Extremism

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The issue of concerns in Birmingham schools and how that has been addressed by the Department for Education is, of course, a matter that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will be raising.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In Wellingborough we have strong Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities, but they are integrated. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must not give the impression today in this House that there is extremism across the country?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why when the Home Office looked at Prevent funding and dealing with Prevent and its counter-terrorism strand, we said that we should be focusing the money not according to the number of Muslims living in a community but according to the risk of radicalisation, because that was the issue we were addressing. I am sorry to say it has been reported that the shadow Home Secretary suggests that was a false move, which implies that she thinks money should be spent just on the basis of how many Muslims are living in a particular community. I do not agree with that. I think it gives the wrong message about people in our Muslim communities. We should be focusing on where we believe there is genuine radicalisation.

Immigration Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

They will refer all non-EEA marriages to the Home Office, and the purpose of the extension of the notice is that it gives further time for investigations to be conducted. In particular, the possibility of allowing that notice period to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham will enable the Home Office to investigate whether there is a genuine relationship and take immigration enforcement action where these are indeed sham cases. That will mean that an immigration advantage cannot be gained by entering into a marriage or civil partnership, if that were to go ahead. The Bill extends the powers for information to be shared by and with registration officials to help tackle these problems of sham marriages, immigration offences and, indeed, wider criminality and abuse.

I promised the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that I would refer to Scotland. The amendments allow further discussion with colleagues in Scotland and Northern reland about the extension there of the referral and investigation scheme. The new clause and schedule reflect no change in our overall approach but clarify the basis on which the Secretary of State may make regulations for the scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

New clause 11 also makes specific provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations and orders concerning the operation of the referral and investigation scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland when a clause 48 order has been made to extend the scheme there. Regulations concerning the operation of the scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be subject to consultation with the relevant Registrar General, as they are in England and Wales, and they will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

New schedule 1 supports the new clause by setting out the purposes for which regulations can be made under it, for example in respect of the specified evidence required of couples referred under the scheme. Amendment 27 to clause 64 provides for any order made under the new clause, for example in respect of the information required to give notice when an non-EEA national is involved, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments 23 to 26 to clause 52 provide an explicit reference in respect of the requirement for certain non-EEA nationals to give notice at a designated register office of civil partnerships to be formed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, in a similar manner to the existing provision relating to England and Wales, and it clarifies the requirements in such cases.

Amendments 28 and 29 to schedule 4 reflect the fact that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 will, where applicable, allow same-sex couples to provide evidence of consent to a same-sex marriage from their religious organisation’s relevant governing authority after notice of marriage has been given. The amendments will ensure that such couples are not prevented from giving notice if they do not yet have the evidence.

Amendment 30 to schedule 4 ensures that the requirement to provide additional information at the point of giving notice does not apply to a proposed marriage between former civil partners one of whom has changed sex. Amendment 37 to schedule 4 is an equivalent provision for a proposed civil partnership between former spouses one of whom has changed sex. Such couples will not be within the scope of the referral scheme, because no immigration advantage could be obtained from the marriage or civil partnership, and there is therefore no need for the provision of the additional information.

Amendments 31 to 33 to schedule 4, which relate to marriage, and amendments 38 to 40 to schedule 4, which relate to civil partnership, clarify the drafting of the requirement for additional information from couples who are within the scope of the scheme. They also limit the requirement to provide details of other names and aliases that are used to couples when one or both parties state that they do not have the appropriate immigration status or a relevant visa, or state that they have it but provide no evidence. Amendments 34 and 42 to schedule 4 make minor drafting corrections.

Amendment 35 to schedule 4, which relates to marriage, and amendment 41 to schedule 4, which relates to civil partnership, ensure that the Secretary of State notifies the couple, as well as the registration official, of the decision on an application to shorten the notice period in exceptional circumstances in a case referred under the scheme.

Amendment 36 to schedule 4, which relates to marriage, does two things. First, it makes a consequential change reflecting the new notice provisions. Secondly—along with amendment 43, which relates to civil partnership—it ensures that the legal validity of a marriage or civil partnership cannot be challenged just because notice of a decision under the referral and investigation scheme was not properly given by the Secretary of State.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Let me give the Home Secretary some time in which to take a breath before she continues to go through her 50 amendments. Does she think it unfortunate that the Government did not include the amendments in the original Bill, rather than tabling them on Report and not giving us enough time to debate them?

[Mrs May]

When my hon. Friend made a similar point during Home Office Questions on Monday, I said that I thought that it was always better for the Government to be able to ensure that they had covered every aspect of a Bill in the original drafting, and I am sure that that view is shared throughout the House. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech today, these are very technical issues, many of which, including some that I shall discuss later, were raised in Committee. It was appropriate for the Government to respond to the points that were raised then, and to table amendments accordingly when that proved necessary.

Amendment 44 to schedule 5 will enable registration officials to disclose information about reports of suspected shams to the Registrar General under sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as to other registration officials and the Secretary of State. That will support inter-agency work to tackle sham marriages and civil partnerships. New clause 12, which I tabled, relates to the deprivation of citizenship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman politicises a point I am trying to make about process. He knows how Opposition motions are drawn up and he knows that they do not have the same impact as legislation. The proposed legislation will have the effect of depriving citizenship. If an Opposition motion is voted on and defeated one thing will happen: there will be political noise about an issue. This is about the deprivation of someone’s citizenship. We may, ultimately, make the judgment to support the Government, but this is an important point about process that I think we need to make.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree entirely with his comments and it is unusual for the Home Secretary to be filibustering her own Bill. Where does he think the Government could have learned these tricks? Could it have been from the Blair Government?

[Mr Hanson]

I was honoured to serve for 12 years in the Blair Government and I do not think we filibustered that much.

The Home Secretary addressed some issues relating to new clause 18, but they still need to be examined in detail. For example, what definition does she have of “seriously prejudicial”? Who applies that definition? What type of person does she expect to lose citizenship? How many individuals does she expect to be impacted by this?

