Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the serious failings of the ASBO system. As I said in my initial answer, the replacement measures will be more streamlined, efficient and effective, and will reduce antisocial behaviour across the country.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House how placing 12 conditions on the use of CCTV cameras by the police and local authorities will help to fight antisocial behaviour? Why are the Government tilting the balance in favour of the criminal and away from victims of crime and antisocial behaviour?

[Mr Browne]

Britain deploys CCTV far more widely than most comparable countries around the world. I do not think anybody looking at us dispassionately would take the view that we are under-monitored by surveillance cameras. At the same time, and as the Home Secretary said, on her watch—on this Government’s watch—we have seen crime fall to its lowest level since the independent survey began more than 30 years ago. That is a record we should all be pleased with.

Ibrahim Magag

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The point that the shadow Home Secretary seems incapable of accepting is that under control orders with relocation powers, seven people absconded.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is at pains to say that it is not all about relocation, and she reminds the House that she chose to legislate to give these suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, and for a sunset clause that would kill this regime off after two years even if the threat level from the individual had not changed. Given the disappearance of Mr Magag, does she not regret regarding increased risk to the public and unnecessary extra pressure on the police and the security services as an acceptable price to pay and as, in the end, a civil liberties pose rather than a move to increase national security?

[Mrs May]

I am confident in the TPIM package that was available—the TPIM measures plus the extra resources that were made available to the Security Service and the police. We of course consulted on them at the time this was done. As I said in response to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), they were clear that there was no substantial increase in risk, and that remains their position.

Olympics (Security)

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I have explained in answer to a number of questions, plans have been put forward and changed over those years, and contingency arrangements were put in place. It was entirely right and proper for the Government to act in this appropriate and contingent manner when it became clear that the security provider contracted to LOCOG could not reassure us that it could provide the full number of personnel.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

What will the Home Secretary do about terror suspect CF, who is reported to have visited the Olympic site five times and is believed by the court to have undergone terrorist training in Somalia? Does she accept that CF’s ability to be in London at all is a direct result of her legislation removing the power to relocate such suspects away from London or other parts of the country? That legislation is complacent, wrong-headed and dangerous. Will she revisit the issue on the basis that it is not the terror laws that threaten liberty but the intent of those who would seek to kill and maim innocent people?

Home Affairs and Justice

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware of that campaign and many others, too. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has an excellent programme called “All babies count”, which is concerned about the mental health of babies. After all, that is a slightly obscure topic until one gets into it. Adult mental health has always been something of a Cinderella service for our NHS and when infant mental health is mentioned, it usually merely prompts the question, “What’s all that about?”

Our society has taken great care to develop an NHS that every man, woman and child in this country values and wishes to preserve, yet it is all about health and focuses on mental health far too little and too late. At the moment, when someone conceives, they are allocated a midwifery team and introduced to the health visiting team. If they get so far with problems, they might be introduced to the social work team. Unfortunately, there is great fear among parents of being introduced to the social work team because they fear that their baby might be taken away. They are therefore concerned about seeking help. Parents have a midwife and health visitor, who often do a fabulous job for the physical health of mum and baby while the mum is pregnant and when the baby is very young. When mum is not bonding well with her baby—she might be terribly post-natally depressed, as one in 10 women suffer from post-natal depression, but she might not know that she is suffering from it—the midwife and/or the health visitor might spot it but, at the moment, there is not much they can do. The bar is set so high for referrals to child and adolescent mental health services that someone almost needs to be at a crisis level before they can be referred for psychotherapeutic support for that earliest relationship. That is quite simply wrong.

When we talk about children being school-ready, we mean in the sense of their responding to their own name, understanding danger and understanding the word no, but those should not even be the questions that are asked. When parents are firmly bonded to their baby, they will take the trouble to teach their child about danger and to give their child breakfast. We are always firefighting. We should accept that everything we do for a baby from the moment of conception until they reach the age of two is developmental and that pretty much everything we do for them after they are two is about trying to put right damage that has already been done.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am very interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she familiar with the family nurse partnership programme that was introduced in this country a few years ago? The programme was about trying to avoid some of the dangers and consequences that she is talking about. The idea was not to have the social services involved in trying to clear up and deal with problems after they had developed, but to give support to young, first-time mothers—helping them with parenting skills, the bonding that is needed, feeding, playing and all the nurturing that goes into preventing some of the problems the hon. Lady has mentioned from developing. Does she agree that such programmes have an important role to play?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and I am very aware of the programme he mentions. There are many other programmes, and they all have a valid role to play. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Indeed, I want to talk about a charity that I have been involved with for 12 years now—the Oxford Parent Infant Project, which has seven satellites around Oxfordshire. It works with families and their babies to improve the quality of attachment. OXPIP has had astonishing results over those 12 years. In 2009, I gave up my role as the chairman of OXPIP to fight my general election campaign, but I always intended that if I was fortunate enough to be elected to Parliament, I would work to build a Northamptonshire Parent Infant Partnership, which I have now done. That partnership was launched six months ago and we are trying to build a service that, like OXPIP, provides psychotherapeutic support for families who are struggling to bond with their babies.

