European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

There is one other factor, which my right hon. Friend may be coming to. Does she agree that it would be quite possible for the Government to apply free movement in a more restrictive way, particularly regarding the world of work, as other countries, such as France, have done? Would she like to speculate on whether one reason why the Government have not done that is that the Home Office is so overwhelmed and has been so greatly cut that it does not have the capacity to enforce such a tighter policy?

[Ms Abbott]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. The cuts have unquestionably had an impact on the Home Office.

The Government have suggested that they will distinguish between high and low-skilled migrants and discriminate in favour of the former. On the face of it, that is a logical position, yet all indications are that their real distinction will be between high and low-paid migrant workers, which will leave a range of sectors struggling with skills and labour shortages, including among nurses, social care workers, agricultural workers and others in the private sector. This artificial distinction between high and low-skilled migrants, which is really about income, is both unfair and potentially damaging to the economy,

The Government have long been promising a new immigration Bill for a post-Brexit environment, but it seems that there is a split in the Government—I know it sounds shocking—between adjusting the immigration system towards supporting our economic needs and a constant campaign against migrants and migration. They will probably try to do both—“have cake and eat it” politics. There is also no indication that they will drop their unworkable net migration target, which has never once been met but which allows a continuing negative narrative campaign against migration and migrants. The level of non-EU migration alone is currently running close to 250,000 a year, and that is migration over which the Government have absolute control. There is no indication either that they intend to end the hostile environment policy—rename it yes, but end it no—yet we know that it led directly to the Windrush scandal.

The spurious distinction between high and low-skilled migrants, which is really discrimination against the lower-paid, will have negative consequences for a range of sectors. We await with interest the publication of the immigration Bill to see how the internal differences within the Government are resolved, but the Government are asking all of us to vote for their deal without telling us what their new immigration policy will be. This is a blindfold Brexit deal. As I said at the beginning, the Opposition honour and respect the referendum vote, but how can it be that Ministers are asking the House to vote for a deal that neither leavers nor remainers are happy with; asking us to vote for a deal when so many crucial issues, notably on security, are not yet clear; and asking us to vote for a deal that could endanger not just our economy but our security? The more we examine the deal, the more it becomes clear that the House cannot vote for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

At the outset, I really want to congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) on a very powerful speech that was rooted in reality, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on the successful passage of his amendment yesterday. He has been truly outstanding through all these Brexit debates.

For very good reason, I want to use this occasion to say a fond farewell to my German teacher, Keith Walker, from my old school of Wolstanton in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Keith passed away a fortnight ago and his funeral is on Friday. Mr Walker, as we called him back then, was instrumental in helping to form my views on Britain’s right and proper place at the heart of Europe. His wonderful teaching made sure that I got a place to study German at Oxford, and it was because of Keith that I first took part in—and then for six years helped to organise—international youth exchanges in Berlin with the German War Graves Commission, when the wall was the starkest reminder of the outcome of the second world war and of the cold war that followed.

In the trading of facts and fictions during the disastrous 2016 referendum, the historical perspective very much got completely lost. Yes, the European Union could be frustrating. It was not perfect, like everything, but from its origins after the war as the European Coal and Steel Community through to the Common Market, it has been very much part of the architecture of peace, trade, dialogue and prosperity in our times. Could we ever imagine that the states of the former Yugoslavia would have engaged in such shameful blood-letting had they been part of the European Community, to which we have belonged for 45 years and membership of which was confirmed by 67% of our people at the first referendum in 1975?

Now fast-forward to the debacle of 2016. My constituency and home town of Newcastle-under-Lyme voted around 60:40 to leave, and it is hardly a secret that I profoundly disagree with that verdict. Aside from matters of economy and trade, history shows that when Britain has been disengaged from European affairs, it has harmed not only our national interests but the national interests of countries on the continent as well. We have had, and still have, very much to offer.

When the subject of Brexit came up on the doorstep last year, I politely—I hope—disagreed with people of a leave persuasion, and then we moved on to discussing the state of our local hospital and the potholes in the road. For all the heat that we feel at Westminster, most people were simply not obsessed about Europe. The great, reasonable majority want us to get this right in the national interest—and, for all the reasons that most Members have outlined today, the Prime Minister’s deal does not serve that national interest.

In Newcastle, we campaigned as passionately in the referendum as at any general election. At the start, it was possible to have a fairly reasonable debate. Quite a number of people I had known for many years, and would have sworn were leavers, said that their heart was with “out”, but their head said “stay in” for jobs, investment, kids and opportunities for the future. So it was possible to have a decent discussion—until about a fortnight before voting day, that is. Then, at the entrance to my town, like many others up and down the land, the big red banner posters went up saying, “Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU—vote leave”. Photographs of queues of refugees were mingled, to great effect, with an old-fashioned blue British passport. It was of course an outright lie, but it was impossible to get that through to people, because their immediate response, time and again, was “What are you going to do about the Turks?”