So late in the day was the new clause tabled that we have had to table two manuscript amendments this morning, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and me, that include the potential for discussion on judicial oversight. The Home Secretary touched on her role and responsibilities relating to judicial oversight, and we need further clarity on that. In the winding-up speech, whether delivered by the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, I would welcome a view on our amendments. Judicial oversight would give us some comfort on whether this is an appropriate measure to take, given the seriousness of removing someone’s citizenship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

There is, and we can explore that in due course, but I want to focus on the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, as the principle of removal is a reasonable one. Let us look at some of the tests that the Home Secretary talked about. I am not one to do this very often, but let me give credit to the Home Secretary: she is trying to make progress on a couple of issues in relation to existing legislation to try to improve the process of deportation. We have given our support to do that, but that process has not yet been developed, examined or evaluated. There is scope for us to look at whether what the Home Secretary has proposed is right and proper and is put into effect.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has a long history inside and outside this House of dealing with these matters, but there are still some concerns on the Opposition Benches about the measures that he is proposing, not because we do not want to deport foreign criminals, but because we want to do it in a way that maintains our integrity in relation to the convention on human rights and our integrity with our European and world colleagues. I say that because in relation to a similar amendment that he tabled to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I have seen a note that perhaps I should not have seen—

[Mr Bone]

Tell us!

[Mr Hanson]

I am going to. It is from the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), who happens to be the Prime Minister. In the note, on the hon. Member for Esher and Walton’s amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill, the Home Secretary said that the amendment

“would be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR… Nevertheless if this amendment passes both Houses of Parliament and becomes law the Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with it and make deportation orders notwithstanding other ECHR obligations. This would significantly undermine our ability to deport foreign criminals.”

There are real issues that need to be explored. The Bill restricts appeals against deportation that use the right to a family life in article 8. We have supported the Government’s efforts to do that. There are foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes whom we cannot deport and who have used article 8 inappropriately, but the new proposals have not yet been tested in the courts. We support the Government’s view that the proposals in the Bill should be implemented and that gives us grounds to have severe scepticism about supporting the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. What I am not clear on is whether the Home Secretary shares that scepticism, whether she intends to allow the new clause to go forward, or whether she intends to block, support or abstain on it. I would welcome clarification by the time the hon. Gentleman has made his points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Home Secretary for her intervention. I have the memo that I received in front of me. I will read from it so that there is no doubt and so that hon. Members can make up their minds. It states that it is clear from the case law that

“it would only be in exceptional cases that an interim measure would be granted in an A8 case.”

It goes on to say:

“I can’t say whether there has ever been a Rule 39 in a UK A8 case, but it is obviously rare.”

It goes on to say, because I was asking the question in relation to the Government’s clauses:

“we do not expect interim measures under Rule 39 to be issued routinely, if at all.”

I do not want to engage in a clash of legal opinions here, although the Attorney-General is free to intervene on me, but I say briefly in response to the Home Secretary that there is nothing in the limited case law of Strasbourg to suggest that the Bill and the new clause that I have tabled are different. One never gets such precision from the Strasbourg Court and I do not think that that is what the Home Secretary meant.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend seems to have won over one Member of the House who is not here at present, because the BBC is reporting that the Prime Minister supports his aim and has ordered his Ministers not to oppose him.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for keeping the House updated on that important development.

The key point is that it is clear from the text of the European convention—I have referred to paragraph 2 of article 8—that, under the terms expressly set down by the architects of the convention, the new clause is proportionate. It is proportionate because it applies only to serious criminals who have been imprisoned for a year or more. It therefore ought to withstand any appeal to Strasbourg.

I remind the House that we are not entirely sure how any litigation in Strasbourg on this issue would pan out, whether on the basis of the Bill or the new clause. That is partly because the 47-member-state Council of Europe, to which the Strasbourg Court is accountable, has made two recent declarations in Izmir and Brighton calling on Strasbourg in unequivocal language to meddle less in immigration cases. We therefore have every reason to believe that we will have a greater margin of appreciation in future. I pay tribute to the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for the efforts that he made when he was Justice Secretary to achieve those resolutions, which have paved the way for the new clause.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes that we are bringing forward in the Immigration Bill, which will do a number of things. They will indeed make it harder for people to be here in the United Kingdom when they have no right to be here. They will also make it easier for us to deal with people who are here illegally who I am sure everybody in the House wants to see removed from this country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On Thursday, the Immigration Bill will come back to the House on Report. The Home Secretary will be delighted that there are 30 pages of new clauses and amendments. There are 50 Government amendments, and it appears that we cannot possibly have enough time in the four hours on Thursday to debate or even read those 30 pages. Will she now tell the House that we will have an extra day for Report?

[Mrs May]

The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to start this debate on an important topic of great national interest. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with the time to debate this topic before the Christmas recess. I think that most of us here find it a pity that we cannot debate the matter on a substantive motion in the main Chamber, where we could have tested the will of the House with a vote.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend explain why that is? It was completely in the power of the Backbench Business Committee to put this debate in the Chamber, rather than the Rag, Tag and Bobtail Adjournment debate happening there at the moment.

[Nigel Mills]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. It is not for me to answer for the Backbench Business Committee; my hon. Friend has more experience of that Committee, so perhaps he can explain later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who, as usual, is speaking good sense. I was delighted to hear a shift in his position on the EU; up to now, he has been entirely against us coming out of the EU, and he has moved to being probably against us coming out. That is really good news.

[Keith Vaz]

I will definitely be on the other side from the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

[Mr Bone]

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has prejudged my position on the referendum; I want entirely to hear what our Prime Minister achieves.

I am delighted that the excellent Minister for Immigration is here. The only thing I have to say about that is that we know that the Government have decided to give that Member of Parliament the most difficult area to deal with—the one that they are in trouble on. It is good to see him here, but it is a worry that the Government are relying not on getting the problem sorted out, but on having a very able Minister defend an absolutely impossible position.