What I really want is for this approach to be established through children’s centres. We do not need more overheads or more buildings. I am a co-chair of the all-party group on Sure Start children’s centres and it has become apparent from our recent inquiry into the impact of the un-ring-fencing of the early intervention grant that it is not the case that children’s centres are closing—far from it. Directors of children’s services are very committed to support for the youngest. What I have found astonishing from that inquiry is the fact that there is no common shared understanding of best practice in children’s centres. To say that they are about getting children school-ready is to miss the point completely. School-readiness should be a result of the earliest relationship if it is sound and solid. That is where we need to focus our efforts.

I would like to see parent-infant partnerships working in every local authority in conjunction with the children’s centres and as part of those teams—working with health visitors, midwives and social workers as a point of referral. Midwives and social workers have a very full role and enormous lists of clients or patients to see. Some midwives look after up to 600 families and it is ridiculous to assume that they can see mum and sort out whether she has a safe and secure relationship with her baby as well as treat those mothers and babies who do not have such a relationship. That simply is not going to happen. Even the Government’s excellent efforts to produce far more health visitors will not provide a complete solution to this problem. Health visitors need somewhere to refer cases—a specialist team such as a parent-infant partnership that can provide the psychotherapeutic support for that mother and baby, or father and baby or adoptive parents and baby to help them to form that early bond.

A week tomorrow, the Northamptonshire Parent Infant Project is having a one-day conference in my constituency to talk about the incredible work that can be done through early-years intervention to change our society for the better. This is not just about human happiness, although that is what drives me—the potential for all those babies to be so much better—but about the potential financial savings for our society. If we had one generation in which the vast majority of babies were securely attached by the age of five, instead of 40% not being securely attached by that age, we would radically reduce the cost to our mental health services, our prison services, our police and our social services, which are currently trying to pick up the pieces of failed early attachment.

At the conference, we will be making the case that early-years intervention and spending money in the very earliest years when babies are under two is a really good way to save money much further down the line. Research from the States suggests that a dollar spent when a baby is under two saves $19 further down the line. There is a huge argument for looking seriously at that type of service, from both a financial and a moral point of view.

Abu Qatada

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have set up a commission to look at a British Bill of Rights, which will report in due course. The Government will look at the commission’s recommendations. As I said earlier in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the reforms to the European Court that we are considering include the question of subsidiarity. It is greatly to the credit of my fellow Ministers who have been working on this that we have been able to get as far as we have, and I have every expectation of positive decisions coming out of the conference that is taking place in Brighton.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Adding incompetent and dangerous advice on petrol and jerry cans a couple of weeks ago to this episode, our constituents are beginning to wonder whether this Government could organise a convivial social evening in the nearest brewery. Will the Home Secretary now publish the advice—not just on the question of three months, but on when exactly the clock starts ticking to calculate those three months, which lies at the heart of this latest episode? Will she also clarify the control regime under which Abu Qatada will be kept in the meantime? Will it be tighter than her proposed terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and if it is a tighter regime, why is it appropriate for him and not for the other terrorist suspects to whom she is planning to grant the freedom of the capital city?

[Mrs May]

I have answered questions about the European Court, the treaty and the advice and guidance given by the European Court on the dates. On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, Abu Qatada is in detention at the moment. If he and his lawyers apply for him to be let him out on bail, we will vigorously oppose it. It is the case, of course, that he had been on bail prior to his arrest on Tuesday. The bail conditions on which he was held were among the most stringent ever applied to anybody here in the United Kingdom. Those bail conditions were tighter than the control order regime that I know the right hon. Gentleman supported.