What I did not know at the time was that that message was not only being shouted out from old-fashioned billboards but was reverberating exaggeratedly around social media in targeted dark ads that remainers like me would never see. That has only become clear since our Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into fake news, involving Facebook in particular. Of course, that inquiry has followed up on breaches of the law and spending limits by both main leave campaigns.

But two years on, I do not want to cry over spilt milk. I think that the past two years have shown that people are now much better informed about the consequences of exactly how we leave—if indeed we do. If the Prime Minister loses next week’s vote, we are in interesting territory, to say the least, but one thing must be certain: no matter how much she tries to cling on in the hope of making amends for her disastrous election performance last year, the Prime Minister really has to go, like her predecessor did after the referendum result. Then the question for us will be whether the House can form a majority to chart the way forward, or whether this can only be settled by a general election or a referendum.

I view the prospect of another people’s vote with more than trepidation. I do not know how it is going to be possible to have a reasonable debate when the poll will be framed by shrieks of betrayal from most of our printed press, reinforced by deep pockets using and abusing the echo chamber of social media. But if that is the only road ahead, we should not shirk from holding that vote. Come an election or a referendum, I will be making the same arguments again. I firmly believe that it is in Britain’s national interest to remain within the European Union with a seat at the table, a vote and sometimes a veto—to reform, where needed, from within, not just to shout from the sidelines without, or, under this deal, to go cap in hand begging for favours in future.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He is pretty well my next-door neighbour and we talk regularly. We were even on a Radio 4 programme that he organised only a week ago on Asa Briggs and all the matters to which he referred. I regard him not only as an hon. Member, but as a good friend. The valedictory comments that he just made were rather reminiscent of a maiden speech. I simply wanted to put on record that he has performed a great service to this House and to his constituents before I get into the more substantial questions before us.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Does he agree that my hon. Friend the soon to be departed Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has, since 2010, been a truly class act in north Staffordshire and the potteries, not least in his efforts to save the Wedgwood collection for the nation?

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for that. We have all taken an active part in trying to do what we can regarding the museum, and it is marvellous not only that that collection is still there, but that it is now in secure hands under the aegis of the director of the V&A himself. I do not know whether he has taken up his contract yet, but he is getting close to it. I thank him very much for everything he has done in that context, and for our area and region.

The hon. Gentleman questioned whether, under Brexit, there would be a “Britannia unchanged”. I can assure him that there will be a “Britannia unchained”. That, to me, is the most important question of all, to which I have devoted the best part of 30 years of my political life. I believe very strongly that we will benefit enormously from this. It has been a long journey, and a very interesting historical journey, as people will discover one day when they get the full measure of what has actually taken place. It will benefit not only my constituents, 65% of whom voted leave, but the 70% of leave voters in Stoke-on-Trent Central.

The hon. Gentleman referred to sovereignty as one of the main issues before his constituents. That is connected with the question of trust which, as I said yesterday on a programme on Sky after the Prime Minister’s speech, is at the heart of the issue not only in this country, but across the whole of the European continent, which happens to be, largely speaking, within the European Union. This vote is not against Europe but against the European Union—that is what the discontent is about. There is a lack of trust between the member states, and between the citizens and the institutions and elites within the member states who have implemented these arrangements, which simply have not worked. They have generated monumental degrees of unemployment—up to 60% in some countries, including Greece and Spain. The problems that come from an over-dominating Germany have had a detrimental effect on stability in terms of the progress and evolution of the European Union. The situation has recreated the very insecurity and instability that people wanted to deal with in the aftermath of the second world war, in which my own father was killed fighting against the Waffen-SS Panzer division in 1944, winning the Military Cross, of which I am very proud.

I voted yes in 1975. I wanted to see a situation that could work but, unfortunately, the manner in which this has developed has become dysfunctional. In the discussion on the statement yesterday, I noticed that a sense of realism was bearing down on many Members because we know that we have to make this work. This is not anti-European. It is not anti-European to be pro-democracy. I know that there are some good and honest remainers who are still worried about the outcome, but I say to them, “Have confidence. Have trust in the people”—as Lord Randolph Churchill said in the 19th century. This is not a 19th-century problem, however; it is a 21st-century problem. This is not Euroscepticism in a negative sense; it is about trying to ensure that we have proper democracy, and that when we get on to the great repeal Bill, we will be able to achieve the reaffirmation of Westminster’s jurisdiction.