One of the cornerstones and key strengths of the coalition is its tough stance on cutting immigration, which Labour allowed to soar to eye-watering levels. In 2010, we pledged to

“take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.”

That is a common-sense policy, with overwhelming support. After a decade of Labour incompetence on the issue, it is long overdue.

The progress that we have made on cutting immigration to date is testament to the efforts of the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I strongly believe that lifting the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants would jeopardise all the good work we have done, not only on getting immigration down, but on building new homes, improving public services and lowering unemployment.

Bulgaria’s new ambassador to the UK has claimed that hardly any Bulgarians want to move to the UK once restrictions are lifted, and that, more than anything, the change will hurt their economy. If that is the case, he should welcome continued restrictions. Government figures show that although overall immigration is down, eastern European immigration is bucking the trend, and is increasing. The number of people from Romania and Bulgaria settling in the UK has risen sharply, up from 37 in 2011 to 2,177 in 2012. Clearly, if the restrictions are lifted, those figures will increase dramatically, making them completely incompatible with the Government’s aim to reduce immigration.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to interrupt him. The number that we wish to control is the number of people from outside Europe. It is true, of course, that until now, we have got the figures for migration from within Europe down as well, but there is no promise from the Government that that will continue.

[Mr Bone]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no guarantee at all. I am arguing that because of the removal of the restrictions, we will break that important promise.

It is common sense for us as a country to continue the restrictions, and the only obstacle to that is the European Union. That, however, is not an arrangement that the British people signed up to. The last time the people had a vote on the European Economic Community was in 1975. Needless to say, we now have an EU. When the EEC was in existence, it was a small group of prosperous western European countries. Now, the EU takes in poorer countries in central Europe that were formerly in the communist bloc. Old EU regulations and laws that applied to the European Economic Community have become seriously out of date; as a result, the EU is forcing on us a wave of immigration that the British public do not want and did not vote for, and that will have negative repercussions for our economy and our people.

This is the time when we need to stand up to the European Union and say, “Enough is enough.” Parliament is answerable to the British people, and therefore has sovereignty over the UK’s borders. We do not need to be told by a post-democratic body what our immigration policy is. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister stated that our country should welcome only those who came here to work hard. Relaxing the current arrangements and deregulating immigration from these two countries would do exactly the opposite.

I thoroughly welcome the Government’s Immigration Bill, and the proposals to restrict the access that immigrants have to the wealth of benefits that we offer. One such proposal is for an initial three-month period before benefits can be claimed. Migration Watch UK concludes that there are “very strong financial incentives” for Bulgarians and Romanians to move to the UK, partly due to the much higher wages and living standards in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend that EU laws are out of date, and that the income per capita is different in other countries, and that that is why people might want to move, but does he agree that rules are already in place allowing any Bulgarian or Romanian to come and gain work here? Doctors, nurses and so on can come already under the current arrangements, so my question is: who will be in the tranche of people arriving in January and February?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is right to say that Bulgarians and Romanians can come here if they satisfy the current requirements. I am absolutely in favour of continuing with that. The problem—it is a good point that he brings up, and it is one that I was moving on to—is that in Bulgaria the minimum wage is 73p an hour, and in Romania it is 79p, but in the UK the minimum wage is £6.31 for over-21s—nearly 10 times more than in Romania and Bulgaria. Bulgaria and Romania are two of the poorest members of the EU and do experience, I am afraid, levels of corruption. In 2010, gross domestic product per capita was £3,929 in Bulgaria and £4,682 in Romania, compared with Britain’s £22,426. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million people seeking work in Bulgaria and Romania.

It undoubtedly makes economic sense for individuals from these countries to migrate to the UK, regardless of whether they have the skills that we require. By lifting current restrictions, we leave ourselves wide open to a new wave of economic refugees, hoping to reap the rewards that this country has to offer. Those are pull factors that clearly cannot be addressed by reforming what benefits are available to immigrants. The UK is a fantastic place to live, and that is something to be proud of. Reforming the benefits system can only do so much; it cannot go far enough on its own when the fundamental issue is the lack of control that we appear to have over our borders.

The EU states that it has the power to control such reforms—common-sense reforms that are so badly needed to stop the abuse of public services by immigrants whom the EU is apparently forcing on this Government. There are still questions about how far the Immigration Bill can go before it is incompatible with EU law and the free movement of people. We are therefore left in a preposterous scenario in which the EU is trying to control not only who can come into this country, but what they can claim when they get here. It is an outrageous state of affairs, and we, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, need to say that we are ultimately sovereign over our own borders and the laws relating to domestic affairs.

The truth of the matter is that we do not know the extent of the upheaval that the removal of the restrictions will mean for our country, because we do not know how many people will come over. That is exactly the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester East made so powerfully. We learned that lesson from the 2004 influx of Polish immigrants. The Labour Government got it completely wrong and estimated that only 13,000 Poles would arrive; the figure turned out to be more than 100,000 a year at its peak.

Migration Watch UK has estimated that 50,000 immigrants will arrive from Romania and Bulgaria per year over the next five years. People might say, “Well, that’s Migration Watch,” but an independent think-tank, the Democracy Institute, has found to its surprise that

“the most alarming of the forecasts…is actually insufficiently alarmist.”

The institute projects that at least 70,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria will arrive in the UK annually for the next five years, if the restrictions are lifted.

A poll by the BBC—not an organisation favourable to Eurosceptics—found that 1% of Romanians and 4% of Bulgarians said that they were looking for work in the UK. That would translate into 350,000 potential jobseekers in the UK. That is wholly contrary to our policy aims of cutting immigration and protecting the UK’s interests. At a time when we are making real inroads into cutting unemployment, the impact that an influx of immigrants would have on the job market would be detrimental to those looking for work and those on low wages.