Abu Qatada

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Obviously, for the past three months, a rule 39 injunction against the deportation of Abu Qatada has come from the European Court. As I outlined in my statement, if any move were made to deport him immediately—we have a memorandum of understanding with Jordan about how a deportation would take place, including a timetable that we should abide by; it was a part of our arrangements supported by the European Court and was supported in the UK courts—it would be open to Abu Qatada to issue an injunction. If he were to be deported contrary to that injunction, it would of course be unlawful.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but will she explain why, if it is in the public interest to deport Abu Qatada, it is in the public interest to allow terror suspects based here in the UK to have increased access to the internet, increased access to mobile phones and the freedom to come to London in the run-up to the Olympics and the Queen’s jubilee celebrations? Does she agree with the conclusions of the Anderson review that getting rid of control orders was a “political decision” and

“one that is unlikely to further the requirements of national security—rather the reverse.”?

Is that not a damning indictment of the Government’s decision to weaken our anti-terror laws?

[Mrs May]

First, as I said in response to an earlier question, I am confident in the TPIM measures that we have introduced and put in place. I note that not only a number of Labour Back Benchers, but the shadow Home Secretary herself have raised a number of questions about the issue of terrorism, anti-terrorism and national security. I simply say to them that they should ask themselves this: if they care so much about that issue, why is the Labour party campaigning to stop the extradition to the United States of a known terror suspect?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson]

Given that we know that the nature of rapists is to rape again if they get away with it, that is a very important point.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Will he speculate as to why the Government are doing this? Does he agree that it is based on the wrong-headed analysis that somehow the last Labour Government created a quasi-police state? If the Government start from that view, they will end up with legislation that does not protect the public, but puts them at greater risk. A few weeks ago, we saw that with the watering down of the protections against terrorism and now we see it with this proposal. Why are the Government so addicted to watering down the protection of the public?

[Alan Johnson]

It puzzles me. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), is an honourable man. He was engaged in these debates in 2010 when the Labour Government were proposing what became the Crime and Security Act. I thought that things would have moved on since then. I read the record of the Committee stage of this Bill and saw the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and I find the paucity of the Government’s case astounding. They latched on to something called the Scottish model. Incidentally, nobody has challenged me about there being no basis of any research for the three-year provision—Labour was in power, by the way, so I am not knocking other parties. This was a figure plucked out of the air. The Government are reluctant to examine this issue on the basis of the evidence, even to the extent of completely ignoring the police, who do have a bit of expertise in this area.

In 1995, a 17-year-old girl was walking home from a night out in Banbury when she was forced into a car by two men, taken to an isolated area and repeatedly raped. In 2003, Lee Ainsby was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, and a DNA sample was taken. Two years later, in 2005, the evidence from the rape case was re-analysed and the DNA profiles were loaded into the national database—one matched, that of Lee Ainsby. He had committed a non-serious offence and he would not have been on that database under the Government’s proposals. A sample taken from his brother matched the second sample and so both of those rapists were caught and convicted.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

In starting our consideration of the Bill, we will be reflecting on a number of points and issues that were debated in Committee. I look forward to continuing some of the debates that we had with Members who were part of that Committee, and with other Members joining today’s consideration.

This group contains two related but distinct sets of amendments. The first deals with expiry and renewal of the legislation, and the second with its commencement. On expiry and renewal, the Government new clauses and amendments return to an important matter that was raised on Second Reading and in Committee: the duration of the Bill’s provisions and whether they should be subject to any form of sunset or renewal.

A number of arguments have been advanced. The Government previously set out their view that the Bill is the product of a lengthy and considered review, that it makes significant improvements to the control orders system, and that it establishes a framework that ought to be able to operate stably and effectively on a permanent basis. The point has been well made that we are legislators, and that we are fully competent to review the necessity of legislation, and to amend or repeal it if it is no longer necessary or if changes are needed. However, it has also been argued with some force that the nature of the powers in the Bill makes some form of regular review appropriate, both to reflect the weighty responsibility on Parliament when it accords the Government such powers, and to focus minds on the need to ensure that the legislation remains in force only as long as is necessary.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

If this Bill is the product of a long and considered review, why did the Government think it necessary to publish an alternative Bill last Thursday night?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to that point during consideration of further amendments, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Government’s counter-terrorism review—which specifically contemplated the necessity of enhanced measures, should exceptional circumstances require them—and to the specific paragraphs and references in that review. That is why I have said that the product of this legislation has been subject to that careful consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that indication. I am also grateful for his support. He was of course a fellow member of the Public Bill Committee.

