UK Extradition Arrangements

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for shedding light on some of the legal advice on that.

In my view, the regime in place under the European arrest warrant suffers from far more serious and widespread flaws than the UK-US arrangements, despite the important concerns that have been raised in that regard. If we consider the appalling treatment of Andrew Symeou, we will see the egregious nature of the flaws in the system. Greek police beat identical statements out of witnesses, which were later retracted, and Andrew spent practically a year in appalling prison conditions. He was left with a flea-ridden blanket in a baking-hot cell crawling with cockroaches and was abused by guards. He witnessed a prisoner being beaten to death for drug money. The trial proceeded at a crawl, with translators who spoke little English. Eventually he was cleared after a two-year ordeal.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. He refers to my constituent, Andrew Symeou. Not only did Andrew go through all that before eventually being freed, but the human price his family paid was shocking. They had to put their lives on hold for up to four years, including two years in Greece.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Andrew’s father, Frank, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am sure that we will hear from the Chair of the Committee later. The damage done and the human suffering not only to the direct victims, but to their families, are very clear. One of the major flaws of the Baker review is that it did not talk to or take evidence from the victims or their representatives.

Extradition

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that historical context, and I certainly accept it. It is important to have a practical, operational background about the numbers of cases, so that the debate does not become a dry, lawyer’s debate about the terms of the treaty or the Extradition Act 2003.

We have legislation in place to inject a dose of common sense and discretion into the McKinnon case and other such cases. The Government ought to bring that into force as a matter of priority.

I understand the US’s concern. I have spoken to officials from the US embassy, and I understand their concerns regarding the treaty’s operation. They make quite strong arguments about the discrepancy between the evidential thresholds. None the less, in the US’s extradition treaty relations with, to name but a few, Brazil, Mexico and Australia, the domestic authorities in those countries have the right to decline extradition in these and much wider circumstances. Why should Britain, a stalwart ally, not request such a modest adjustment?

The problems created by the European arrest warrant have proven to be even more serious and far more widespread than those created by the US treaty. First, there are cases that are exemplified by the case of Andrew Symeou. Andrew, a British student, was whisked off to Greece under a European arrest warrant for involvement in a fight at a nightclub that left another man dead, which is a serious offence. Andrew was extradited, despite eye-witness accounts that he was not at the club at the time.

Fast-track European Union extradition is based on the assumption that standards of justice are adequate across Europe. We all put our faith in that assumption, but I am afraid that the Symeou case and many others show that that assumption is a sham and a fraud. We cannot understand the operation of the EAW without understanding that fraud—the assumption that all the justice systems operate to a similarly high standard.

Let us look at the Symeou case. Greek police beat identical statements out of witnesses, which were then retracted. Andrew Symeou spent almost a year in squalid prison conditions before being bailed. He was left with a flea-ridden blanket in a cell exposed to a sewer and crawling with cockroaches. He was abused by guards and witnessed another prisoner being beaten to death for drug money. The trial proceeded at a snail’s pace, with court translators who spoke scant English. He was eventually cleared in June this year, after a two-year ordeal, and he was left to rebuild his life.

The independent Baker review, commissioned by the coalition to look into the operation of our extradition relations, makes absolutely no recommendations for preventing such horror stories being inflicted on other innocent people—I use the word “innocent” advisedly, although that was clearly the case for Andrew Symeou. The Symeou case highlights the need for a higher evidential threshold—a prima facie test—to militate against the risk that fast-track extradition goes ahead on manifestly tainted evidence or spurious grounds.

The Baker report merely suggests that, over time and with effort, the justice systems and prison conditions across Europe will get better. All of us in the Chamber may well hope for that, but that view is naive at best and reckless at worst. I urge the Government to ignore that legalistic and simplistic analysis and think about what innocent people such as Andrew Symeou actually go through in real life.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about my constituent. I, too, congratulate him on securing the debate.

While in prison, many of Andrew Symeou’s human rights were fundamentally breached. Does my hon. Friend agree that unfortunately, the Scott Baker report clearly believes that, because there is mutual recognition and all EU members have signed up to the European convention on human rights, we are not right to presume any fundamental breaches of human rights?

[Mr Raab]

That is exactly the point, and exactly why the assumptions that underwrite the European arrest warrant are fraudulent. I cannot think of any other way of putting it.

It is not good enough just to sit back and hit and hope on the Greek justice system getting better. For one thing, it may be getting worse. Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index is a well regarded measure of standards of justice in national administration and legal systems. On a score of one to 10—one being the most corrupt—Greece has fallen from 4.2 to 3.5 in the past 10 years.