[Keith Vaz]

In a very helpful intervention, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) pointed out that of course Romanians and Bulgarians can at the moment work in this country as self-employed people, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said that he was happy with that. Does he agree that if we were able to speed up the length of time that it took them to get national insurance numbers, that would be one way of ensuring that the system works without having to change it?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. The simple answer is no. I think that we need to control our own borders. I do not think that we should be tinkering with the mechanisms; we should have complete control of what we do, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said in his concluding remarks.

A recent report on the economic effects of immigration found that those on the lowest wages feel the biggest impact of immigration, as immigration holds back the wages of the least well paid. We should be supporting those hard-working people, not eroding their wages by allowing uncontrolled immigration from countries with such vast economic differences. Moreover, although unemployment is down, youth unemployment is proving stubbornly high. With nearly 1 million under-25s still unemployed, the focus should be on helping them into jobs, not allowing into the job market an inpouring of immigrants who are looking for work.

[Mr Newmark]

Will my hon. Friend at least acknowledge that the Government’s policy, in the autumn statement, of abolishing the jobs tax for under-21s will encourage many small businesses, especially retailers, to hire young people? I go back to the question that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills): there is a skills gap at the lower end, so who will fill that skills gap if we do not have people coming in from eastern Europe to plug that hole?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. No one in this Chamber is prouder than me of what this Government are doing to lower unemployment, and of the great efforts that the Prime Minister is making, but my hon. Friend is completely wrong on the second bit of the argument. We should not be paying jobseeker’s allowance to people who have the opportunity to work, but do not want to work. That is how those jobs will be filled—not by bringing people in from central Europe. Gosh, I got quite cross about that.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government’s policy of raising personal allowances in order to incentivise our indigenous population to take lower-paid jobs and to find work provides a further incentive for immigrants to come to our country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend proves the point that the basic requirement is to regain control of our borders. We do not have to worry about all the different arrangements, but we should be able to say to people from the EU, “No, you cannot come in unless we say so.” As the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, this goes back to the fundamental issue of whether we can get that control and still remain in the European Union. If we do not take decisive action now to control who settles in the UK, the figure will only rise. If we do not continue the restrictions, more unemployed migrants without the skills that we need will arrive in this country.

Not only is unrestricted migration from Romania and Bulgaria detrimental to many of the coalition’s key values and policy, but public opposition to lifting the restrictions is overwhelming. Two of the country’s leading newspapers, The Sun and the Daily Express, which many Members in the Chamber will agree speak for the British people, regard it as essential that the restrictions remain in place. The Sun found that

“42% of Brits believe slamming the door on EU migrants is of utmost importance and another 20% say it should be a major aim”.

The newspaper went on to say that if the Prime Minister could not achieve that, we should come out of the European Union.

The Daily Express has consistently opposed our membership of the EU. Its petition demanding the continuation of restrictions attracted more than 150,000 people, all of whom went to the trouble of cutting out a little slip from the paper and posting it. Many hon. Members in the Chamber had the great pleasure of taking those slips to Downing street and delivering them to the Prime Minister. On an e-petition on the Downing street website, another 150,000 people are demanding that the restrictions be kept in place. On the last day of term, 22 Members of Parliament have come to a Westminster Hall debate, in which we cannot even divide on the matter. Even the Chief Whip is here to listen to the debate. We know that the Chief Whip and the Government really want to tackle the problem, but the issue that they are wrestling with is whether to put the EU first and stay part of the club. Do they want to avoid offending the political elite and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, or do they want to put the British people first?

I hope that later in the debate the Chief Whip will catch your eye, Ms Dorries, and stand up and say that he has a message from the Prime Minister that the restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I listened to his contribution earlier too. I was making the point that, during the past decade, huge mistakes have been made—I will discuss them shortly—but now there are measures in place to rectify that situation.

I am honoured to represent Bournemouth East, a wonderful part of Great Britain that very much reflects the national approach to running a liberal, open, free market economy. As a seaside town, we are reliant on both domestic and overseas visitors. We are served by an international airport and we have a university that is internationally recognised as one of the best in the world for digital and creative arts. We attract international businesses. JP Morgan, a US bank, and one of the biggest banks, is the largest employer in Bournemouth; our water company is run by a Malaysian company; our Yellow Buses transport company is French-owned; and, yes, the football club is owned by a Russian. Our tourism sector is huge. We are heavily reliant on overseas workers to do the jobs many British people refuse to do, because the dog’s breakfast of our benefits system has perverse incentives, resulting in people being worse off if they gain part-time employment. That left gaps in the employment market that needed to be filled.

I worry that, unless our debate on immigration is measured, rational and, of course, resolute, the unintended consequence of leaping to solutions, such as those calls we heard today to leave the EU, will damage or possibly kill off genuine international interest in inward-investment opportunities, as well as export prospects and British influence abroad. The perception will prevail—indeed, it will be promoted by other countries that are competing against us—that Britain is not open for business.

We should not forget our heritage and who we are. We are a nation with a rich history of immigration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who is sadly no longer in his place, articulated in a previous immigration debate. This island has been invaded, or settled in other forms, by Angles, Jutes and Norsemen in the dark ages, Normans, Jews and Huguenots in the middle ages, Italians and Irishmen in the 1800s and, more recently, people from the Caribbean and the Asian sector, as well. Our monarchy was, on more than one occasion, short of an obvious candidate for the top job, and we invited outsiders to fill that post, such as William and Mary of Orange, for example, or George I, Queen Anne having no surviving children. We need to be honest about our past.

We have also taken more than a shine to emigrating to all corners of the globe in the past 600 years. Britain has prospered, since the war, thanks to expanding trade links with Europe, and British and European security has improved, thanks to Britain championing the case for bringing nations that languished behind the iron curtain into NATO and the EU. We have been one of the strongest supporters of the single market. Naturally, our concerns about Bulgaria and Romania will be repeated when, in due course, Turkey, Ukraine and Bosnia hopefully enter the wider market. It is in our interests that the European market should grow, for all our citizens and businesses to have the opportunity to work in other European countries.