[Mr McFadden]

Does not this go to the heart of the issue? It is risky enough to legislate, as the Government are proposing, to give terrorist suspects increased freedom of movement and increased access to mobile phones and the internet, and then to admit, as the Government do, that this will put increased pressure on the police and the security services, without also trying to implement the legislation before the police and security services are fully ready to cope with the increased risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government do not produce better evidence of the capability of the police and security services to meet this increased risk, they will be adding irresponsibility to increased risk for the public?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The counter-terrorism review carefully concluded that there might be exceptional circumstances—a very serious terrorist risk—in which the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. That is what we are seeking to do and that is why we believe that the overall approach taken by this Bill is appropriate.

[Mr McFadden]

With the publication of the draft Bill, the Government have conceded that they have no argument in principle against the extra powers in the enhanced TPIMs regime. What will the Minister say to the victims of terrorism in the emergency circumstances that he sets out and that might give rise to their introduction? Will he say that we had the extra powers but we decided not to use them until the incident happened? Does he really believe that the Government could survive in those circumstances? Does he not see the nonsense of that position?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question is premised on various assumptions that I just do not accept. He can make his point but the Bill and the enhanced measures that sit alongside it have been part of a very considered approach in relation to the overall legislative framework, which has not been rushed but has been considered. It has very much at its heart our responsibility to protect the public, but it also recognises that there is a balance to be struck. We believe that the balance has previously been wrong and that it needs to be adjusted, as contemplated by the Bill, to ensure that our counter-terrorism measures are appropriate, necessary and focused on delivering safety and security in a way that is judged appropriate on the basis of the evidence.

The draft enhanced TPIM Bill contains provisions that mean that if it is brought into force while a temporary enhanced TPIM order is in force, a decision taken under that order should be treated as a decision under the new enhanced Bill. The regime provided by the emergency TPIM order is intended to be the same as that provided by the enhanced Bill. In other words, the new clauses are intended to be complementary. They set out the various provisions and matters that may, or in some cases that must, be secured by a temporary enhanced TPIM order, to give effect to the regime set out in the emergency Bill. This includes in particular setting out the more stringent restrictions that would be available, and the fact that an enhanced notice may be imposed only where the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Once made, the temporary enhanced TPIM order would remain in force for 90 days, or a shorter period if specified in the order. It must be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. While it is in force the Secretary of State can repeal its provisions at any time.

The 90-day period is intended to cover, but not significantly to exceed, the period during which Parliament would be unable to pass the emergency legislation. After parliamentary business resumes, the Government can introduce the enhanced TPIM Bill, if they judge it appropriate, to replace the powers conferred by the order with powers under primary legislation.

These are essential provisions. The power that they provide may never need to be used. Indeed, we would all prefer that the exceptional circumstances for which it and the enhanced TPIM Bill are intended never arise. None the less, it is necessary for a responsible Government to ensure that the enhanced TPIM powers can be brought into force in all circumstances in which they may be necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

I will not vote against the Government’s new clauses because I understand where they are coming from. I hope that the Minister will respond on the detail. I hope that the other place will have more of a chance to consider these important issues on how we deal with emergency rules during the period of a general election when there has been a serious terrorist attack. That is a complex set of things that bears more attention than we are able to give it here.

[Mr McFadden]

I will keep my remarks brief, because I know we all want to get on to the debate about relocation. However, I wish to say a word about new clause 5, which shows the difference between the Bill before us and what the Government know they might have to do. The new clause and the draft Bill on enhanced TPIMs measures published last Thursday represent the Government taking out an insurance policy against the failure of the Bill before us this evening.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded us that we are debating the matter around the 10th anniversary of 11 September. It is important that the House remembers that, because that incident, more than any other, forced Governments around the world to reassess their thinking and their expectations of what terrorists were capable of. It also forced all of us in democratic regimes to look again at the protections in law and law enforcement that we can give our citizens against terrorist activity. That is the basis of this whole debate and the Bill.

We did not get here entirely by choice. We got here partly because of court judgments shaping the regime for us in an involuntary way. The problem is simple: what do we do when we cannot bring someone to prosecution, but we have a good and reasonable suspicion that that person would engage in terrorist activity if they could, and there may be inadmissible evidence that they have tried to do so? There has been an assumption running through this debate that such people are necessarily less dangerous than those who have been convicted. That is not necessarily so. If they were able to carry out their intent, they may in fact be far more dangerous than people who have been convicted of other terrorist events.

