though he lacks concern about this, but I am expressing a number of concerns that have been expressed, both in this House and in—[Interruption.] My view is that we need to ensure that if we take this step, we do it in an effective and appropriate way that does not damage the credibility of the anti-terrorism case. Removing someone’s citizenship is an extreme measure and it has to be done in a way that is appropriate. The Minister has not made it clear to me that the “reasonable” judgments of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would like to join in the conversation, he could go to the Back Benches and do so. For the past three months we have received wodges of legal advice and wodges of views saying, “This is not practical, it will not be effective and it will damage our attacks on terrorism.” The Minister is asking us to take things on trust, but the other place has determined that it wants to examine these issues in detail, argue them and test the Minister on them, and that is a fair proposal.

Lord Deben, a Conservative colleague of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), has said that

“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right.

We have been the signatory to and the driver of much of the international law that seeks to reduce statelessness to its minimum. I fear that in this particular case, we may, for very good reasons—in seeking to close loopholes…do something which will do great injustice to a very small number of people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 2014; Vol. 753, c. 213.]

That is what we need to test by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and that is what we need to test over the next few weeks and months, which is why the other place has given its support. Justice, Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, among others, have made cogent arguments as to why we need to consider this in detail. We need to examine it, and I support the retention of the Lords amendment and hope the House will do so.

Stop-and-Search

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

In response to the hon. Lady’s last point, as I said in my statement, the Metropolitan police has signed up and I have written to every other force asking them to sign up. The police and crime commissioners in the major metropolitan areas, where the power is likely to be used to a significant extent, are of course Labour police and crime commissioners, and I entirely trust that Labour Front Benchers will encourage them to adopt such processes.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that, beyond the PACE codes and top-down guidance, another layer of protection for the individual is the entrenched discretion in the office of constable? Whatever the PACE codes say and whatever she or chief constables say, any search is illegal unless the individual officer suspects the individual they search.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figure in the HMIC survey showing that 27% of stop-and-searches did not have reasonable grounds was shocking. That is precisely why we will change the code of conduct—code A—under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to make absolutely clear what reasonable grounds of suspicion are.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is fully aware that Parliament can overrule any court in this country by an Act of Parliament. That is how our constitution works; it is the absolute essence of our constitution and our democracy. He, of all people, must know that. We have in this House, and together with the House of Lords, the ability to change the law if there has been a judgment that is alien to our understanding of how the law should be enforced. That is simply not the case as regards the European Court of Justice. It is a court that is outside the control not of Parliament but of the people of the United Kingdom, whose rights are being given up. The arrest warrant would be handed over as part of the creation of a state.

Tied in with this is Europol. Europol, in its current form, is limited, but once we have signed up to this measure, its development will be subject to the qualified majority vote. Europol exists to provide support and assistance to member states in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking. What are we doing in this regard? Are we setting up the very beginnings of a federal bureau of investigation? Are we starting to say that we will have a police force in Europe with a power that goes across national borders? Are we therefore saying that British subjects may be subject to a law that this country has not agreed to—indeed, we may even vote against it—and that has emanated from a judicial system that is not controlled by the democratic will of the British people?

That ties in with Eurojust, which is about creating mutual legal assistance to aid investigations and prosecutions and how judicial action in a cross-border case should take place. What is happening? We are creating an arrest warrant, the beginnings of a European police force and Eurojust, which will allow co-operation in a judicial and prosecutorial capacity. That is not a million miles away from creating a European public prosecutor, which for some reason is singled out as the one thing that is a bridge too far and that we must never have without a referendum, but everything that is being put in place makes that the next logical step. If we do this, it would be no surprise if a future Government said, “We have the arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust, so surely we don’t need a referendum to have a public prosecutor, because that is the next thing we should do.” This is further evidence of the creation of a European federal state.