It is no coincidence that our attitude to being international now means that 80% of the cars that we produce are exported, 50% of them into the EU. That would not happen if we did not have the approach to internationalism that we have today.

[Mr Bone]

It is blatantly obvious that, when there is a £50 billion current account deficit with the EU, it will continue to trade with us and export. It is absurd to make any other argument.

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, I am invited to wander away from the debate about immigration, into the wider, albeit important, debate about the virtues of the EU. What would happen if we went down my hon. Friend’s route and left the EU? If he thinks for a second that the countries remaining in Europe would leave tariffs as they are or allow us to have similar tariffs to Switzerland, and so on, he is wrong. We would then be seen as the competition and France would be first to say, “Let’s make it tougher for Britain to participate or trade with us.” That is exactly what would happen.

There is a notion that we can somehow say no to the EU or park the matter to one side and look to the emerging markets. Let us take one huge example. We tried to sell the Eurofighter to India, a close Commonwealth country, but it went with the French Rafale aircraft instead. It is not so simple to say, “Let’s ignore the EU” and suddenly embrace the Commonwealth, which we anticipate would have closer relationships with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Benton, and your co-Chair, Ms Dorries, for sharing today’s proceedings. The debate has been interesting and has generated some important issues that we need to reflect on, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. In particular, I welcome the fact that today I have learned about, if nothing else, the new year’s eve and new year’s day arrangements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). In itself, that has been illuminating—that was said before you were in the Chair, Mr Benton, but they are spending new year’s day morning at Luton airport to check on the immigration status of arriving individuals and their destinations accordingly.

I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) brought the debate to the House. We had a similar debate on his new clause in the Immigration Bill in Committee on 19 November. We completed consideration in Committee on that day, but the Bill has still not returned to the House—according to today’s business statement, its return is not planned even for the first week of January. The hon. Gentleman has, however, tabled another amendment to the Immigration Bill for consideration on Report.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the new clause tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The debate on it will be an interesting one to have—in essence, it will be the same as today’s. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others who have referred to the new clause, however, that that is still primary legislation. For the measure to take effect, the Bill would have to complete its passage through the Commons and another place and, even then, as the Minister said in Committee on 19 November:

“The only way of doing so would be to negotiate a change to those treaties. Given that this would require the unanimous agreement of all member states, including Bulgaria and Romania, the Government’s judgment—which I think is the right one—is that there is no prospect of achieving it.”

[Mr Bone]

Is it right for the House to interpret therefore that Her Majesty’s official Opposition will not be supporting the new clause?

[Mr Hanson]

That is perfectly correct. The new clause is trying to unpick treaties that are the responsibility of Government to negotiate. Primary legislation would not impact on that. Even the hon. Member for Amber Valley said in Committee a little later that

“trying to get this country to breach various treaties it has signed is probably not a very sensible way of pursuing our diplomatic mission, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 401-02.]

I say that simply because the issue is important, and we need to address it, but I am not clear that the new clause or having the debate before or after Christmas would change the fundamental position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Go on!

[Mr Harper]

Tempting though I find the invitation from my hon. Friend to say more, I will just observe this: we were not, as we have discovered, blessed by the presence of any Liberal Democrats in this debate, but I note that there were only two Labour Back Benchers here—sadly, neither is here now. Interestingly, both support a referendum on our membership of the EU, and both attended the House on a Friday to support the excellent European Union (Referendum) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). The right hon. Member for Delyn is a little isolated: the only Labour Members who were here today, aside from him, are in favour of a referendum on our EU membership, want us to renegotiate that membership, and were willing to vote for that excellent Bill. Perhaps he should reflect on that and think about whether it might be more sensible for the Labour party to change its official position to support the Prime Minister when he leads that renegotiation after we win the general election with a Conservative majority Government, and then support us when we put that new position to the people.

I will say a few words on our record. We have reduced net migration. I will act as referee between my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless): net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood was right about the latest figures, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said was correct before those came out. The reduction is now nearly a third, rather than over a third. Non-European economic area migration is at its lowest level for 14 years, and is back to the level that it was at when we were last in power by ourselves. That is significant progress.

[Mr Harper]

It depends on the sort of visa applications. Some people coming to Britain do not count as immigrants, because they are not here for a long enough period of time. I will have to check the information, but my understanding is that our visa numbers suggest that the downward trend on non-EU migration will continue, based on our reforms. It is right to say—this goes to the heart of the debate—that the reason for the increase in the last set of figures was an increase in migration from the European Union, but not from eastern Europe. Interestingly, it was from the more traditional countries—the western European countries, with which there is not a massive disparity in GDP, although our economy has been rather more successful than theirs in creating jobs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley made a key point about employment. We might disagree about the solution, but his concern is well placed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made this point strongly, too. Between 2003 and 2008, when the economy was growing under the previous Government, more than 90% of employment growth was accounted for by foreign nationals. Yes, the economy was growing under Labour, but the benefit was largely going to people who were not UK citizens—not the people for whom we all work. We have made a difference. Since the Government came to power, our immigration and welfare reforms have made it more worth while for British citizens to be in work.

Our skills agenda, more rigorous education and more apprenticeships are helping to make a difference. Since the second quarter of 2010, there has been a 1.1 million net increase in employment, and more than three quarters of that rise in employment has been accounted for by UK nationals, so the employment growth that we have seen since we came to power has largely benefited UK citizens, which is a significant turnaround. It is exactly what we wanted to achieve, and it is being achieved not only by the Home Office, but by our policies on immigration, on welfare, and on apprenticeships, training and education, which are all aligned and delivering the same outcome. That is significant, and it means that hundreds of thousands of families in Britain today have somebody in employment; they would not have had somebody in employment if the policies followed by the Labour had continued. That is welcome, and it is something of which we can be proud.