What does that actually mean? It means that we will be implementing in this Chamber the decisions taken by the electors in general elections, for which the people of this country fought and died. That is a crucial issue for the future of Europe as well; it does not just apply to us, but we were the first to have the opportunity to do something about it, because we had the referendum, for which some of us fought for a very long time.

At a conference at the European Parliament the other day, we discussed matters of security, terrorism and all the rest. In front of about 300 chairmen of various parliamentary committees from all over the European Union, the chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok—I have parried and fought with him for the best part of 20 years in various forums of the European Union—accused the United Kingdom of cowardice in holding a referendum. I replied that holding the referendum was an act of courage, not an act of cowardice, because we have seized the opportunity to defend the necessity of having a proper democratic system in the United Kingdom, and we will now be able to implement it.

With respect to this business of justice and home affairs, and all that goes with it, my European Scrutiny Committee held an inquiry in April or May last year—before the referendum—into the manner in which decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers. I am prepared to bet that there are people in this Chamber who do not know that virtually no votes are taken in the Council of Ministers. As a result of the European Communities Act 1972, decisions taken by the Council of Ministers—quite often stitched up behind closed doors—come straight down to this Chamber and we are under an obligation to implement them. Such decisions are often on matters such as those we are discussing, and they are of direct relevance to the whole question of security, terrorism and crime.

If people do not know that that is how the system functions, I strongly advise them to speak to me privately, when I can provide them with further information—I will not go into it in the Chamber today, but it is vital to democracy. Such decisions are not taken on a democratic basis, as people have imagined, and that is a reason in itself for our getting out of the European Union. I was absolutely delighted by what the Prime Minister said yesterday. As I said during our proceedings on the statement, her speech was “principled, reasonable and statesmanlike.”

Justice and home affairs was intended to be intergovernmental. It was never meant to be governed by majority voting and all the rest; it was meant to be a separate pillar. I say to the hon. Gentlemen and Ladies of Labour that they, under Tony Blair, collapsed the pillar so that the matter became part of treaties subject to the European Court of Justice. That was never the original intention.

In this debate, we are engaging in an element of déjà vu, but we are also giving ourselves the opportunity to indicate the extent to which we will move forward after Brexit into a different environment in which decisions on all these incredibly important matters will be dealt with by this House on the basis of votes cast by the voters of the United Kingdom and nobody else.

I drafted the repeal Bill in May last year and submitted it to various people. As a result of a process that I do not need to go into in detail, it was accepted in principle by the Government. I have no doubt that the wording will be slightly changed—or somewhat changed—but that does not matter. I set out five principles, which I will not go into now, other than to say that they meant that we would withdraw from the European Union and transpose all legislation currently within the framework of the EU’s jurisdiction into our own Westminster jurisdiction, and that thereafter we would deal with it as we went forward.

I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was here for the opening speeches, but with my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and others, I have been cross-examining my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who was the Minister for Europe and is now the Leader of the House. We had important questions to put to him, and we got some interesting answers.

The repeal Bill will require careful attention. As a result of the Bill, we will be able to reintroduce a proper democratic system into this House. We will have to accept some things as a matter of policy, and we heard some of them in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant speech yesterday, but we cannot absorb the European Court of Justice. The issue of the Court is raised in debates on this subject matter probably as much as it is on any other subject matter within the framework of the European Union.

The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday made it clear that the UK will continue to co-operate with its European partners in important areas such as crime and terrorism once we leave the EU. She said that, faced with common security threats,

“our response cannot be to co-operate with one another less, but to work together more”—

subject, of course, to the question of the European Court of Justice—and to ensure that the UK’s future relationship with the EU includes

“practical arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material with our EU allies.”

She went on to make it clear that

“we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.

As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I and my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome—my wife is from his constituency, so I should be able to remember its name—continue to see a raft of EU initiatives in the sensitive area of law enforcement and security co-operation. The Government tell us that while the UK remains a member of the EU, all rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force, which is true, and that they will

“continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.”

I say quite explicitly, however—I put this to the Leader of the House this afternoon—that during the period in which we are engaged in the negotiations, it is absolutely essential that we have proper explanatory memorandums on matters relating to security and terrorism and to justice and home affairs, because we must examine such matters properly and form a judgment about the extent to which we will actually implement them. When, on a matter requiring unanimity, we are in a position to vote against it, we must do so, and when a matter is subject to qualified majority voting, we must insist on a vote, rather than allow an agreement to be stitched up behind closed doors.

As my Committee recommended, we must at the same time give reasons for what we are doing, to increase transparency and accountability. Some of these matters to do with the question of terrorism and all that goes with it are so important to our security that if we do not believe that what the EU is proposing is in our national interest, we must take a stand. In my opinion, there is an absolute requirement on the Government to make sure that the reasons for that are put on the record.