Even if there were grounds for optimism that the Greek justice system would improve over time, which we all hope for, we need to protect our citizens right now—not in five or 10 years’ time, but today. That is why we need an amendment to the European arrest warrant framework decision, a prima facie test, a proportionality safeguard, and the other recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

In fairness to the Baker review, it acknowledged the case for an amendment to the EAW to accommodate a proportionality test, which is one of the other crucial safeguards that are required. However, in other areas the report ignores, almost wholesale, major flaws in the current arrangements. It casually disregards evidence that shows that warrants are being issued for investigation rather than for prosecution.

That important point is best illustrated by the evidence given by Michael Turner to the Joint Committee. Michael Turner set up a property business in Hungary in 2005. When it failed, as some business ventures do, he paid off his staff, filed for bankruptcy and returned to Britain. Three years later, he was extradited to a Hungarian jail, accused of defrauding on certain administration fees. He was detained in a prison that was formerly run by the KGB. He has now been allowed to return home, but he remains under investigation. At the time of the extradition, the Hungarian authorities assured the UK courts that they were ready to prosecute: that this was not a hit and hope; they were trial-ready. Yet six years after the alleged offence took place, Mr Turner has not been charged with any crime whatever. The extradition that threw his life into turmoil was little more than a hit and hope fishing expedition. Again, the Baker report remains oblivious, if not blind, to the basic injustice and the human toll that that kind of ordeal takes on those affected. I am talking about not just the victims but the families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am conscious that I will be the last person to contribute before the winding-up speeches. A lot has already been said, and I will not repeat points for the sake of repetition, as I believe may have happened previously. Having read the Scott Baker report, my goal is to seek assurances from the Minister that he will engage with the report so that we avoid a passive and compliant acceptance of it. I am sure that he recognises the strength of feeling among hon. Members.

The reason for my concern is summed up in point 1.11 on page 11 of the weighty document that is the Scott Baker report. It simply says:

“Apart from the problem of proportionality, we believe that the European arrest warrant… has worked… well.”

Given the lack of evidence submitted in relation to the Scott Baker report from those who have been on the receiving end of miscarriages of justice—that is how I regard the way they were treated—we would do well to urge the Minister to take into account anecdotal evidence and to lend more weight to it than it seems to have been given in the report.

One reason why I was keen to speak is that I wanted to give voice to my constituent Andrew Symeou and his family, whose nightmare came to an end only earlier this year following a three-year process in which Andrew was finally extradited in 2009 after an arrest warrant had been issued in 2008. He subsequently spent one year in jail in Greece, where he was refused bail simply because he was a foreigner. On top of that, by the time he was rightly found innocent of all charges, there had been a massive cost to his family, whom I have been privileged to get to know very well. They put their lives on hold when they went to Greece to support their son while he was in jail for a year. That gross misuse of the European arrest warrant meant that Frank Symeou’s business inevitably suffered; indeed, he no longer has that business. There was a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the two things. I place on the record my immense admiration for the way they stood by their son, fought bureaucracy, fought their corner and ultimately won the justice that Andrew deserved. Andrew is determined, rightly, to see that we get changes to a system that he believes should not be allowed to administer justice of the sort that he went through.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is not in his place, said that he felt that hon. Members were not ready for a forensic, detailed analysis of the 480 pages in Scott Baker’s report. That means that I have wasted a lot of my bedtime reading, but I would like to draw attention to two or three things that point to why the report is wrong to assume that, apart from the problem of proportionality,

“the European arrest warrant scheme has worked reasonably well.”

I shall draw again on real-life anecdotal evidence. I feel that, throughout the review, Scott Baker managed to overlook that anecdotal evidence and has all but rejected many of our concerns.

Let us first examine the concerns regarding the mistreatment of a fugitive’s fundamental human rights. For example, quite important in a trial or a prosecution process, as I am sure hon. Members agree, is the right to have proceedings carried out in one’s own language or with a full translation. I hope that hon. Members share my shock that, although Andrew Symeou was given a translator on the opening day of the trial, it was clear when opening statements were being made that the translator could not even tell the difference between the words “juror” and “witness”. Worse, the translator summarised one set of remarks by saying, “Well, it was something like that. I hope that that will do for you.” That is not the best method of giving confidence to a defendant and it does not meet the requirement to provide a full translation of proceedings. It should be noted that the translator in question was being paid barely £14 a day. I am forced to conclude that that does not necessarily buy the best translation services.

In point 5.53 on page 138 of this weighty volume, Scott Baker says:

“We are also of the view that as a starting point it is not inappropriate to begin with an assumption that surrender to another Member State of the European Union will not involve a violation of human rights.”