We are still committed to bringing down net migration. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood referred to the Prime Minister’s remarks. Just to be clear, he was drawing attention to the difficulty of the task, particularly given the problems in some of our western and southern European neighbours’ economies. In the interview, he reasserted the importance of delivering on our policy; he was simply drawing attention to the fact that it is a little more difficult than we had first thought, because of the difficulty in the European economies, but we are absolutely still committed to the policy.

It is worth putting the numbers in context. It is still the case with our reforms that, even having driven down migration from outside the European Union, 48% of immigration to Britain is from outside the EU, compared to 36% from the EU; the remainder are British citizens who have been overseas for more than a year and are returning to the United Kingdom. We should remember that many British citizens go to other European countries. According to the 2010 figures, there were 2.2 million EU nationals in the UK and 1.4 million Brits in EU countries. Interestingly, only five European Union countries have more than 100,000 citizens in the United Kingdom, and it is not the ones people might think: France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Poland. In the case of Ireland, there are historical reasons not connected to the EU. Poland is the only non-traditional country that has a significant number, which is 500,000.

If we balance the figures with the countries in which our citizens live, there are only two European Union countries where the net number of EU citizens in the United Kingdom is more than 100,000. There are 145,000 more Germans living in Britain than vice versa, and Poland has a significant number—519,000 more. Of course, Spain is the opposite way round: there are 750,000 more Brits living in Spain. It is worth putting that in context, so that we can have the rational, sensible debate that the right hon. Member for Delyn talked about.

Turning to the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, and to his new clause to the Immigration Bill, it is worth remembering—I agree with the right hon. Member for Delyn on this point—that for that Bill to take effect, it has to go through our House and the other place. Whether we had debated the new clause this side of Christmas or the other side of Christmas, it would have made no difference, because the measure cannot become law until the Bill progresses through Parliament, and that is not likely to happen until towards the end of this Session. As the Leader of the House has said, the legislative agenda is quite packed. Only yesterday, five or six Acts of Parliament got Royal Assent, and—this is rather above my pay grade, so I have to be very careful, because the usual channels are in the room—the business will be scheduled in due course, but it will not make a difference to when the measure becomes law.

I fear that the right hon. Member for Delyn is right: the previous Government signed the accession treaties and we supported them. Of course I am not pretending that we did not support them. The treaty came into effect in 2007, and the seven-year transitional controls expire at the end of the year. It is worth being careful about language. We are not lifting them; they expire. They cease to have any legal effect, because of the terms of the accession treaties. I am not doing anything to lift them; they simply become legally ineffective at the end of the year, because of the provisions.

[Mr Bone]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am trying to cover the points made in the debate. I have listened to the debate, and I only have three and a half minutes to try to cover the other points that people have raised.

Unlike the previous Government, who chose not to apply controls, we have extended them to the maximum length possible, so I feel that the strategy of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley is not going to work. Although it is perfectly reasonable for colleagues to have concerns, I hope that they will have seen—of course, I knew these things were in the pipeline when we debated them in Committee, which, obviously, my hon. Friend did not—the order that I signed a couple of weeks ago, which puts in place tough rules about limiting jobseeker’s allowance to six months. It puts in place the controls that I talked about in response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

We will be able to remove, and stop returning to Britain, people who are here not exercising their treaty rights—who are here begging, rough sleeping and engaged in criminality. If Members look at some of those tough changes, they will see that they address things that our constituents are concerned about, so I urge Members who have signed the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, and those who have not done so, to look at the changes that we have brought forward. I think that they will see that they address many of their concerns.

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have laid out their thinking about the discussions we need to have on the new accession countries and free movement generally. We can have that negotiation only when there is a new Government. We are constrained by the coalition with our Liberal Democrat colleagues. The renegotiation strategy is not the current Government’s policy, but it is the Conservative party’s policy, which we will put before the people at the election.

The final point is that we should remember that the transitional controls are about employment. A significant number of people—102,000 Romanians and 53,000 Bulgarians—are already here, according to the Office for National Statistics. They are working, or are self-employed, self-sufficient or studying. They are already in Britain. As one or two hon. Members suggested, some people already here might not entirely be doing what they purport to be doing. They might be working. We might find that they regularise their status in the new year. The point is that the controls are about whether people can work, not whether they can come to Britain. People can come to Britain for three months, but they can stay only if they are exercising treaty rights. We have given ourselves the power to remove people if they are here not exercising treaty rights—not working, studying or being self-sufficient—and we can stop them coming back to the UK to cause damage.

We want people who come here to work, contribute and pay taxes. The legislative changes that we will make with the Immigration Bill, and that we have made in secondary legislation, address the concerns. I urge hon. Members to study the changes. If they do so, they will be reassured that the Government are taking the tough action that our constituents want. We have a good story to tell our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise the issue that the hon. Lady has raised. If recruitment agencies were attempting to recruit only from certain countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, that would be discriminatory and against the law. The Minister for Immigration is taking that matter up with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the relevant enforcement body.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The only way for the Home Secretary to deal with the problem of thousands of people coming to this country from Romania and Bulgaria is to extend the transitional arrangements, and it would be perfectly legal for her to do so. My private Member’s Bill, which has its Second Reading this Friday, would do exactly that, and by the end of a five-year extension, the referendum would have taken place. I urge my right hon. Friend to be here on Friday if she can, and to support my Bill.

[Mrs May]

I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that when he sees me here on Friday, it might have something to do with another private Members’ Bill that is being debated on that day. It is an important Bill that will put in place the legislation on the EU referendum, which we are clear that we should have.

Psychoactive Substances

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I am going to move on because I do not want to get sidetracked into a debate on khat as that is not the purpose of this debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask his Ministers about their position as they are part of the Government who are not using—[Interruption.] Well, I have made my position clear. He should look to his own Ministers. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it all ways—I know they try, but perhaps on this they should look to their Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office.