Although the generalisation that we want to achieve a degree of co-operation is important, if we do not like things that are proposed—things that are not in the UK’s interest and that we would never contemplate accepting post-Brexit—we must not allow them to go through by consensus in un-smoke-filled rooms. Indeed, if we had had our wits about us, we would never have accepted such things in the first place. The European scrutiny process therefore needs to be considered, and my Committee is looking into it very closely.

As the House will recall, the coalition Government decided that it was in the UK’s national interest to rejoin 35 EU police and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the Lisbon treaty took effect and were subject to the UK’s 2014 block opt-out decision. They included Europol, Eurojust, the European arrest warrant, joint investigation teams, important data sharing instruments—EuroDac and so on—the Schengen information system, the European criminal records information system and the so-called Swedish initiative, which provides a simplified mechanism for the exchange of law enforcement information and intelligence. Since then—the Prime Minister was then the Home Secretary— the Government have rejoined the Prüm measures, which provide for the rapid automated exchange of information on DNA profiles, fingerprinting and vehicle registration data. The United Kingdom also participates in the European investigation order, which will take effect in May this year, and many other criminal justice measures.

On the new EU justice and home affairs proposals, there appears to be inadequate recognition in the explanatory memorandums that the context in which the UK will continue

“to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation”

has changed profoundly because of Brexit. To quote the Prime Minister, the UK is leaving the European Union. The Government cannot continue with business as usual within COREPER and UKRep. I trust that Sir Tim Barrow will, as the new UK representative, carry on in a way that will be entirely consistent with what is required in relation to COREPER and UKRep. We cannot continue with business as usual in the handling of sensitive EU justice and home affairs proposals in COREPER, the Council and the trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament. Given that the UK is under no obligation to participate in most new EU justice and home affairs proposals, the Government must explain on the record in each case how a decision to opt in would be in the national interest and consistent with taking back control of our laws, as the Prime Minister said, and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court.

Since last June’s referendum, the European Scrutiny Committee has pressed the Government to clarify how the measures in question will be affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU and how they envisage managing security and law enforcement co-operation post-Brexit. Under the repeal Bill and otherwise, there will need to be significant adjustments to how that is handled. What sort of relationship do the Government intend to establish with Europol and Eurojust? Will they seek an agreement to enable the UK to continue to apply a new arrangement regarding the European arrest warrant? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be out of the jurisdiction of the European Court and yet have all the laws interpreted by the judges in the European Court in Luxembourg. That just cannot happen, and that has to be taken on board.

What assessment have the Government made of the operational value of EU data sharing instruments? Would access to those instruments require the UK to comply with EU data protection laws in practice, even if it was no longer under a legal obligation to do so? Answers to those questions are absolutely fundamental, because otherwise we will not be able to implement the commitment to

“take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.

As I said in an intervention, we also have to take into account the fact that justice, home affairs, terrorism and security—all the problems that have accumulated in the 21st century—are not exclusive to the European Union. They apply across the whole world. The fact that the European Union exists and has developed a body and a framework of law does not give it any absolute value. This House and its predecessors have been legislating for 400 years or more. We do not need to be told how to do this. Yes, we want to co-operate with other countries, but for heaven’s sake let us take on board the fact that we can work out what is in the interests of our own citizens in accordance with the decisions they take in general elections. We will bring in our own immigration Bill, not have one imposed on us through deals done behind closed doors, and it will do exactly what the British people want, because they will have voted for it.

We are talking about important matters arising from the decision taken by the British people, and I pay tribute to them; I do not, however, pay tribute to the campaigns. I thought that the “Project Fear” campaign was a disgrace, and I said so in the House at the time. I do not think there was any treaty change, either, although the Prime Minister kept on telling us there was—I challenged him on that and even put the matter to Mr Speaker. That was around the middle of June, and the Prime Minister was gone by the end of the month. The bottom line, however, is that neither side of the campaign covered itself in glory, and there were things I deeply regretted.

For that reason, I did my own campaign in my own area, and I am glad to say that in the area in which my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are situated, we notched up votes of between 65% and 72% in favour of leaving. He was quite right: it was about sovereignty and the very matters I am talking about. It was about whether we could run our own country in our own fashion through our representation in this House. It was as fundamental as that. Everything else pales into insignificance compared with democracy, if it is properly conducted. It is absolutely sure that the current EU is undemocratic, and it is as well that we are getting out of it.