The argument in favour of this measure is that it will help ensure that criminals get caught. Everyone is in favour of that: of course we want criminals to be brought to justice. Is there not, however, an ancient view of British justice that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free—I say “men” deliberately, because women very rarely commit crimes that get them sent to prison, much less so than men, and I do not want to upset any hon. Ladies—than for one innocent man to go to prison? That seems to be at the essence of our understanding of justice. This is about risking our belief in justice for the convenience of the Administration.

Is it not that the worst argument of all that their noble lordships have produced a report saying that public officials are too idle to do their jobs properly for us to have a system of bilateral negotiations? I know that our public officials are among the greatest and hardest working people in the land. When one sees them arrayed in front of us, one knows that they would be willing to burn the midnight oil and act in the nation’s interest to ensure that we have those bilateral agreements. Although it has not yet been done, there is nothing in European law to prevent a member state from having an agreement with the body of the European Union. The European Commission does not want that to happen, but that is a very different question from whether or not it is legal. It could easily be done by a relatively simple treaty change, if it is not provided for in the current treaties.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

If we were to take that path, would the resulting international agreement be judiciable in The Hague rather than in the integrationist Court in Luxembourg?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

In my view, it would be judiciable in our own courts and, like any other international agreement, we would be free to withdraw from it. It would not come under the European Communities Act 1972. I do not wish to cede power to the European Court of Justice, because that would be the means by which we would give up our independence as a nation state. If it is not our judges—who are subject to our democratic control—who make decisions, we will not be able to run our own affairs.

I want to continue with the point I was making about the United Kingdom’s understanding of justice. I think we get too tied up with the convenience of the law enforcement bodies. Of course, the views of the police should be taken very seriously, but they ought not to be writing the law of the land—they should be enforcing it as it is determined by this House and their lordships. One of the measures that the Government wish to opt back into is that of mutual recognition of judgments given in absentia. Page 57 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report notes the Government’s view that the

“Framework Decision ensures that fewer criminals will be able to evade justice by arguing that their conviction was unfair”,

but what if their conviction was unfair? Surely we should not be depriving our fellow citizens of the right to argue that a conviction in absentia was unfair when it could have been. That must be an essential protection for the state to provide its nationals, and to take it away would be a fundamental error.

What we have and have not opted into is a relatively random collection of parts. I agreed with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in her mocking of some of the measures we are not opting back into. On the opt-ins, including that of taking account of convictions in EU member states in the course of new criminal proceedings, page 53 of the ESC’s report notes:

“The principle of taking into account overseas convictions in the same way as domestic ones exists in UK domestic law”

already, and:

“The mutual recognition principle it sets out is already recognised in statute and common law in the UK. Opting back in to this EU measure would introduce full Court of Justice jurisdiction into this area of UK criminal law, with unpredictable results.”

What is happening here? We are opting into something that already happens and that can continue to happen. All we are changing is that other European countries do not have to take into account our decisions, but they may if they want to—they are not prevented from doing so. Crucially, however, we are bringing the European Court of Justice into it. Therefore, if a judge were to pass sentence on somebody who had committed a crime abroad and the European Court of Justice deemed that it had not properly taken into account the previous conviction, sentencing in the United Kingdom could end up being a matter for the European Court of Justice. Does Her Majesty’s Government realise that, although some of these things appear superficially to be unnecessary and broadly irrelevant, they are agreeing to major transfers of sovereignty to the European Union?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her introductory speech that several hundred questions have been tabled. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration has just come into the Chamber, because he, poor man, had to reply to the many dozens of questions that I tabled. I thank him for the diligence with which he replied to my questions about the measures that the Government decided not to opt back into. Of those 95 measures, 43 were irrelevant, so there was no point asking any questions about them. I asked about the remaining 52, of which 24 turned out to be implemented already without any change; 11 had been de facto implemented with no change; two had been implemented and never used; and two had not been implemented. As the shadow Home Secretary rightly said, most of what we are not opting back into is, effectively, unimportant and irrelevant and cannot honestly be described as a reclaim of British sovereignty, because, as I said in my opening remarks, that sovereignty was never ceded in the first place, because the matters remained entirely under the jurisdiction of the British courts, the British House of Commons and their lordships.