The Government have published draft legislation that is an insurance policy against the Bill, and they cannot have an in-principle objection to the measures within their own draft Bill. Whereas the Bill before us states, unbelievably, that the Secretary of State must grant terrorist suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, the draft Bill would give the Secretary of State discretion over that. Whereas the Bill before us disarms the Government from giving the public the protection that relocation can provide, the draft Bill would reinsert that possibility. The question that the public will ask, and which the Minister must believe they will ask very seriously should the draft legislation be needed in future, is why the Government did not include those powers in the Bill before us. Why wait until an incident has happened?

I repeat the question that I put to the Minister before. What would he say to the victims of terrorism in such circumstances? Would he say, “We knew we might need these powers, and we could have legislated for them, but we chose not to because we believed that the balance of civil liberties was wrong”?

[Richard Fuller]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

Not at the moment.

Let us deal with the point about civil liberties. The Minister has said several times that the motivation behind the Bill was a perceived imbalance in the last Government’s civil liberties legislation. The notion that we are some sort of quasi-police state or overly authoritarian state is complete nonsense. In this country we enjoy freedom of expression, religion and association that is the envy of the world. That is why so many dissidents from regimes around the world have sought refuge here. Indeed, the criticism that is sometimes levelled, and perhaps with validity, is that we have been very generous in accommodating dissidents from other regimes, and that sometimes our freedoms have been abused by some of those individuals. It is simply the wrong analysis and the wrong starting point to say that civil liberties in this country have been fundamentally compromised. That is not the case, but because the Government believe it and have carried forward into government the wrong analysis that they developed in opposition, that is leading to the wrong policy and to greater risk for the public. New clause 5 addresses that to some extent, but people will not understand why it, and the draft emergency legislation, were not put into the Bill.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am conscious of the time and the fact that we have to get on to new clause 1, on relocation, ahead of Third Reading, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief.

I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) about the draft Bill. He spoke having been a member of the Committee that considered the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extensions) Bill, the findings of which are important and directly relevant to the draft emergency legislation that the Government printed a few days ago. As he pointed out, although that Committee understood the Government’s reasons for proposing that contingency powers to extend the maximum period for pre-charge detention should be provided in primary legislation so that they could be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, it still found a number of problems. Those problems exist also in relation to the draft enhanced TPIMs Bill, and it is important that we take a moment to remind ourselves of what the objections were.

The first objection was in relation to parliamentary scrutiny of a draft Bill as primary legislation. The debate that would take place would be so circumscribed by the difficulties of explaining the reasons for introducing primary legislation that it would not be possible for the House to be given proper reasons why we needed to proceed along that route. In relation to the 28-day detention powers, the risk was that a court case might be prejudiced. In this case the objection is even more important, because we are talking about intelligence evidence that has been gathered by the security services, which of course cannot be discussed openly. That is the whole reason why we have closed sessions of courts to consider such matters—they cannot enter into the public domain. That rather defeats the purpose of having any debate on the Floor of the House.

The second objection was that there would be an unacceptable degree of risk that it would be impossible to introduce and pass the legislation quickly when Parliament was in recess. Although that objection referred to the 28-day detention power, it is also important in this case. Counter-terror investigations are fast-moving, and it is not acceptable to say to the police that their reaction to investigations should be hampered while Parliament debates the matter, perhaps in a limited way, and decides to pass an Act. That would not be an acceptable way to proceed.

The third objection related to the period when Parliament has been dissolved, but as we can see, that is precisely what new clauses 5 and 6 are intended to address.

I say to the Minister that it is clear from the draft Bill that the Government have no principled objection to the control order powers that would suddenly be available once again. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, the draft Bill is an insurance policy that the Government are taking out on their TPIMs regime, which will decrease and weaken the powers available to the police and the Home Secretary to control the behaviour of terror suspects. It is extremely unacceptable for legislation to be conducted in such a way. Control order powers are either needed or they are not. This Bill has used up many hours of parliamentary time to take us round in a circle and bring us back to exactly where we started, with control orders.

Rather than introduce this confused and fudged Bill, which raises many more questions, the Government should have been honest and admitted that sometimes, stringent control order measures such as relocation and 16-hour curfews are necessary. They should therefore have put them in the Bill that we are debating today.