It would be helpful if the Minister set out clearly his position on classification. EU co-operation on drugs is not new, but previously the agreement was that drugs, as recognised by the UN agreement on narcotics, needed to be controlled and the trafficking of drugs tackled. The proposals we are discussing go far further than that. Drugs that would be deemed low risk will not be restricted; those deemed a moderate risk will be prohibited from the consumer market; and the most dangerous drugs will be prohibited altogether, with a possible exception for medical use. I should make it clear that the Opposition do not want to cede powers on drug classification to the EU, and I press the Minister on the Government’s legal advice on how the adoption of the directive could affect the UK Government’s position. The Home Office explanatory memorandum states:

“we do not consider that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality. In particular, the effect of Article 4 of the draft Regulation fetters the UK from adopting more stringent measures to control NPS. In our view, it is vital for the UK, guided as necessary by EU expertise in NPS but not bound by it, to have the final say when deciding whether to exceed any minimum standards mandated by the EU.”

Although the Opposition concur generally with that, it would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what the Government mean by “fetters”. Do the Government believe that article 4 would prevent them from placing strong prohibitions on a substance?

When we turn to articles 3 and 4, we see that the Commission has placed a strong emphasis on free trade, as I have said. Article 3, on free movement, states:

“New psychoactive substances and mixtures shall move freely in the Union for commercial and industrial use”.

Article 4, on the prevention of barriers to free movement, states that, in so far as

“the Union has not adopted measures to subject a new psychoactive substance to market restriction under this Regulation, Member States may adopt…regulations”.

Is it the Government’s view that member states could impose restrictions only before the EU has classified a drug? Would the Commission classifying a drug as low risk, and therefore not restricting sale in any way, count as having adopted a measure, therefore precluding further action from member states? For its part, the Commission thinks not—it argues that in its impact assessment.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes a detailed and powerful argument. I am gathering that she supports generally what the Government are doing. Many Government Members would like to know that the Opposition will not vote against the motion tonight.

[Diana Johnson]

I have a few more pages of notes, and then all will be revealed. The hon. Gentleman will have picked up that the Opposition have a number of questions on whether the proposal would be helpful in dealing with the problem of legal highs.

The impact assessment states:

“Member States would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measure in…respect of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, and to go further than what is foreseen by EU measures in full respect of the provisions of Article 114”.

Will the Minister respond to that explanation on that point?

One point made strongly by the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place was that national states are more competent than the EU to make decisions because specific factors might influence the dangers of each drug in different national contexts. The Opposition agree with that assessment. One particular issue is what substances are mixed with—one psychoactive substance could form part of a compound street drug that is far more dangerous. That is a problem for the UK, which, as I have said, has Europe’s largest legal highs market. That draws attention to a failing of the Government’s response to legal highs—the failure to address the emergence of regional drugs, meaning drugs going under a generic street name, but often containing a variety of different substances that become popular in a certain region. Sadly, we have seen repeatedly over a number of years that batches of such drugs can contain a dangerous substance, often with lethal consequences.

Because the Opposition believe that member states are best placed to determine the level of harm posed by a new psychoactive substance, we do not believe that the proposal from the EU Commission is either necessary or proportionate. Therefore, we agree with the reasoned opinion put by the European Scrutiny Committee and supported by the Government. However, even if the House and the other place were to reject the Commission’s proposals—the other place has, I believe, already rejected the proposals—it should not be taken as an excuse by this Eurosceptic Government to opt out of EU co-operation on investigating and assessing new psychoactive substances. The Opposition see a clear need for EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory to research new substances without giving it the power to classify substances.

Currently, hundreds of new substances arrive on the UK market. The Government’s temporary banning orders have been used on only three occasions. I therefore dispute what the Minister has said about taking swift action. There are two reasons for this: a failure by Ministers to refer substances to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the capabilities of the advisory council. It has said that it can assess only two or three substances a year. It is clear that it will never be able to keep up with the number of new drugs on the market, so the UK Drug Policy Commission and others called for a joint EU-wide laboratory to provide advice and information to relevant authorities. We support that. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has long produced lists of new substances that have always been far ahead of the Home Office’s forensic early warning system. I have repeatedly asked Ministers why substances that are identified by the EMCDDA as being on sale in the UK are not automatically added to the forensic early warning system. This goes back to the Minister’s intervention on the numbers. The EMCDDA numbers are far higher than the Home Office numbers, and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the Minister will finally be able to explain why there is such a disparity between the two lists.

In conclusion, the Opposition are in agreement with both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EU Commission proposal is neither necessary nor desirable. We would like the Government to be more precise about the consequences of adopting the directive on the UK’s current system of drug regulation. We do not want the Government to use tonight’s debate as an excuse to avoid greater EU co-operation to assess the dangers posed by legal highs, particularly to our young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

New clause 2 stated:

“It is an offence for a person to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance, including but not restricted to…a powder…a pill…a liquid; or…a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be so acting, that the substance is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication.”

That would make it illegal to sell coffee. It is perfectly possible to be intoxicated by caffeine, which is an addictive substance. The hon. Lady is right to say that the new clause deals only with the supply of substances, but, although some of us may have concerns about Starbucks paying taxes or otherwise, I think that making the company illegal would be going too far.

Roughly one in five of the notified new psychoactive substances are used for legitimate purposes in industry or research, or as active substances in medicines. We must be extremely careful about how we proceed, because a global ban would give rise to all sorts of problems.

We have touched on the Home Secretary’s decision to ban khat. She has tabled a statutory instrument to do so. That was her decision; it was not a jointly signed off one, and I was very disappointed by it.

I was also very disappointed and surprised that the shadow Minister had no idea what her own policy was. [Interruption.] If she would like to say what it is, I will be happy to take an intervention. Apparently, she does not wish to do so.

The Government have twice asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs what to do about khat. This is a classic example of a legal high that exists and would be covered by this provision, and where we have to work out what to do. The ACMD said that

“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”

It also said that

“the evidence shows that khat has no direct causal links to adverse medical effects”.