He therefore assumes that everything will be okay because the countries that sign up to the European arrest warrant have signed up to the charter of human rights. I submit that that is repeatedly highlighted as a failing.

Let us examine one other area of the review. It does not necessarily relate directly to my constituent, but it points to one of the weaknesses in the report. I am referring to the question of dual criminality. I will not bore hon. Members by going into that in detail—I will assume a degree of understanding—but essentially, under the European arrest warrant scheme, people can be extradited for acts and behaviours that, no matter how abhorrent we may consider them—xenophobia is the most well known example—are not criminal offences in the UK. That flaw has already been highlighted in the work done by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but Scott Baker’s conclusion is, “Well, yes, we note that”—I paraphrase of course—“but given that it has not been an issue in the last few years, we’re not worried about it.” It worries me that people recognise that something is not quite right, but because nothing has really gone wrong in the past, it is okay. That is like a mechanic noticing a flaw in an aircraft’s landing gear but not taking corrective action, because as far as he is concerned, up till then the plane has always landed safely with the wheels coming down. It does not build confidence.

I am surprised, as I am in relation to other matters—I will not go into them, given the time—that we have not used the review to think about other possible problems that have been highlighted, but, because we may not have come across them, have been dismissed. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed.

I endorse what was said about the nonsensical situation of a court not needing to examine prima facie evidence before a fugitive is extradited. That is considered by the review, but no alternative is reasonably suggested. Again, my concern stems from the case of my constituent, Andrew Symeou. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) highlighted the fact that there were clear discrepancies in the evidence. Clear evidence was presented to the court that showed a change in the statements of witnesses—witnesses who were first in Greece and put under a lot of pressure, but then returned to the UK and immediately withdrew their statements. There was some evidence of abuse as well.

The court noted that, but made it clear that, with the European arrest warrant, this is simply a tick-box exercise—so long as the boxes are ticked, it is not within its remit to pass judgment on the quality of that evidence. Therein lies the problem; that is where we should try to raise the bar. Much has been said about the opportunity to do that. I endorse the support given for a forum bar. That must be examined to introduce a level of security for our citizens in what is a critical affair for them.

My overriding sense and concern is that the European arrest warrant scheme has—not by malicious design; I understand why it was set up—made a particular substitution in the interest of expediency. Of course, we all know the flaws that existed long before it came along. I am thinking of the Costa del Sol—Costa del Crime—and so on. However, in the interest of expediency, the scheme is prepared to accept it as reasonable that there will be disproportionate effects and potential miscarriages of justice. I submit that we should not tolerate that. Not one British citizen should have to go through what my constituent and the others whom we have heard about went through in the interest of expediency and process, however well motivated and well intentioned it was.

I had hoped and expected that the Scott Baker review would be a wholesale rethinking of the UK’s extradition arrangements. Going by today’s debate, it does not appear to have lived up to anyone’s expectations, which I am disappointed by. I remind Members of a comment made before the election that indicated what members of our Front-Bench team thought—that the UK’s extradition arrangements were “a mess”. It is reasonable to conclude that our hopes for Scott Baker now are that while we can learn, listen and take on board what he has said, we must not lose sight of our duty to ensure that our citizens have the right process of justice. That must not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency and process, no matter how successful those might have been with some serious crime. We must find a way through the problem so that we do not end up with fundamental abuses of individuals’ rights, such as those of my constituent, Andrew Symeou.

I hope that we reform the UK’s extradition arrangements so that they are fair and balanced. I am not saying that there is no need to have in place a system that speeds up an extradition process, but fundamentally, I urge Ministers to protect British citizens, rather than sacrifice them on the altar of expediency.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, although I rather liked the moment when you were sitting behind me as though you were my Parliamentary Private Secretary; that would have been a unique combination, and we would have had fascinating debates in our team.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. He always manages to secure debates, and the debates are never uncontentious. At the rate he is going, I suspect that he will be the next leader of the Conservative party, but having said that, I have probably destroyed his career.

I agree with right hon. and hon. Members that it is unfortunate, to say the least, that a part of our debate this afternoon is a tagging on of a matter that has been raised by a petition, which has been supported by more than 140,000 people. I have my personal criticisms of the way in which the e-petition system was set up. There are problems in that what the public want may not necessarily be what an individual Back Bencher wants the Backbench Business Committee to advance. However, the topic has its own specific importance and should be debated properly on its own.

I have asked the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the nature of the question that one should ask, as that is an important principle. Our debate is in Westminster Hall, immediately next to a place where Parliament regularly used to decide on the guilt—it was nearly always the guilt, rarely the innocence—of people, who were then sent off to face the death penalty. Notwithstanding that fact, it is a good principle that Parliament and elected politicians do not decide on the innocence or guilt of any individual; I am sure that she was not saying that they should. They can decide on matters such as whether they or the House have been lied to and whether there has been a breach of privilege.