I am afraid that the “argument on context”—that there is a standard context that would require only the standard TPIM, and an emergency context in which the enhanced TPIM might be required—does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny, because control orders and TPIMs, if they are introduced, are at the emergency end of what we do. They are not brought in lightly and have always been emergency measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: in that case BM did concede that he was determined to carry out terrorist activity, and it was right that the power of relocation, which the Home Secretary had imposed relatively recently, was upheld as a necessary power to protect the public. This is not a case of draconian Governments, or authoritarian or totalitarian regimes wanting to impose controls for their own sake; it is always a matter of balance, and trying to mitigate the risk and draw the line in the correct place, so that we can maintain essential freedoms in this country, which include the freedom of the public to go about their law-abiding business without being threatened with death and destruction by some of the most committed terrorists in this country.

[Mr McFadden]

My right hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech about the reality of the situations that we face. Let me quote to her what the judge said about relocation in the case of CD:

“I have concluded that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist related attack. While he is living in London there is a significant risk that he will take part in terrorism-related activities, notwithstanding the high level of protection implicit in the obligations which are not under challenge.”

Does she agree that that shows the danger? Will she also speculate about why the Government are so determined to deprive the public, whom we represent, of the protections afforded by the current relocation provisions?

[Hazel Blears]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the case of CD. We had a long discussion in Committee about the need for a relocation clause and about the judge’s comments. Indeed, the judge in that case said that since CD’s return,

“he has endeavoured to obtain firearms on a number of occasions from a number of associates for the purposes of putting into effect a planned terrorist attack, has held covert meetings with associates in relation to plans to use the firearms as part of his planned attack and has displayed a very high level of security awareness.”

It was on those grounds that the judge decided that the relocation condition was absolutely appropriate in controlling CD’s activities. As for my right hon. Friend’s second question, about why the Government have been so reluctant to provide the Home Secretary with the power to relocate—not the duty to do so in every case, but the power where necessary—I believe that this is part of a political accommodation with the Liberal Democrats and that this will be revealed in all its rather distasteful details in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I believe that the Bill is based on a fundamentally mistaken premise—that liberty in our country was undermined by laws passed by the previous Labour Government in their efforts to protect the public and to combat terrorism. We have heard the Minister advance that argument many times during the debate. It is not, however, the laws passed by the last Labour Government that threaten liberty. Liberty is threatened by the ideology that fed the bombers of the London underground, by the acts that they took part in, by plots including those of the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber, as well as by other plots that have mercifully either not worked or been foiled before they reached fruition.

Both parties in the coalition have in different degrees shared in that fundamentally mistaken premise, and they have now brought it into the Government as the foundation for this Bill. I wonder whether, if we were talking about this in a year or two’s time, the Government would still introduce such a Bill. I genuinely do not know the answer to that. What we have here is a mistaken premise giving us wrong policy that will lead to increased risk for the public. The Bill will give new rights to terrorist suspects. It will allow them freedom of movement. It will grant them access to mobile phones and the internet. It will also put a two-year time limit on even the weakened provisions that TPIMs represent.

[Mr Ellwood]

I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman’s point that any form of legislation could prevent a terrorist attack. If someone is convinced that that is what they want to do, wherever they are based in the UK and however they communicate, and whether they target the Olympics or somewhere else, they will conduct that attack, and possibly kill themselves as well. No legislation that we create in this House can prevent that. It is wrong to mislead the House and to suggest that we can somehow over-legislate or protect ourselves by what we do here. We cannot do that.

[Mr McFadden]

If that is what the hon. Gentleman believes, he should vote against the Bill because the Minister is pretending that this offers some measure of protection. These measures not only put the public at increased risk, but put the police and security services under increased pressure at the very time that their budgets are being cut. They mean less control and more surveillance. Surveillance itself compromises liberty, but does so simply in a more expensive and riskier way than some of the extra powers that the Government have chosen to reject.

To cap it all, in recent days we have seen the spectacle of the Government taking out an insurance policy against their own Bill by publishing draft emergency legislation but then refusing to add the powers to this Bill. The Government have failed utterly in today’s debate to specify the circumstances under which that insurance policy will be used. It is hard to escape the conclusion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) eloquently reached in her speech—that trade-offs within the coalition have shaped this policy. That is not good enough. We should not compromise the safety of our citizens on that basis. I echo the hope and prayer of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary that none of the terrorist suspects who are granted increased freedoms under the Bill use them to kill innocent people. I have to say in all sincerity that if they do, the public will not forgive the Ministers or the Government who have passed this measure tonight.