I will quote the details of one of those matters in order to give a flavour of what is going on. Council decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances has been implemented to the required standard by the UK and, according to the response I received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration:

“Co-operation and information exchange with other member states and EU bodies will not change as a result of opting out of this measure.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 823W.]

That has been broadly true of the overwhelming majority of the measures we have opted out of.

We therefore have this opt-out—the previous Labour Government, in a desire to get away from a referendum, negotiated it—which fortunately came to the benefit or aid of this coalition Government, who have used it. They looked at it, but they undoubtedly had a political problem. One part of the coalition is made up of Europhiles red in tooth and claw—although my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) does not necessarily look red in tooth and claw, he adopts that position on the European Union—who want an enlarged European organisation. They may quibble with me about whether it is a single state, but they want to see powers with Europe, because they believe that that is an advantage to the nation. They met the Conservative view—it has now been the Conservative view for a long time—that we do not want more powers to be ceded to the European Union. It was negotiated in the coalition agreement that no further powers would be passed to the European Union.

The time came to exercise the opt-out—it had to be exercised before the end of this year, 1 December 2014—and last year it was duly exercised. We are therefore in the happy position, the paradise, of no longer subscribing to any of the measures. That would be a happy place to stay, but the Government, throwing away the coalition agreement and abandoning what unites the Tory party, have decided to give away the things that most certainly create, build up and advance the federal European state that so many of us wish not to see. That contradicts the Prime Minister’s effort of renegotiation, as well as past statements by Conservative Ministers and politicians throughout the Front and Back Benches. It would be a grave error to opt into all 35 measures. It is against the national interest, and to do it for administrative convenience—because we cannot get officials to do the work—is a shameful way to treat our hard-working and admirable officials, who would all be delighted to do the work to preserve the independence of our country.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I must first explain to the House that I had to leave during the middle of this debate, after the opening speeches, to speak in a discussion upstairs about a statutory instrument that directly affects my constituency.

I have the pleasure of following the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). It is a pleasure because of his eloquence, but eloquence and judgment do not always walk together, and on some matters he is simply wrong, including about the European arrest warrant. My belief is that if 100 criminals go free in the absence of the European arrest warrant, that would be an extremely bad state of affairs for our constituents. That is entirely separate from the question of ensuring that no innocent person is convicted in our courts. Long may we strive to achieve that second objective.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

It is quite early to give way, but very well.

[Mark Reckless]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, how many of our own citizens—who had done nothing wrong and been convicted of no crime—is he prepared to see detained in foreign prisons in return for those 100 people going free?

[Sir Alan Beith]

One measure that we are opting into ensures that people do not have to be detained in foreign prisons, but can be returned to the United Kingdom to serve under bail conditions in the United Kingdom. That is another reason why I think that we should look at the measures individually and decide which are in the national interest and beneficial to our citizens because they afford some protection to our citizens abroad or because they help to protect our citizens in this country from criminals who flee elsewhere having done terrible harm.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to make a little progress.

I want primarily to speak about the Justice Committee’s work on this matter, but I cannot forbear to mention that the Government have handled their relationship with Parliament very badly in this regard. This debate is a somewhat belated and limited response to the view of the three Committees that there should have been an early opportunity to debate and vote on the measures so that the Government knew the House’s views, with that being supported by impact assessments at an early stage—we still have not had any—and a much earlier indication of the Government’s intentions.

There have indeed been intensive discussions. The hon. Member for North East Somerset implied that they took place at a table with all the Conservatives on one side and all the Liberal Democrats on the other. I know that it was more complicated than that on several issues, as I am sure the Justice Secretary is well aware.

I want to turn to the measures for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, and on which the Justice Committee reported. Of the total of 16 such measures, the Government propose that the UK should rejoin seven. Our report examines the case for and against rejoining all 16 measures, and we concluded in broad support of the Government’s approach. There are six mutual recognition measures—on financial penalties, previous convictions, prisoner transfer, probation measures, judgments in absentia and the European supervision order, to which I referred a moment ago—and the Government propose to rejoin them all, except for the probation measures framework decision.