Some people have been moving towards the view that we should take some kind of vote on the issue, which I think would be difficult to do. It would also be difficult for us to vote precisely on the question of whether someone should be prosecuted. It is not for this House to decide whether the British prosecuting authority should prosecute. I wholeheartedly support the idea that we have a proper debate on Babar Ahmad in the main Chamber, and also on the wider issues of extradition, the extradition treaty and the European arrest warrant, probably on a votable resolution. However, it would be inappropriate to breach the basic principles that I have set out.

It is a delight to see the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs back in his seat. He sent me a lovely note earlier to say that he was off to another meeting and might miss my “brilliant” speech—though I note that he had added the word “brilliant” afterwards. I think he sent the same note to the Minister.

It is important that we proceed with further debates on another occasion on substantive motions. I recognise the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has sat here throughout this afternoon’s debate. That is part of the ongoing care that he has been taking of his constituent, which many Members in the debate have recognised.

We have to acknowledge some important first principles. Extradition is a vital part of ensuring the security and safety of people in our own country and around the world, and ever more so today. Perhaps in the 17th and 18th centuries, British people could have evaded justice in this country by going abroad, and vice versa. I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber believes that that should be the case today, especially in a world where people cross borders far more frequently and where crime can be conducted from one country in another country far more easily. It is all the more important that we have a sane and sensible process of extradition.

One of my criticisms of one of the most unfair imbalances relates to the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia. Russia will not extradite—because its constitution refuses to allow it to do so—any Russian national ever, come what may. I believe that Andrey Lugovoy should have been extradited to this country a long time ago for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. I do not think we will ever see justice for Mr Litvinenko’s widow, who suffers, in many ways, exactly the same deprivation of justice that many have referred to in the cases where British people have been extradited abroad.

The UK issued 1,295 European arrest warrants in a relatively short period of seven years. Out of those, there have been 581 surrenders to the UK. Sometimes, they have been British nationals in other countries who have committed crimes. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) referred to the Costa del Crime. British prosecuting authorities being unable to pursue justice had been a permanent feature—people could go off, live in Spain and never come back to the UK. I am glad to say that the Costa del Crime has been closed down. One of the people involved in the 21 July attempted bombings in the United Kingdom was brought back to the UK from Italy swiftly by virtue of the European arrest warrant. Similarly, a large number of IRA terrorists were brought back to the UK by the EAW. We should not chuck the baby out with the bathwater. There were 179 returns from Spain and 117 from Ireland, which is quite important to us.

Of course, extradition should not always be granted. Notwithstanding the many cases that have been referred to this afternoon, many requests are not granted. There were 4,325 requests to the UK, and only 3,107 were granted. Indeed, quite a lot from Russia have not been granted, because they were determined to have been based solely on political considerations and not truly on the pursuit of justice. That is why the two clauses regarding the two categories of countries relating to human rights are important.

[Nick de Bois]

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether some of the applications were not exercised in full or executed simply because the authorities could not find the people, as opposed to finding reasons not to extradite?

[Chris Bryant]

The honest truth is that it is a right old mix. That is why, as we consider the matter, there is a danger that we proceed only on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman referred to as anecdotal evidence of individual cases, rather than properly garnered substantive evidence that covers the whole realm.

I know the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent very well; I have met the family. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was a Member of Parliament, I answered debates. At the Foreign Office, we tried as much as possible to rectify the problems with Greek justice. His constituent’s case was far from a unique example, not specifically regarding extradition, but regarding British people facing justice in Greek jails, in a criminal justice system that was falling apart at the seams in many ways. The Foreign Office had a difficult job to do in trying to ensure that those people got justice.

Border Control Scheme

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As I have said several times, every private flight is checked against the warnings index. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, characteristically chuntering from a sedentary position, as she does throughout, is talking about that happening when flights arrive. It is actually safer to check them before they arrive, and that is what the warnings index is for. All private flights are checked against the warnings index before they arrive, and I tell the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I will tell her, if she will stop talking for a second and listen, that it is safer to check them before they arrive. That was why her Government and the current Government spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the e-Borders project—so that we could get the information before people came to this country. That was how we managed to prevent 68,000 people from even getting on planes to come here. If the Opposition Front Benchers cannot understand that stopping people before they arrive here is a better system, I fear that they do not understand the first thing about immigration control.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

In his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Brodie Clark said that he had sanctioned the relaxation of fingerprint checks at Heathrow. Was the Minister made aware of that?