It went on to say there is no robust evidence of a causal link between khat consumption and any of the social harms indicated, and no evidence of it being connected with organised criminal behaviour.

[Mr Bone]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what his definition of “brief” is?

[Dr Huppert]

I suspect I will be one of the briefest speakers in this debate, not counting interventions. That will have to do as a working definition, and I have almost concluded.

Not only is it clear from the evidence that banning khat will be harmful and will not solve the problem, but it would also cost this country £12.8 million a year in the loss of the VAT that is currently being paid on the legal import of khat, with a total cost of £150 million, according to the Government’s own estimates. This is an example of a legal high that the Home Secretary is proposing to ban, and I intend to vote against that when we have the opportunity to do so, and it would be fantastic if the Labour party decided to join us. That example shows why this is such a hard issue.

I agree with the Minister that we should make it clear to the EU that we should make our own decisions, but it is also important that those decisions are the right ones.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Obviously, there are a number of operational issues that will be looked at when we review this case, but I am not really sure what question the hon. Gentleman was asking; I do not think there was a question at all.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In August 2011 the Home Secretary told Parliament in an oral statement that she was going to change the law relating to face coverings. If that had happened—or, indeed, if the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) banning face coverings in public had been introduced—she would not have had to come to the House today. Has she changed her mind on that policy?

[Mrs May]

We did indeed consult on the issue of face coverings, but that was about not the wearing of the burqa but the powers available to the police in circumstances such as mass demonstrations and riots where people are covering their faces, and whether the police needed any further powers. The police were clear that the powers available to them were sufficient for them to be able to deal with such circumstances in future, which is why we did not bring forward any legislation on that matter.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recall the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday when I made the statement about Abu Qatada’s deportation. I also recall that I said it was most unusual for the Home Office to receive such praise, and that I assumed normal service would be resumed quickly, as indeed it has been. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee. There will be an opportunity to debate this issue next week, and a further opportunity for the House to consider the measures we seek to rejoin. All Select Committees of this House have known the list of measures that the Government have been considering, and they have had the opportunity to look at them and give an opinion.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House and making this statement, and for taking on board the views of the all-party group on human trafficking about the requirement to have joint investigation teams, and for highlighting Operation Golf in her statement. I am struggling with the rush to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) just referred. Will we have a first bite of the cherry next week with a debate, and then consider individual measures later after the Select Committees have reported? If not, I am not entirely sure—it appears that the Executive are bouncing Parliament.

[Mrs May]

I apologise; I referred to this in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. The reason for coming forward now is that we are able to start formal negotiation with the European Commission and other member states on those measures we seek to rejoin. Had we not been doing that, we would have significantly reduced our ability in time terms to hold those negotiations with the European Commission.

Undercover Policing

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the approach that she has taken to this very serious issue. We all agree across this House that these allegations are appalling and need to be looked into properly.

The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the independence and timeliness of any investigation, the proper form of the investigation, and bringing people to justice. She asked specifically whether the allegations that have been revealed in relation to the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family would be investigated under Operation Herne, by Mark Ellison, or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. Operation Herne was originally set up by the Metropolitan police, but it is now being led by Chief Constable Creedon. Although Met officers are still involved in that investigation, Chief Constable Creedon has also brought into it officers from his own force and elsewhere. The investigation by Chief Constable Creedon will look specifically at the tasking of officers in the SDS. That was part of the operation’s original remit. It is one of the issues that was raised by Peter Francis in the interview that he gave to the programme that will be shown tonight.

On Mark Ellison’s review, the right hon. Lady asked whether the Macpherson inquiry was misled. Another specific part of the remit of Mark Ellison’s review is that he looks into whether all the evidence that was necessary to be given to the Macpherson inquiry was indeed given to it. Obviously, the fact that Peter Francis has suggested that he and others were told not to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry is a matter of particular concern, but that will be investigated by Mark Ellison. Having spoken to Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon this morning, I am clear that they are working together; there has been a degree of interaction between the two. They are working to ensure that nothing falls between the two stools of the review and the investigation.

It is right that investigations into whether there has been misconduct or criminality are the remit of a police investigation—the Creedon investigation—with reference to the IPCC, as has been the case today, with the Met referring these allegations to the IPCC. There must be a proper pursuit of justice so that people can be charged with criminal offences or so that appropriate action can be taken for misconduct.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of police officers in this country will be as horrified as the rest of the country at these allegations? Does she believe that a similar thing could occur now?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about police officers. It should be said in this House that the vast majority of police officers in this country are honest and act with integrity to keep the public safe, reduce crime and catch criminals. They will be as concerned as we are by the allegations that have appeared in the media over the past 24 hours.

On whether something similar could happen today, the special demonstration squad was disbanded more than a decade ago after operating for about 40 years. Since it was disbanded, there have been a number of changes to the way in which undercover and covert operations are undertaken. We are determined to look constantly at whether further changes are needed to enhance the oversight of undercover operations and the procedures under which such operations take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made the announcement last week about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

Abu Qatada

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

In relation to the deportation of Abu Qatada, we are pursuing the twin track that I set out to the House. As I said, an important step has been taken with the signing of the wider-ranging mutual legal assistance agreement, but we retain the intention to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and we are seeking leave to do so. We are developing that twin track. The relationship between the Human Rights Act, the European Court and the European convention and the views of the UK and the Government is a wider issue and it is right that we look at all the options.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for yet again coming to the House to keep us informed. Further to the question of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), surely the Secretary of State should be following a third way by giving notice to the Council of Europe that we intend to come out of the convention in six months’ time, meaning that we would be able to withdraw and act legally by deporting Abu Qatada. We would then have six months to see whether the other process that she outlined will work. Does she not think that it would be a good idea to give that notice to the Council of Europe today?

[Mrs May]

I think it is right that the Government pursue the twin-track path that I have set out. I never thought that I would see the day when my hon. Friend would stand in the House of Commons proposing that we adopt a middle way.