Police Forces

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

Who are they, the human face of police cuts—the casualties of Government policy? The Home Secretary was good enough to meet recently with six officers from the west midlands. Inspector Mark Stokes, a police officer for 33 years and a specialist in crime reduction—the longest serving in the country. An expert at designing out crime; for example, the Four Towers estate scheme in Birmingham saw a 98.7% cut in crime. There is no better example worldwide, and that is why he has a deserved international reputation—forced out.

Sergeant Dave Hewitt is 48 years old, with 32 years of service, and a neighbourhood sergeant. An expert in early intervention—stopping antisocial behaviour becoming serious crime. He tackled problems ranging from dangerous dogs to cannabis factories. He is a man who engaged successfully with his community, which led to a significant reduction in crime—forced out.

Police Constable Ian Rees is 55-years-old with 34 years of service. A motorway police officer—the first on the scene after serious accidents, coping with death and distraught families. For example, a serious accident on the M42, involving a minibus on its way to a wedding, caused serious injuries and one death. He not only coped with that, but was then the police liaison officer with that family afterwards, giving them comfort—forced out.

Detective Constable Tony Fisher, aged 50, has 33 years of service. On the one hand, he tracked down the gang who were robbing pensioners at cash machines and put away the leader for 13 years. On the other, he tracked down a gang led by a man who wielded a machete when robbing shops and put him away for 17 years—forced out.

Detective Constable Tim Kennedy, 31 years a police officer, is one of the best in Britain at tackling serious acquisitive crime, ranging from burglaries to cars. He has one of the highest detection rates in Britain and is described by fellow officers as an outstanding detective— forced out.

Finally, PC Martin Heard—32 years a front-line police officer, in the past nine years in an area of multiple deprivation in Wolverhampton, coping with vice crime, drugs, burglaries, engaging with the community, closing down drug dens, slashing crime in that community—forced out. To add insult to injury, within weeks of being forced out, he received a letter asking whether he would like to come back as an unpaid special constable.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of ex-constable Martin Heard. He served the All Saints community in Wolverhampton in my constituency in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes. I should like my hon. Friend to respond to an e-mail that I received yesterday from another Wolverhampton officer in the same force. He wrote:

“Older in service officers, like myself are very worried about having their CRTP taken away. For me it is £100 per month less… our pay has already been frozen and with SPP also in line to be taken away”.

He went on:

“At the current time, all the officers who have spoken to me all state they love serving the local community and work to make the streets of Wolverhampton even more safer. It would be awful if colleagues leave our fine occupation due to financial issues.”

What is my hon. Friend’s response to that?

[Jack Dromey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Little wonder that there is a collapse in police morale. They are being asked to do more at a time of rising crime and are now threatened with being paid less. They deserve better.

The latest casualties of Government policy in the west midlands are 16 senior officers—nine superintendants and seven chief inspectors, including the heads of counter-terrorism and of crime—why? Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary stated that we could experience a 12% reduction in expenditure over a period of years; instead, the Government have gone for a front-loaded reduction of 20%, with an inevitable serious impact on the police service. The consequences for the west midlands are that 2,200 will go from our police service, including 1,100 police officers.

Quilliam Foundation

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on initiating the debate. We all know that the backdrop to it is the very serious terrorist threat that we face. That is not a myth; it is not something that has been made up. In the London underground bombings, 52 people were killed. Since then there has been the plot to blow up airliners, which resulted in the liquid restrictions on aeroplanes; we have had the shoe bomber, Richard Reid; and we have had the Christmas day attack on the Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit involving Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. There have also been other incidents—some that we know about and probably some that we do not know about.

To combat terrorism, we of course need security forces to catch and punish those responsible but, as other hon. Members have said, we must also confront and challenge the ideology that feeds such acts. Quilliam is critical in that fight. It cannot all be done by Government and Government agencies. As other hon. Members have said, this is an ideological struggle that must take place within the Islamic community itself.

I have had less direct ministerial involvement in this issue than my colleagues, but of course our political interests are not confined purely to our ministerial experience. However, one issue in which I did have some ministerial involvement was extremism on university campuses. I commend Quilliam for the work and research that it has done on extremism on campuses, which is growing. One of Quilliam’s founders, Ed Husain, outlines very well in his book the expertise with which Islamic extremists use the liberal values of those who run our colleges and universities to propagate what they want to do and put the university or college authorities on the defensive.