[Damian Green]

For understandable reasons I have not been following what Brodie Clark has been saying over the past hour. I think it would injudicious of me to comment on anything that was said at a Select Committee hearing this morning when I was concentrating on the urgent question.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to Louise Casey for the work that I know she will do and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has appointed her to the troubled families unit, as part of his Department’s work. Let me also record our thanks to Bill Bratton, whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. He came over and visited a number of projects in the UK, participating in our round table and international forum on gang and youth violence. Crucially, he also gave hope from the projects that he had seen that it is possible for the UK to turn the problem around. The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on monitoring, and, as I said, this is the start of the process. The inter-ministerial group that I chaired alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will continue and will oversee the work currently being undertaken.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of the problems with gangs and knife crime that my constituency faces. My constituents will warmly welcome her announcement, but does she envisage a role for volunteer organisations, which already do a lot of work, in delivering the strategy on the front line?

Public Disorder

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

May I use some valuable seconds and take this opportunity to enjoy a decent moment in this difficult debate, and say congratulations to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on her recent wedding and that I am very sorry that her honeymoon was interrupted?

I made a solemn promise to my constituents at half- past 9 on Sunday 7 August, having spent four hours witnessing what was happening to our constituency. That promise was simply that at the first opportunity I would come to this House so that Members could hear first hand what had happened and the views of my constituents. I will therefore focus entirely on that in the few minutes that I have to speak. It is important that those views are represented, because they are also reflected elsewhere.

At around 6 o’clock in the evening, as youths—generally under the age of 25—gathered in our town centre, it became clear that this had been built up by social media throughout the day. The first outbreak occurred at about 7 o’clock, when those youths—150 of them—took to the high street, having gathered together, and then started their rampage down Church street in Enfield town. Sadly, although that outbreak was contained relatively quickly by good police work, it led to the destruction of some very good shops that have been there for more than 30 years. Mantella, the jewellery store, which has been a sole trader for more than 30 years in Enfield, lost more than £40,000 of stock. Pearsons, one of the few independent retailers with a long legacy in Enfield, was damaged front and back. And what was stolen? It was the good quality leather handbags. With a clear target in mind, high-quality goods ware taken.

We lost many, many stores down our high street, but at that point it was not over. For about an hour, the youths increased their numbers. As I stood among them, I heard them on their phones organising to bring other people up and talking about what trains they should take. Indeed, some of them hinted at where they may be going next.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there were riots recently in a holiday resort in Spain where the police used very robust tactics? We have heard talk about water cannon, but they used rubber bullets. Does my hon. Friend think that if the people rampaging through his constituency had seen pictures on TV of rubber bullets or water cannon being used, they would have had the incentive to go out and commit copycat crimes?

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, he reflects the views of my constituents in advance of what I was going to say. Of course they were very distressed, and one of the questions—one of the wishes—was, “Why do we not use water cannon or rubber bullets? They have proved effective in other locations.” I accept that they are limited in their effectiveness in some parts—indeed, around London it would be difficult—but this case was a classic example of a wide town centre where dispersal could have been achieved, which might have changed things. Indeed, I believe that the mere threat would also restrict any future activity.

Unfortunately, later in the evening, when the outburst grew more serious and the thugs attacked a police vehicle containing a territorial support group unit, they would disperse and run up nearby residential streets—quiet, detached streets. It was there, at around 9.30, that 30 or 40 of them ran past me, pushing a 70-year-old man out of the way. We were face to face with them in the garden of some neighbours, and as they ran past, with their foul-mouthed abuse—these brave individuals, hidden behind their hoodies across their faces, clutching their expensive mobile phones—they embarked on finding their rather souped-up cars, which were parked in the same residential street. This was no moral crusade. This was not a campaign for social justice; this was simply criminal activity by those determined to profit from it. My constituents are furious at what happened to their town, but what is worrying was the extreme arrogance of the individuals involved. They had no fear of being recognised and no sense of right and wrong. As a country we now have to address this issue, and we will look at how to deal with such issues in the future.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend describes the high street that we share as constituency neighbours. On the subject of what we will do about it, he will go home on the tube with me and we will see the headlines about the fury at the soft sentences being handed down to the latest offenders. Does he share my concern that the punishment must fit the crime? If it is not to be prison, it must be proper restitution, paying for their plunder and repairing the damage that they have done to our communities.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend and neighbour, who suffered similar problems, identifies a key point. One of the other wishes of my constituents was that justice should be seen to be served. It is not unreasonable to expect that the thugs involved should receive custodial sentences and be put to good use in repairing some of the damage that they have done. We must take them out of this cycle of crime and make efforts to reform them.