Our Committee has issued a press release regarding another matter that I doubt has been mentioned so far—whether UK nationals will need authorisation to travel to the Schengen area post-Brexit. The UK is not entitled to contribute to the proposal being drawn up, as it is not a Schengen country, but the Government will have to monitor the negotiations closely. In that regard, my Committee has some questions. What are the main differences between the model proposed by the Commission for visa-free entry to the Schengen area and the full Schengen visa regime? Do the Government intend to seek visa-free access to the Schengen area for UK nationals post-Brexit? Do they intend to press for an exemption from the new travel authorisation for UK nationals, or will they seek instead to minimise the cost and complexity of the application process? If they cannot secure an exemption, would they wish to introduce a reciprocal travel authorisation system for EU nationals travelling to the UK after Brexit? All those matters are in the press release that was presented to the media this afternoon, and I sincerely trust that they will give it the attention it deserves.

This is a vital debate on the best example of a policy area that impinges directly on citizens. Elsewhere in the EU massive resistance to EU proposals is building up among citizens, but we have had our referendum and the people have decided that we should get out. That is what we are doing. Let us get on with implementing that decision.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I have only a few moments to speak so, if I may, I would like to make some progress.

Getting to this point has involved a long and tortuous procedure, as the Home Secretary recognised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that his Committee published a report on the matter on 29 October 2013, and we are now only 12 days away from 1 December 2014. The matter has been debated by the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

The process by which we have got where we are today has been a shambles. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminded us of his contribution to last week’s debate of claiming to move “That the Question, That be Question be not now put, be now put,” which is second in parliamentary history only to when I wore a top hat on the Opposition Back Benches to make a point of order during a Division some 20 years ago.

Hon. Members have set out several reasons why we should not sign up to the European arrest warrant and the other measures. They have said that doing so represents a transfer of power and that that subjugates UK law. They have said that UK standards of justice will not be met, that the warrant has the word “European” in its name, and that extradition should be dealt with in individual treaties. We also heard the serious point that innocent people may face an unfair procedure in a foreign court, which was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a great deal of experience of these matters, as well as the hon. Members for Stone, for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who is also no longer in the Chamber, pledged UKIP’s 100% support for opposing the motion—it was extremely satisfactory that he agreed with himself.

Such strong points demonstrate that there are genuine issues, which I do not decry. It is important that we consider them, but I disagree with the points made. I take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as hon. Members would expect, but I also respect the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all pointed out that the measure is about bringing criminals to justice.

I confess that I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), but he made the valuable point that changes have been made. I can let him into a secret: we supported those changes during their passage through Parliament and we did so because we know, like the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, that the measure means that foreign national criminals will be deported back to their home countries to face justice, that criminals will face trial here, and that there will be justice for victims against whom heinous crimes have been committed. I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who put his latent Euroscepticism to one side for a moment to recognise that the issue is about crime, not Europe, and about bringing criminals to justice to ensure that they spend time in prison, not on sun loungers in Spain.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hanson]

With respect, my hon. Friend has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate. I have only two more minutes in which to speak, and as I did not take an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone, who has been present for the entire debate, I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I must be fair and not give way.

The Labour party believes strongly in retaining the European arrest warrant and the other measures to keep our communities safe, to protect our borders and to stop criminals from fleeing justice. More than 1,000 foreign criminals were deported last year under the European arrest warrant for drug trafficking, murder, fraud, child sex offences and rape. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, this is about co-operating with European partners to ensure that people who have committed these serious crimes do not get away with them. Senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers and police officers working for international agencies such as Interpol recognise the importance of dealing with such crimes. Fugitive teacher Jeremy Forrest, who fled to France with a schoolgirl, was extradited to England on a European arrest warrant in September 2012. Hussain Osman, who tried to blow up the centre of London in a terror attack, was brought back from Italy and is now serving 40 years in prison as a consequence of the European arrest warrant. Jason McKay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West mentioned, was extradited from Poland within two weeks of murdering his partner—justice for a murdered woman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I will, of course, leave it to Lord Justice Leveson to speak for himself on whether he wants to contribute further to the debate, but I can say clearly to my hon. Friend that the essence of the Leveson report was self-regulation. I believe that we now have a way forward that will safeguard the freedom of the press and provide a good system of redress when errors are made. It is important to make the royal charter work; it is the best way to stave off the statutory regulation of the press that some are trying to impose.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Regarding the royal charter, one of the more belligerent newspapers is running a piece today under the headline, “Approved behind closed doors, curbs that end three centuries of Press freedom”. For the benefit of that newspaper’s poor readers, would the Secretary of State care to comment on the accuracy of that headline?

[Maria Miller]

We have had a great deal of debate on the self-regulation of the press, through the Leveson inquiry and through the 11 subsequent debates in this House and the other place. The important thing is that we make this work for the industry and for people who are seeking redress.

National Security (The Guardian)

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Julian Smith]

If my hon. Friend looks at the witness documents for the court case, he will see that charge may be likely, but I do not think it is appropriate to comment on that in this place.