We agreed that the Government was right, in the national interest and in the interests of effective cross-border co-operation in criminal justice, to seek to rejoin five of the measures. The Government support particularly strongly the UK’s participation in the prisoner transfer framework decision, stating that a top priority is to reduce the number of foreign nationals in UK prisons, while the decision is also an important part of the overall reform package of the European arrest warrant. My support for the European arrest warrant is accompanied by the belief that it was right to take active steps in various areas to try to reform it and make it better serve its purpose.

One of the five measures, the European supervision order, enables a defendant or suspect under non-custodial pre-trial bail or other supervision to be returned to their home member state to await trial there. It would not of course apply to people granted unconditional bail, who would be free to return to their home member state in any case. We urged the Government to implement the measure without further delay, and their response stated that they intended to do so as soon as practicable.

On the probation measures framework decision, which provides a basis for mutual recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, post-custodial licences and community sentences, we noted the Government’s concerns about its practical operability, but we stated:

“In view of the potential value of the Framework Decision we consider that the Government should pursue the matter in their negotiations on the opt-in list to see whether these concerns can be dealt with. We would not wish to rule out participation in the measure if concerns about its drafting can be overcome as part of the forthcoming negotiation process or at a later stage.”

In their response, the Government spelled out in more detail their objections to the measure, including that it falls within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, while saying that they support the measure in principle. I still hope that they will make some effort to deal with some of the practical difficulties, because the measure may be of real benefit.

There are six minimum standards measures, which set out EU-wide minimum penalties and sanctions for corruption involving officials, counterfeiting of the euro, fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment, and corruption in the private sector. Two of the measures will be replaced by a new directive, covering counterfeiting of the euro, which the UK has decided not to opt into. The Government do not propose to rejoin any of the remaining four measures. They pointed out that we already at least meet the minimum standards, and rejected the arguments that were put to us in evidence that leaving the measures could cause reputational damage. We stated that

“the arguments for opting into the…minimum standards measures are primarily symbolic, and our view is that those arguments do not outweigh the disadvantages of bringing wide areas of criminal justice in the UK unnecessarily into the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

The remaining four measures under the aegis of the Ministry of Justice comprise one on data protection in police and judicial co-operation, one on a data protection secretariat, a Schengen agreement on road traffic offences and a measure on conflicts of jurisdiction. The Government propose to rejoin the first two, but not the last two. We broadly agreed with the Government’s line, although we stated that the arguments were finely balanced as to whether the UK should rejoin the framework decision on settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction, because it provides a framework of guidance for member states to put in place to protect against parallel legal proceedings on the same matters being taken in different member states. The Government’s position, which they maintained in their response, was that it had no additional practical value because best practice arrangements are already in place.

Our broad conclusion was to support the Government’s choice of opt-ins on Ministry of Justice measures. The Government closely coincide with our views. Those views are on the record for the consideration of the House to which we report, and it remains a matter of regret to me that we were not able to register our views in the House earlier and in a more concrete way. However, this debate has been a useful means of reminding the Government about where it has support, where there are differences of view and, in particular, where the Select Committees charged with such responsibilities have looked carefully at the measures and given their advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a privilege and an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). He spent six years as a Foreign Office lawyer and has a family back story that is perhaps more exotic than that of many on the Government Benches. Over the past half hour, he has, with his searing intellect, differentiated the small print, which he understands as well if not better than anyone in the House, from the key principles, which he enunciated. In particular, he concluded that we can achieve outside EU structures, albeit slightly more slowly in a few instances, what we can achieve within them, but without the downsides to liberty and democracy that are implied if we remain within those structures. He has done us a great service.

My hon. Friend spoke of the European arrest warrant. I felt that he spoke from the current centre of gravity within the Conservative party. He mentioned that the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, concluded that the EAW was “fundamentally flawed”, but did not mention that the Liberal Democrat member of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), voted to remove the word “fundamentally” from our report. I am delighted that Conservative members voted that proposal down unanimously.