I have three questions and I would be grateful for answers. The railway line ends at Enfield Town station. During the course of the day, the trains were packed with people coming to cause mayhem. A request was made to Transport for London to stop some of those trains, and the buses that were coming from other parts of London. It never happened, and my constituents would like to know why.

Secondly, we believe that the vast majority of these criminals were not from Enfield, as I saw first hand myself. If we share information from CCTV and YouTube with the education authorities and the police, they can work together to identify more of them. Thirdly, why were we not able to disperse the more than 100 people who were there in the early hours?

Let me pay tribute to the borough commander, Dave Tucker, and his team, and to Enfield council, who are now working together. Enfield is open for business. It has recovered well.

Temporary Immigration Cap

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I absolutely can give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. I was grateful for the Select Committee’s report; as ever, it was extremely thoughtful and useful. The judgment has no effect at all on the permanent limit, and the lessons will certainly be learned. As he will have seen, our consultation on the permanent cap was a genuine consultation, and the policy that we announced at the end of it was welcomed by many business groups, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, that had expressed worries about it in advance. That shows that this Government’s consultations are genuine, that we listen to people and to Parliament, and that we change policies in sensible ways after those consultations.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

For the benefit of my constituents, will the Minister make clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the ruling, which is simply about process, will not deter the Government from their aim of reducing net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that complete assurance. As I said, the ruling is technical. We want to obey it as fast as possible, which is why we will change the rules tomorrow. I think that the only people in the House who do not want a reduction in immigration and a sustainable immigration system are those on the Opposition Front Bench.

European Arrest Warrants and Extradition

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) on securing this important Adjournment debate. In the time permitted, I cannot review all the aspects of this matter, but I must focus on the key points as pertaining to my constituent, Andrew Symeou. Enfield has a unique and specific interest in the European arrest warrant and extradition, given that two of the current most high-profile cases exposing the system’s failings involve Enfield residents—Andrew Symeou and, of course, Gary McKinnon. I and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), hope and expect that the review of Gary McKinnon’s case will mean that he is not the last victim of an imbalanced process, but the recipient of a new, just and proportionate approach. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that review.

My central premise today, however, is that for the last decade the European Union has been driven by procedural safeguards and processes, not defendants’ rights, as moves to enhance speed and efficiency do so at the price, in this case—I believe—of a potential miscarriage of justice. Those who support the European arrest warrant do so because they believe that more criminals get caught. That is a noble goal, and one that I and, I am sure, all Members of the House fully support, but the performance of the warrant is flawed.

Sadly, those who criticise the operation of the European arrest warrant are often cast as apologists for wild European extremists, or organised crime and terrorism. That, of course, is arrant nonsense. For me, it is a question of balance. I do not believe that a system that produces potential miscarriages of justice at one level should be tolerated in the interests of speed at another. The application of the warrant without proper procedural guarantees has in some cases led to the denial of justice. One of those cases concerns my constituent Andrew Symeou. Andrew was in prison in Greece for 10 months awaiting trial on a charge of manslaughter. Until his final release on bail, the charge was one of manslaughter, although as testified by our High Court, there is sufficient evidence of what I can perhaps describe as the over-enthusiastic interrogation of witnesses. Indeed, there even appears to have been a case of mistaken identity. In Andrew’s case and others, surely the European arrest warrant has been misused.

Let me summarise Andrew’s experiences. In doing so, I hope in parallel to illustrate how the European arrest warrant has failed, and perhaps thereby help the review by Lord Scott Baker. In short, there has been a failure to scrutinise the case by British courts for prima facie evidence; a lack of bail or euro-bail; a failure of mutual recognition; and, we must never forget, delayed justice for the family of the victim of that tragic incident, which led to the death of Jonathan Hiles—a delayed process that, three years on, leaves us with no one having come to trial yet. As much as anything else, that is not good for the family of the victim.

I cannot address all those issues, but let me turn to the point highlighted earlier, about submitting prima facie evidence prior to extradition. In British law, the Crown Prosecution Service makes the decision to charge individuals with criminal offences in complex cases. The decisions must be made fairly, independently and objectively. It is the duty of the CPS prosecutors to ensure that the right person is charged for the right offence. The key point is that when making a decision, the CPS will always decide whether there is enough evidence against the defendant. Therefore, the quality and reliability of that evidence will also be investigated, and cases progress only if there is considered to be a realistic prospect of conviction.