The Guardian agreed to the Government’s request to destroy the data it held in its London office, but soon after it not only revealed the confidential discussions that took place with Her Majesty’s Government but advertised to the world that it had sent copies of the files, including information on GCHQ, to The New York Times in an article titled “Guardian partners with New York Times over Snowden GCHQ files.” In its various discussions with the Government during August, The Guardian did not reveal that it had made copies of the files and sent them overseas.

Today’s debate is not an argument to muzzle the press. As Oliver Robbins is at pains to point out in his witness statement, there has been significant sensitivity to the fact that The Guardian is a newspaper. Like the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), I am deeply uncomfortable that a left-of-centre axis is driving us toward press regulation. Newspapers should be free to report, and they should be punished under existing laws if they commit crimes.

The Guardian was right, having received the NSA files, to report on them in some way. If journalism—receiving and reporting on leaks—were all that The Guardian had done, Parliament and MI5 would not now be involved. Indeed, when the full tale of the damage done to British security is revealed, our Government might be criticised not for how much it interfered with a newspaper but for how much it trusted one.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, circuitously, he is attacking not The Guardian’s journalism but the paper itself? By mentioning press regulation in the same breath, he is potentially in danger of being misinterpreted as joining the war of the Daily Mail and others against The Guardian, all because of its pursuit of phone hacking.

[Julian Smith]

I hope that by the end of my speech I will not be misinterpreted at all.

This debate is also not an argument against whistleblowing. Mr Snowden revealed NSA spying that may have been outwith the reach of Congress. It might be argued that that was whistleblowing, but as we know, he did not selectively take files on the matter; rather, he stole tens of thousands of files on legitimate and necessary spying, including by allies such as Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. It is right to say that it is obviously not for Ministers to direct the police to arrest or investigate anyone. He will understand that that would be inappropriate. It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether a crime has been committed and what action to take. Given the ongoing police investigation after Mr Miranda was stopped at Heathrow, it would be inappropriate to comment further. Ultimately, it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to assess the evidence.

I want to comment briefly on the Government’s approach to The Guardian, which claimed to hold highly classified Government material and made clear its intention of reporting it. Of course, we were concerned about such material being held insecurely without any of the controls that would usually protect it. We were also concerned about the consequences of more of this material becoming public, and the grave risks that that would pose to operations, individuals and capabilities. That is why we asked the newspaper to return or destroy its files.

I appreciate and respect the fact that journalists may spend significant time weighing up whether an issue is damaging to national security, and genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing. However, I respectfully suggest that they are simply not in a position to make national security assessments. The Government strongly support a free press. We have never denied the possibility of a debate on privacy and security or the work of the intelligence agencies, but we cannot condone the way in which others sought to bring this debate about and the damage it caused. Any leak of security material is serious. It can put the lives of our agents at risk and give valuable information to terrorists and others who wish us harm. As we have heard, there have been calls to prosecute, but that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to assess.

[Paul Farrelly]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I need to move on, as I have only three minutes left. I want to respond to suggestions that there is no need to improve the police and intelligence agencies’ ability to acquire communications data. That is wrong. There is a pressing need to ensure that the capabilities of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies keep pace with ever-changing technology if they are to maintain their ability to tackle terrorism and serious crime.

We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to protect the public and to ensure national security. Nothing that has been alleged about GCHQ’s capabilities changes that. Communications technologies continue to change, and we need to move with the times.

Two parliamentary Committees have considered the matter and said there is a need for legislation. It was recently alleged that the Government wilfully withheld information from those Committees. I reject that. I hope that hon. Members saw the letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in The Guardian last week, in which he explained that the Intelligence and Security Committee took full, detailed evidence from the intelligence agencies during its inquiry on the draft Communications Data Bill, as well as its recent inquiry on GCHQ’s activities. The Committee’s report on the draft Bill concluded that a need remains for legislation in this area.

I hope that hon. Members agree that there are essential advantages to be gained from intelligence-gathering and staying one step ahead. Some have suggested that the UK’s intelligence agencies are somehow listening in to all our phone calls and storing details of all our private conversations. That is simply not true. They have neither the interest nor the capability.

As the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed, the legal framework governing intelligence agencies’ work is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly stated earlier this year that the UK’s system of political, parliamentary, independent and judicial oversight of the intelligence agencies represents one of the most robust and comprehensive systems of oversight anywhere in the world. The system works well, and we should be proud of it.

Hon. Members will recall the Justice and Security Act 2013, which we were debating only nine months ago. The Act extended the remit of the ISC, strengthened its ability to provide robust oversight of the agencies, including of operational matters, made even clearer the ISC’s independence from Government, and almost doubled its resources.