It was instructive to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). I intervened on him to ask how many people he would be prepared to see kept in custody wrongfully in order, supposedly, to bring 100 guilty people to justice, but he did not answer. He has great hopes that there will be some new EU directive that will stop all those bad things happening and properly protect everyone’s rights: as long as we legislate, people will be protected in practice and we need worry ourselves no more. However, we also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), whose constituent, Andrew Symeou, came to the Home Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend said that the proposals will not work and cannot be trusted, and that they will be judiciable by the European Court of Justice and subject to the proposals of the European Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, the problems that have been seen in the old member states may be not just replicated but worse in the new member states. How many people would the Liberal Democrats be prepared to see wrongfully imprisoned to get 100 crooks bang to rights? Alas, there are no Liberal Democrats here to answer my question. They tell us that they believe in the civil liberties of the British citizen, but when it comes down to it they always put the European Union and their belief in Europe, right or wrong, before the liberties of the British citizen.

Today, we debate a motion on an opt-out. We have heard an awful lot of discussion on what we might opt into, but the motion actually reads:

“That this House has considered the UK’s 2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.”

It is important to understand that the opt-out has been agreed. Parliament has voted to exercise the opt-out. All this talk about opt-ins is speculative. We may or may not opt back into some, any, or none of these measures—that remains to be seen. The status quo ante is that we have opted out, we have exercised it and that we have that great repatriation of powers. We will have to see whether it will be undone, or whether it will be maintained.

The great worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who is not in his place, is that we may sleepwalk, or accidently fall, out of the measures he would like to be in. I think he underestimates the degree of planning that went into delinking the two matters. A number of motions and draft motions were put on the Order Paper, and others were discussed between the coalition parties. Ultimately, the motion we voted on was to exercise the mass opt-out. There has been no decision by the House to approve any measures to opt back in. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, because the amour propre of Select Committees was also involved. The result of the decisions to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge signed up was that the mass opt-out and any opt-ins were delinked. Crucially, one came before the other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge seemed to be concerned that there might not be agreement in this House on what we might opt back into. One fear was that, as he sees it, the Labour party might play political games and that it would like us to opt back into more than the Government might wish. If, as with the Syria vote, Labour Members vote for their own motion or amendment, rather than voting for the Government motion, and it fails, there might be no agreement on any set of measures to opt back in to. The Home Secretary told us about her negotiations with her European partners and the Commission. Have there been negotiations with those on the Opposition Front Bench on whether they will support the package the Government put before the House, or does she believe that she has enough votes from Government Members to drive through measures to integrate this country into the European Union in a way that we have not seen before?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge worries that this may come unstuck if the Government cannot reach agreement on what the measures should be. There has been discussion and there may be understanding but, as the Home Secretary rightly says, we do not know what we will be able to negotiate until we go through the process. We read in The Daily Telegraph today the concerns of a number of our partners about even a very modest proportionality test for the European arrest warrant. There will have to be further discussions between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on whether an agreement can be reached in the coalition on what the Government want to opt back into and what is put before this House as a motion.

Those discussions and any decisions are likely to come after 22 May, when we consult the electorate in the European and local elections. That is when our constituents will have their chance to pass judgment on politicians, and, in particular, on the self-proclaimed “party of in”, which has made great play of these supposedly co-operative measures. The president of ACPO is quoted, and reference is made to whatever the police want. I remember the previous Prime Minister Tony Blair saying that if the police ask for something, there is nothing that any responsible Prime Minister can do except to give it to them. That, surely, is the definition of a police state.

We hear about the ACPO evidence, but I understand that people in ACPO have been fighting to avoid this portfolio. When Sir Hugh Orde talks about the ACPO position on EU matters—he may continue doing so for at least the next few months—it is not because the police consider them to be so terribly important that Sir Hugh must talk about them, but, I fear, it is because other chief constables have learnt the lessons from the noble Lord Blair. If they intrude into politics and tell the public and politicians that they have to vote a certain way so that they can lock people up for 90 days without charge—to say nothing of police vans festooned with “Vote Labour” stickers—there will be a backlash, because the police should not get involved in politics to that degree.