However, the EAW is based on one of 32 listed crimes in respect of which there is no need for a dual criminality test or any obligation to ensure that prima facie evidence is provided by the member state requesting extradition. Essentially, it requires us to go through a tick-box exercise. All that is required is that the judicial authority in the member state requesting extradition should detail the criminal offence believed to have been committed—that is, ticking the box—and indicate the length of sentence to be expected. In Andrew’s case, he contested the request for extradition between 27 June 2008 and May 2009, but the court was able to examine only the process, and at no stage the facts of the case.

How powerless has British justice become when the High Court dismisses the appeal by the Symeou family even though in some instances it agrees that the evidence submitted shows that the local police investigation was flawed and when it could not rule out the possibility that the police were guilty of the manipulation and fabrication of evidence? How futile is our justice when it is decided that a young British man’s future is not under our control, but is instead an argument to be had in Greek courts? Leave was granted to appeal to the House of Lords, but the House of Lords in turn rejected it.

The second point that I would like to consider in the time available is the issue of bail. When the European arrest warrant was agreed in 2002, it was with the understanding from all sides that this measure, which would have the effect of causing EU citizens standing trial to be held in prison in another member state, would be swiftly followed by measures guaranteeing their fair trial rights, as well as guaranteeing that there would be no miscarriages of justice. That promise was betrayed by member states when they failed to agree in 2004 to a proposal for a framework decision on procedural rights. All we can hope for now is, at best, a piecemeal approach.

The European Council is promising only to consider, not to legislate on, a so-called euro-bail, which would have helped my constituent who had been explicitly refused bail because he was a foreigner. Several years ago, Lord Lamont predicted with characteristic foresight the plight of my constituent when he said:

“In some countries, bail is frequently refused to foreigners for fear they will abscond. In fact, there are several hundred British citizens on remand in Europe’s prisons many of whom would have been released on bail if they were nationals of the country holding them.”

Is it any wonder that my constituent and his family feel the UK Government have repeatedly let them down? Andrew was forced to languish in jail on remand for 10 months until June this year, yet with the existing EAW, one member state could all too easily have returned him, if he had been able to serve bail over here—under the European arrest warrant.

The emotional and financial cost to the family, who have remained supportive throughout, has been extraordinary. They have had to decamp to Greece to be with their son when he was first extradited 16 months ago. Their ability to continue to run their business and provide an income has been seriously compromised, but despite that, the family members have remained united and passionate in their campaign for justice for their son. They want him to have his day in court. I pay tribute to their courage and resilience in the face of this huge adversity.

To conclude, we should have an agreed framework of extradition for member states within the European Union—I accept that. The process needs to be fast, but should not be carried out without respect for an individual’s right to a fair trial and a fair judicial process. At the heart of these flaws is the expected notion of mutual recognition between the judicial process in member states. The process of mutual recognition allows for miscarriages, as we have discussed. I suggest that a system of mutual understanding would suit the process of a European arrest warrant far better. Such a process would allow for reasoned debate before EAWs were acted on rather than allow European law simply to supersede our law. This would allow European warrants to be declined if the acts were viewed as non-criminal in the UK or the evidence was insufficient.

It seems perverse that hon. Members on both sides of the House were up in arms over the 42-day detention provisions of the last Parliament, yet we are willing to have our own citizens held in foreign prisons for far longer as a result of a flawed piece of legislation. Should we as a House accept that liberty and justice be sacrificed for expediency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We are, indeed, committed to ensuring that we take action against violence against women, and I remind the hon. Lady that the last Labour Government took 12 years to develop a strategy on that. We will produce our strategy on ending violence against women within one year of coming into office, and it will cover a wide range of subjects. In looking at European Union directives, I take a very simple approach: is signing up to a particular directive to the benefit of the United Kingdom? Happily, most of the provisions in the European directive on human trafficking are already being acted on by the United Kingdom, because we take that issue extremely seriously.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T4. Last week, Brooke Kinsella visited the Corner House youth project in Stockton, which has been very successful in highlighting, through talks and special activities, the dangers associated with knives. Will the Minister consider implementing similar programmes in constituencies such as mine which, tragically, have only recently once again had a serious knife crime incident?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The Government are grateful for the work of Brooke Kinsella in considering how we can deter young people from carrying knives, and she will be reporting to us later this year. We are interested in successful schemes such as that which my hon. Friend describes, and if he will send me further information on it, I will gladly study it.

Identity Documents Bill

Nick de Bois Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the distinction and honour that the House has seen fit to give you. It is a signal honour and I am absolutely convinced that you will perform your functions accordingly.