[Paul Farrelly]

On a point of order, Mr Caton. I seek guidance from you, as the Chair of such an important debate, on how parliamentarians may put on the record words spoken by none other than President Obama today about the disclosures. A White House statement said that some of them

“raise legitimate questions for our friends and allies about how these capabilities are employed”.

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the various ways of putting things on the record in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

This is something of great importance, and we will look into it and write to my hon. Friend with an answer.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

A full three months ago, this House debated a royal charter on the independent self-regulation of the press. It was supposed to go to the Privy Council. It did not. Meanwhile, certain recalcitrant elements of the press put their own royal charter in. Can the Secretary of State please explain to the nation what on earth is going on, and when she expects the Privy Council to consider the royal charter that was debated democratically in this House?

[Maria Miller]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are working to take forward Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations in light of the cross-party agreements. A process is very much under way to consider the “PressBoF” charter, while making sure that the Government’s charter will be subject to full consideration at the appropriate time.

Student Visas

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. There is concern across the sector, in higher and further education, in language schools, and, indeed, across the whole country. Judging by the hon. Members present today, I am sure that will be reflected in the contributions to the debate.

I do not believe that the Government are deliberately seeking to damage the economy through these measures, but, by their own assessment, that will be the effect. Over the past few weeks, Ministers have told us that good government is about listening, pausing the legislative process and making changes to get things right. Student visas are another issue where changes are needed to get things right, so let me move to the areas that I believe need attention. First, on English language requirements, my point is not about fundamental change to the Government’s proposals, but about getting implementation right. Let me start with universities. The UK Border Agency’s statement of intent for the new system, which was published in March, stated that:

“We will allow higher education institutions to choose their own method of assessing the English language competence at B2 level.”

However, the subsequent UKBA clarification document, which was issued in April, requires higher education institutions to demonstrate B2 levels of competence in all four components. It also says that, if there is any doubt about a student’s language, UKBA is likely to ask them to undertake their own approved tests—it is a crucial point—even if the institution has made an unconditional offer. That clearly conflicts with UKBA’s own statement of intent. In my constituency, Sheffield’s universities accept only students with good English, but they do not currently require students to meet the specific subset scores now demanded by UKBA; they do not need to.

Only this week I was talking to the vice-chancellor of the university of Sheffield. He gave me the example of what he described as a brilliant physics PhD student who had contributed enormously to one of his research groups, but who probably would not have passed the language requirements.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My own university, Keele, has a strong record in attracting overseas students. It also makes a vital financial contribution. The vice-chancellor has written to me about the changes. Keele has more than 1,700 offers outstanding at the moment, many of which have to be summarily revisited. Like my hon. Friend’s universities and most other universities, it accepts only students with good English capabilities, but it now finds its discretion has been removed. Will he urge the Minister and the Government to reconsider the issue, particularly with regard to any unintended consequences?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and join him in urging the Minister to look again at that issue. We should trust the universities to determine adequate levels of English competence. After all, they have, through their own initiative and ability, developed our education into this worldwide export earner.

Government Reductions in Policing

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael]

Absolutely. Often, it is not very pleasant work. It is painstaking and time-consuming and requires a great deal of commitment, and often people put themselves in danger by undertaking such not very visible activity.

In each of the three areas that I have just mentioned, success commands little publicity. A day’s report of convictions is the best that they can expect, and that is trumped by the drip-feed of facts and fears as the media quite rightly report the crimes and warn us of the dangers. That is inevitable, because until a case is brought to court, publicity might undermine it, and that is a risk which cannot be taken. It means, however, that the public demand for reassurance and safety involves effectiveness, not just visibility. Success on its own does not give reassurance.

There is an issue of confidence, but crime is down. I have referred to the massive drop in violent crime in Cardiff, as measured by the number of people who need emergency treatment, but people do not feel safe. They worry about neighbourhood nuisance, graffiti and rudeness as much as about murder and terrorism, and that is why police accountability is challenging and why Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was right to send a message to the Home Secretary last week, defining the front line as a complex and challenging place.

That report itself, however, raises some serious issues, because the four categories of police work as set out in the report—visible, specialist, middle office and back office—do not include the strategic partnership work to which I referred earlier, and it is not clear that the report includes the other examples that I have given either.

I was a member of the Justice Committee when it produced its report on justice reinvestment. That report points out that many of the services that can make an impact on cutting crime depend on resources outside the criminal justice system: mental health, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, skills, employment, housing and personal relationships. Harnessing those resources, however, requires greater engagement by the police, not less, so forcing the police to withdraw from such teamwork will lead to long-term costs, rather than to savings.