Unfortunately, with the European investigation order and the new statute for Europol, we have the prospect of our police being ordered what to do by politico-judicial structures in other EU countries where the separation of politics and operational policing is not what it is in this country. Do we, as a country, want to make a trade-off that allows British citizens to be arrested on the say-so of magistrates in Greece or Bulgaria and locked up for many months, if not years, in prisons that do not meet the standards that we in this country consider to be acceptable? Fundamentally, that is a matter for us as politicians, not the police.

[Mr Cash]

Many examples have been given of perceived injustices as a result of the European arrest warrant being applied in other countries. For example, is my hon. Friend aware that, under the European arrest warrant, a man from a neighbouring Staffordshire constituency was convicted in Italy, in absentia, for a murder that he could not have committed, because he was serving in a restaurant at the time, and sentenced to 15 years? It is definitely not just a one-way street.

[Mark Reckless]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that example to the attention of the House. It goes to show that in principle we cannot sign up to the European arrest warrant, because we do not have a sufficient degree of trust in the similarity and protections of all EU 27 judicial and policing systems to allow us to do that. People in our country deserve and have had, over centuries, protections that are greater than those now offered within the European arrest warrant. It is for that reason that I hope and believe it is still possible that we will choose not to opt back into it.

The Home Secretary has given her view, but there are many views in the Conservative party. Those views are held not just on the Back Benches, but, I know, deep in the most senior levels of Government. I ask that we listen to the electorate. Once the electorate, on 22 May, passes its judgment on the “party of in”, and on how weak their arguments are, with the Deputy Prime Minister just recycling arguments he has picked up without giving any liberal thought as to what they are or what the principles should be, we will see that this is not what the people in this country want. Ultimately, we still have the right to make a different decision. What we have seen with the opt-out we have already made is that the opt-ins are still to come. One analogy that Members, at least in my party, may find instructive is with regard to what happened over the AV referendum and the boundary changes. We agreed, in good faith, to give the Liberal Democrats their referendum on AV. In return, they agreed to later give us boundaries that would give fair representation across constituencies. They banked their AV referendum, and then did not give us the boundaries that there was, at the very least, an understanding that they would give.

I would argue that the mass opt-out equates to the AV referendum in that analogy. I do not think that we would have any more reason to agree later to opt in to matters in which we do not believe because of that opt-out than the Liberal Democrats had to give us our boundaries because they secured their AV referendum; and I think that after 22 May, we will be in a different political situation.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is of such constitutional importance that it might be better to delay it until after a general election? If we did not exercise the opt-ins, and if the Liberal Democrats left the coalition and we had an early election, there would be no great harm in that.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend has made a very sensible point. I think that, as we get nearer to the election, we need to differentiate between what we believe in as Conservatives and what we have been forced to agree to by the need to be in harness with the Liberal Democrats. Given that they have not fulfilled their promises to us, and as we discover in the course of our negotiations with our European partners that we may not be able to secure protections in every area in which we would like to secure them, we shall have to consider, in those new circumstances, the balance of the opt-ins that are proposed, and decide whether we, as Conservatives, wish to agree to them.

[Mr Cash]

There is yet another example. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party agreed to allow the European Union (Referendum) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to complete its passage in the House of Commons, but when it reached the House of Lords, those same two parties made certain that it would not be passed, and we now understand that the Liberal Democrats are refusing to allow a money resolution to be tabled in respect of any future Bill that may be subject to the Parliament Acts.

[Mark Reckless]

I think the Liberal Democrats will ultimately find that as we act to others, so they will act to us.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is becoming awfully exercised about the Liberal Democrats, but the party about which he should be most concerned is UKIP, because it will probably trounce the Conservatives in the European elections. What will the Conservatives do in that event?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to speculate on what will happen in the European elections. We do not want to speculate on whether they will be won by the Liberals or by UKIP. I think that we want to hear about the point of the debate.