As we have all agreed, Quilliam is an important organisation. It is important because it is unequivocal in its condemnation of terrorism. It challenges the ideology that feeds it. It condemns suicide bombings; it does not make excuses for them. It takes on arguments perpetrated by the apologists for terrorism. Quilliam is also important in another sense. It challenges the notion, sometimes spread by non-Muslims as well as Muslims, that the terrorist problem is all our fault—the conceited notion, ultimately, that the west is so all-powerful that it is responsible, either through its foreign policy decisions or through other means, for encouraging terrorism. Quilliam challenges that, too, so it provides a service well beyond the argument that currently takes place within the Islamic community.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am sorry that I came into the debate late; that was because of a traffic problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is repeating almost word for word the message of the Prime Minister both at the Community Security Trust dinner two weeks ago and in Kuwait—the message that he has constantly urged? I understand why the Liberal Democrats want to kill Quilliam, but I just cannot understand why Conservative officials and Ministers in the Home Office want to do it such damage.

[Mr McFadden]

I cannot speak for the Conservatives. The Minister will have a chance to do that in a few minutes.

As we have said, what Quilliam does is important because those who lead it are themselves ex-supporters of violent jihad. Therefore it is done with a level of understanding and engagement in ideological and, indeed, theological debate that is well nigh impossible for Ministers. That is important because it is extremely difficult for the state to engage in theological debate, and the argument must be won theologically as well as ideologically.

The Government have proposed to cut core funding for the organisation. That is a mistake. As the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, Quilliam has given strength and confidence to others, too. That is a very important aspect of its work. By stepping forward, people from the organisation have given strength to others who probably think these things but may not have seen other people in the debate giving voice to them.

I shall ask the Minister a direct question. I understand that the Home Office budget is under pressure—the pace and scale of cuts is an argument for another day—but is the decision purely budgetary or, as the hon. Member for New Forest East implied, is something else going on? Is there a wider disagreement with what Quilliam has advocated in recent years? I believe that the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for a grant of £150,000 to give the organisation time and space to seek alternative funding is worthy of support, even in these difficult times.

Let us just ask ourselves this question. What will the debate about terrorism be like if Quilliam folds? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said that there are other organisations. I have not really seen them. I have not seen others stepping forward with the degree of clarity and theological and ideological commitment that Quilliam has had.

There is a complacency about saying that others will simply step forward. I have long experience of seeing this ideology develop, not particularly as an MP, but as a Government staffer. I have seen some of the errors that Governments have made in the past and, frankly, I do not want to return to the situation we had 10 years ago, when we listened to many voices that we thought were representative. There is a danger of complacency in cutting Quilliam’s funding, and if the Minister thinks that other organisations will step forward to fill the void if Quilliam does not get the funding it so urgently needs, I would like him to name them today.

I hope that the Minister has heard the arguments that have been made today. I also hope that he will respond positively to the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and tell us exactly who will speak up and make the arguments that Quilliam has made if that organisation no longer exists.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr McFadden, for a disciplined speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

If my hon. Friend will excuse me, I need to make some progress, because others have asked interesting “in principle” questions, which I need to address. He himself gave the impression there was some kind of conspiracy afoot, and I wish to reject that.

Home Office Ministers have taken the decisions they have for three reasons. First, Quilliam has, as we all agree, evolved into a think-tank; it is no longer fulfilling the role for which it was originally funded by the previous Government. Secondly, Quilliam has continually committed to broadening its sources of funding and to becoming more self-reliant, and I think we agree that that needs to happen. Thirdly, Home Office Ministers believe that the Department can no longer make an exception for Quilliam by paying for its ongoing running costs as well as funding specific projects. The Home Office does not support any other think-tank on that basis, a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

Let me deal with each of those points in turn. As I have already said, the original purpose for which Quilliam was funded by Government was to work in and with Muslim communities to challenge the ideology of terrorism and extremism. In some cases, that has not been done as successfully as Ministers originally hoped. Since 2008, Quilliam has progressively engaged in a different and rather broader range of activities consistent with its declared intention of being a think-tank. It publishes work on a range of security issues, not confined to the narrower and hugely important issue of countering radicalisation. In doing so, I emphasise again, Quilliam makes important contributions to the overall debate.

[Mr McFadden]

I appreciate the pressure of time. I am not sure that I accept the distinction the Minister makes between think-tank work and countering extremism. The publication of the reports is important in countering extremism. To get to the point, can the Minister say who he thinks will step forward and do this if Quilliam folds?