That is why I am sceptical of the HMIC report. It fails to refer to the words of Sir Robert Peel, stating that the purpose of policing is to prevent and reduce crime, words that were quoted by the Policing Minister when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and in a number of other contexts. I applaud him for quoting that as the prime purpose of the police, but nowhere in the HMIC report does it refer to the work of crime reduction partnerships or to any findings from the Justice Committee’s report.

A time of financial constraint is the right time to be innovative and strategic and to go back to basic questions such as, “What is this all for?” The HMIC report does not do that. At the end of the day, cutting bureaucracy is indeed a worthy objective, but the Home Secretary will find that it is not as easy as she thinks; many previous Ministers have been dedicated to cutting bureaucracy. Increasing the visibility of the police, solving more crime, arresting more offenders and succeeding in a higher proportion of prosecutions are also worthy objectives, but they are means to an end, not an end in themselves, and that is why we need to spell out the danger of the cuts that go too deep, too fast and too far.

Several people have quoted the chief constable of the South Yorkshire force. I could quote any number of chief constables, but I will quote Meredydd Hughes, because I remember him as an effective front-line police officer in Llanrumney in my constituency earlier in his career. He said that the cuts questioned the sustainability of unprecedented reductions in crime over the last 15 years, and let us not forget how successful the previous Government were in driving down crime. He also said:

“A reduction in back office support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from front-line duties.”

But, above all, he said:

“What is clear is that we will be unable to continue to provide the level of service that we do today in such areas as neighbourhood policing within diversionary and problem solving activities.”

I worry that the HMIC report does not say enough about diversion, prevention, crime reduction or problem-solving activities. They seem to have fallen outside the four categories that it chose, and we need to look at that report and its definition with very great care.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

In Staffordshire, the protestations that the cuts should not hit front-line services simply sound absurd. From this November, the county, which has a Conservative-run council, is implementing a rule that will force serving police officers, irrespective of rank or experience, to retire once they have reached 30 years’ service. Does my right hon. Friend think that Staffordshire police will enforce regulation A19 lightly, or does he think that it has something to do with the severity and depth of the cuts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a constabulary that is about as far away from my own as it is possible to go. All I can say on behalf of my own area is that we simply want our police officers to be solving crime and, better still, preventing crime—dealing with the realities of day-to-day life rather than engaging in spurious PR exercises and form filling of the sort that has dominated the political agenda for some time and that this Government are rightly seeking to reduce.

There is talk of its being easier simply not to replace chief superintendents—I almost said chief constables, which was a bit of a Freudian slip—after their 30-year service has come to an end. Of course there is a temptation to take that approach but, certainly in our case, it is balanced with the clear need seriously to address the issue of back-office support that other hon. Members have mentioned. That has been slightly misrepresented, because huge importance is attached to back-office police work as distinct from back-office administrative activity. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was a little disingenuous in not making that clear separation.

[Paul Farrelly]

I mentioned the 149 police officers being forced to resign after 30 years’ service in Staffordshire, but I did not mention the six police stations, including my own in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that are being closed because of the cuts. These are police stations that survived Margaret Thatcher and are now falling victim to Cameron-Clegg. Would the hon. Gentleman designate those as much-needed assets or merely back-office functions that can be reorganised willy-nilly?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman conveniently takes me on to my next point.

I do not think anybody on the Government Benches—obviously I cannot speak for the Home Secretary—has gone into these challenges with any great sense of glee based on any great ideology. It is grim reality time—responsibility time. I was fortunate enough to operate in the private sector before I came to this place. I was responsible for 90 employees and a budget of £5 million. Every single year I was forced to reduce that budget, every single year I went to my departmental head, every single year they said they could not do it, and every single year they said it would never be the same again and the end of civilisation as we know it, and—guess what?—after 10 years we had a lean, efficient machine that served its members responsibly and cost-effectively. What it boils down to—my own chief constable has said this publicly and privately—is that police officers are well capable of applying the same corporate disciplines in the police world that most people out there in the real world apply to their businesses. We should not automatically assume that a new approach to efficient policing will necessarily lead to compromises in safety.

The Government’s proposals take us back to relatively recent levels of funding, not to the dark ages. They remove a thick layer of bureaucracy that I thought everybody in this House was keen to see rid of, as well as members of the public and the police force. These proposals take police officers out of their offices and put them back where we need them: solving and preventing crime, and closer to their communities.

The scandal of this motion, and the reason I took part in this debate—I had no serious intention of doing so, but I was driven to it by frustration—is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting vulnerable people in society or defending jobs in the police, and everything to do with furthering Labour’s political aims. To do that in the run-up to a Welsh Assembly election when so many things are at stake, and to do so at the expense of the fear of vulnerable people in society and police officers worried about their jobs, is an absolute scandal. For that reason alone, the motion should fail dismally.