[Mark Reckless]

The debate is about the opt-out, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other Members have spoken at length about what we might opt back into. I merely suggest to the House that, having opted out, we should not opt back into anything. A number of arguments support that view, but I believe that the most important argument is that anything that we opt back into will be judiciable by the European Court of Justice, and will be subject to the decisions and the enforcement of the European Commission. It is for that reason that the Home Affairs Committee concluded unanimously:

“If the Government proceeds with the opt-in as proposed, we note that it will not result in any repatriation of powers. Indeed, the increased jurisdiction of the ECJ may result in a net flow of powers in the opposite direction.”

We in the Conservative party, at least, have set our face against that, because we believe in bringing powers back from the European Union and, ultimately, putting the choice to the British people in a referendum. It would be entirely inconsistent with that if, having exercised this opt-out, we sought to push through opt-ins as a result of which the European Court of Justice and the European Commission took charge of areas that had previously been intergovernmental.

In 1990, our party negotiated the pillar structure of the European Union, but the Lisbon treaty puts an end to those pillars, becoming the “tree” that has stemmed from the earlier Dutch draft. We said that we would change Europe, and that there would be subsidiarity and intergovernmental pillars, but that will end if these opt-ins take place, and the European institutions and integrationists will have won. We have already voted to exercise the mass opt-out. We should leave things as they are, and then let the British people decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I should like to start by expressing my thanks to all those who have spoken in the debate today. I shall address some of the points that they have raised, but I should first like to make a couple of observations.

My views on matters European are well known. British justice is the envy of the world, and I will not countenance any attempt to replace it with a pan-European justice system. It would be entirely wrong for Britain to hand over control of Justice and Home Affairs entirely to the European Union or its Court of Justice and, under this Government, that is not going to happen. Those who were here for the debate a couple of weeks ago on the three recent proposals from the Commission will have heard us putting forward this Government’s intentions loud and clear on matters that we all believe would be an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion on our justice system.

[Mark Reckless]

The Secretary of State says that he does not want to hand over powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the European Union entirely. Is he happy to hand them over in part?

[Chris Grayling]

If I may, I shall answer that question by setting out for my hon. Friend where we stand.

The House will be aware that more than 130 justice and home affairs measures were due to come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in December 2014, as a result of the Lisbon treaty signed by the previous Government. It is important to point out to my hon. Friends that this Government have secured the opt-out. Had we not been able to reach agreement on that, we would have been required under the terms of the treaty to participate in all those 130-plus measures. The opt-out has been a significant step—[Interruption.] I hear chuckles from the Opposition Benches, but I have to say that, although we have heard complaints and criticism from them this afternoon, it was the Labour Government who set up the process. They negotiated the opt-out, but they now appear to be trying to disown what they did, and to claim that the process we are now going through is nothing to do with them. It was they who negotiated the process, and it was they who set out the way in which we would have to address these issues. Their arguments on this are therefore completely bankrupt.

The Lisbon treaty clearly paved the way for the creation of a European justice area, and that system is now beginning to take shape. The European Commission is pushing ahead, with the latest justice scorecard just one signal of its intent. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) talked about some of the things that the Commissioner had been doing recently. She was explicit earlier this year when she said:

“We need a true political union. To me this means that we need to build a United States of Europe”.

She has set out her ambition to have a common justice area by 2020. Let me be clear: that is not something I want, it is not something the British people want, and with the Conservatives in government, it is not something this country will ever sign up to. Indeed, I trust that no future Government of any political persuasion would take this country down that route, despite the Opposition’s rather mealy-mouthed answers today on where they stand on these matters.

That is why it was important that the Prime Minister exercised our opt-out in July last year to ensure that Britain did not become part of a common European justice system, and that is why we continue to assert our right to opt out when Brussels brings forward new legislation in this area. This Government are protecting our national interest and standing up for Britain, whereas Labour typically just ran up the white flag over many years.