I thank those who have made their maiden speeches today, and must say how impressed I have been with them. Having given mine only a couple of days ago, I all too well recall the nerves in doing so. I also congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill, on the honour of her appointment and on the appointment of the Home Office team. This Bill is signally important because it will repair some of the damage that the Labour party has done to our civil liberties. On the liberty of the individual, Winston Churchill once said that those who ignore history—those with short memories—will be condemned to repeat it. Thanks to 13 years of Labour Government, since 1997 no fewer than 404 acts or forms of behaviour have become unlawful. Human rights have been damaged by 13 years of Labour. It may have introduced an Act calling itself the Human Rights Act, but it has damaged human rights in this country. People do not feel as secure or as safe as they have done historically. That is the responsibility of Labour following its governance of this country.

When identity cards were introduced in 1918, they were a knee-jerk reaction; the country was deeply concerned with the war situation. The Government recognised that they needed to be removed as soon as the situation improved. Identity cards were reintroduced in 1939. The mistake was that, after the war ended in 1945, identity cards were allowed to continue apace. That resulted—the case has already been alluded to in the Chamber—in a famous episode where a man in the street, when challenged by a police constable, refused to show his identification papers. He is recorded as having said to the constable, “No, I am a liberal.” What he was indicating was the illiberality of having to show, on the demand of a constable in uniform, identification papers just on mere suspicion. I am given to understand that the grandson of that man is now one of my hon. Friends newly elected to this Chamber, and that is a signal distinction. That incident led to a case that has been alluded to, which went before the High Court of Justice, where the matter was explored in some detail and the public were, of course, outraged. That led, under Churchill’s Government, to the abolition of identification cards, and rightly so.

Criminals today—and, I am sure, historically as well—do not apply for identification cards if they are voluntary. The previous Labour Government said they wanted a voluntary scheme of identification cards, but the reality is that a voluntary scheme would simply mean that the criminals and those disinclined to follow the law would not apply for them, yet those inclined to follow the law would feel increasingly obliged to carry them. It is what is referred to in the military as mission creep, and elsewhere as function creep. I understand that one of the methods by which the previous Labour Government were going to introduce those identification cards was via airports and airlines. They were going to have airside workers carrying these cards first. Trade unions and airlines expressed concern that this voluntary scheme would become impractical and that it would eventually be required to be compulsory.

As we have seen, that has happened in many historical cases, such as with the discontinuance of the use of cheques. They have not been banned, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to use a cheque, and there is pressure to discontinue them entirely. On Sunday trading, too, it has been said that, although Parliament as then assembled was careful not to make the new law compulsory, the safeguards have been eroded, so that those employees who would otherwise have chosen not to work on a Sunday have felt increasingly obliged to do so, whether or not that is a legal requirement. There is every indication that if identification cards had come into existence there would have been exactly that kind of mission creep, or function creep. Some people might have found it increasingly difficult to go into work, especially in certain lines of work, if they did not have a card.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in essence, he is explaining that the last Government were working on the shameful premise of, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t have one”? That alone is a reason why their measure must be killed off tonight.

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We heard from another of my hon. Friends about how a constituent of his working in the port at Dover was already feeling under pressure to acquire one of these identification cards. There is every reason to believe that that attitude would have become extremely damaging in the longer term. Criminals, however, would have ignored all of this.

The card’s security measures are not impregnable either. In recent years, I have prosecuted a number of criminal cases in the Crown courts in England involving the fraudulent misuse of identification documents, usually passports. Passports are now quite sophisticated documents, but even all the sophisticated apparatus designed to protect their integrity can be circumvented without particularly highly specialist care. That is because it is often the naked eye that is used to determine the veracity or otherwise of a document. Many court cases have resulted from such situations.

There is no substance to the Labour argument. We have now a kind of Big Brother watch in this country, and Labour’s attitude that one is guilty until proven innocent has paid into the lack of security and lack of integrity in our system. I pointed out to the shadow Home Secretary, when he was in his place, that in a press release on 27 May, the head of the TUC backed the coalition Government’s proposals. Brendan Barber said that

“identity cards were a costly folly…and would have been an unwelcome intrusion into people’s personal liberty…Scrapping identity cards is an important sign that the new Government is committed to safeguarding civil liberties.”

When the shadow Home Secretary first became Home Secretary, he announced that ID cards would no longer be compulsory, which gave the distinct impression that he had not been much in favour of them in the first place.

I am delighted to support this Bill as the first measure that Her Majesty’s Government are bringing before the House. The compulsion by stealth was a feature that would have been completely deleterious to the interests of the people of this country. The cost was another factor altogether. Some £800 million will be saved over the next 10 years by abandoning this absurd and costly scheme. It is interesting to note that Labour Members are not taking a stance against the Bill. Perhaps that is because they understand that the cost-benefit analysis has not worked out. There is no substance to the Labour argument, and there never was. I am delighted to support this measure.