Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can tell the hon. Lady that our £96 billion integrated rail plan will make Northern Powerhouse Rail a reality. We are committed to the project; the precise details will be set out in due course.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

If migrants who crossed the channel from France illegally were immediately returned to France, it would stop illegal migration to this country, break the economic model of the people smugglers and, perhaps more importantly, stop thousands of people descending on northern French cities, which would benefit the French. When the Prime Minister spoke to the French President, was a returns policy discussed? If so, what was the President’s response?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I cannot tell him the precise read-out from the meeting—I have not seen it yet—but I can tell him that the Home Secretary’s deal and agreement with her French opposite number means a 40% increase in officers patrolling beaches in northern France; UK officers embedded with their French counterparts for the first time; investment in port security infrastructure; more technology; and more wider European co-operation. We have taken all those measures in the teeth of the opposition from the Labour Front Bench, who have opposed every single measure that we have taken to stop illegal immigration, including things where I would have thought there would be cross-party consensus, such as life sentences for traffickers who play on human misery.

Bill of Rights

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Lady in what she said about the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I extend my sympathy and my condolences to him.

I listened very carefully to what the shadow Justice Minister said. I think I disagreed with everything she said, but then again, she said very little about our Bill of Rights. When she gets a chance to read it, I look forward to debating it with her further. May I just correct a couple of the obviously flawed things she said? She talked about whether or not we will leave the European convention on human rights. When she gets a chance to read the Bill of Rights, she will see that not only are we staying a part of the ECHR, but that it is incorporated in the Bill of Rights. I have to say that the comparison with what Russia or Putin does shows, I am afraid, a lack of a moral compass on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches.

The hon. Lady then diverted into a monologue on a very serious subject in relation to rape. Let us be absolutely crystal clear: there is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights that will do anything to weaken the protections of victims; far from it in relation to the deportation of foreign national criminals, the release of dangerous rapists, and what we do inside our prisons. It will strengthen our protection of victims and public protection. Again, for the record, on such a serious issue—I agree with the hon. Lady on its importance—she might get her facts straight. The volume of rape convictions has increased by two thirds in the last year alone. I am working very closely with the Home Secretary, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and we are absolutely determined and restless to go even further and faster.

I suspect, however, that that was really a distraction from the fundamental issue, which is the Bill of Rights and human rights reform to get the right balance. The hon. Lady and the Labour party are blind to the flaws in the Human Rights Act in the way that its architects are not. Jack Straw said back in 2007 that he wanted to rebalance the rights set out in the Act, adding explicitly that responsibilities should play a role. They are all in here in our Bill of Rights. He went on to say, in an interview in December 2008, that

“There is a sense that it’s a villains’ charter”.

Mr Speaker, I have not used that language, but I will just say how far the sense of critical self-evaluation on the Labour Benches has gone when the hon. Lady cannot talk about anything that could possibly be reformed.

The model we have taken is based on a textbook that I read back in 1999, written by a very learned authority. He said, on the relationship between the UK and Strasbourg—the hon. Lady mentioned that, not with any specific points—that the role of the Strasbourg Court is

“primarily concerned with supervision and its role is therefore subsidiary to that of domestic authorities”.

Subsidiary, not superior. It has no role unless the domestic system for protecting human rights breaks down altogether. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asks from a sedentary position who the author is. It was the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his seminal textbook on the subject. All I would gently say is that I think he made a more convincing lawyer than he does a politician.

This week we have seen Labour shadow Ministers line up with picketers against the public. Today, the shadow Justice Minister has confirmed that the Labour party will stand in the way of our common-sense reforms that will ensure a better balance of human rights, so that we can stand up for victims—it is always against that when it comes to sentencing or extra police recruitment—deport more foreign national offenders and safely incarcerate the most dangerous people in our prisons. Whenever Labour Members are asked the big questions, they duck. Yet again, the Labour party is showing it is simply not fit to govern.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Thank you for your statement earlier, Mr Speaker. I think the vast majority of Members of this House agree entirely.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. The issue is really very simple: this sovereign Parliament makes laws and our courts interpret them. We should not have the judicial creep of a European Court not interpreting laws, but making new laws. I am willing to support the Bill, but if in practice it fails, will the Secretary of State be willing to support my private Member’s Bill, the British Bill of Rights and Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights Bill?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his tenacity in all these matters. I always listen to him, and I will study his private Member’s Bill. He makes two points. First, there is really no point in having a Supreme Court if it is subordinate to Strasbourg in the interpretation of law. He must be right about that, and our Bill of Rights will expressly address it.

My hon. Friend’s other point is more subtle, but very powerful. I remember our jointly participating in many debates on prisoners’ voting rights, a very clear example of the goalposts shifting. When it comes to legislative functions, it ought to be a point of common agreement across the parties that those matters must be for hon. Members, who are accountable to our constituents, to decide in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I share my hon. Friend’s total disgust at what we have learned about those hospitals in Kent, and, indeed, in relation to the David Fuller case more broadly. Although I have already said this, as has, I think, the Health and Social Care Secretary, I am very happy to repeat that I am willing to look at those sentences again. Incidents of this kind of event are rare, but they are abhorrent and the sentence must match the level of outrage, the trauma and the renewed trauma that it will put the victims’ families through.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Women and girls who are victims of human trafficking suffer extreme violence, yet, last year, there were only 91 prosecutions and 13 convictions for specific modern slavery offences. However, there is some good news: the charity Justice and Care has been working with the Government to provide victim navigators to help in prosecuting these evil gangs. In nine out of 10 instances where the victim navigator is involved, we get the evidence to prosecute. Will the Government look at extending their support for that charity?

[Dominic Raab]

I am very happy to look at that. We have a record-breaking amount from the spending review, certainly the largest in the past 10 years, for justice issues, and I will be looking very carefully at the support that we can provide for victims. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the charity in question, and it dovetails with what I have already mentioned to the House about the independent sexual violence advisers. We know that, if the victims who have gone through these awful crimes get the support they need, they are less likely to fall out of the justice system. That is one of the important ways that we will secure more prosecutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, Turkey is a close NATO ally, but that has never stopped us from raising human rights across the whole range. We will obviously continue to do so as a part of our partnership.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

The Prime Minister set this Thursday as the deadline for achieving a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. Foreign Secretary, what is the likelihood that on Thursday evening you will be popping champagne corks?

[Dominic Raab]

We have a European Council this week. The scope and the prospects for a deal are there. I am hopeful that we can close the gap, but ultimately it will require the same good will, the same pragmatism and the same flexibility on the EU side that the United Kingdom and this Prime Minister have shown.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman but, as I made clear in my earlier answer, we want to make sure we provide support to those who need it most. I would respectfully suggest that a universal approach, uniform and without reference to need, income or the most vulnerable in our society, is not the way to achieve it. Our plan is one of the most extensive in the world. It makes sure that workers receive 80% of their salary up to £2,500. We have already extended that to June.

We have made other forms of support available for those who do not qualify; the right hon. Gentleman talked about the self-employed and others who may not fall within the criteria of the scheme. I have made it clear that the increases to universal credit and the working tax credit basic rate, the mortgage holidays and the energy bill deferrals are the way to have a focused approach that targets resources at those who need them most and allows our economy as a whole to pull through this coronavirus.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

At this time of national emergency, many people are being forced to use their bank overdrafts, yet the banks are charging 20% interest per year, which they are going to increase to 40% in July. At the same time, they are offering savers a pathetic interest rate of 0.1%. Yet these are the same banks that were saved by billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. What on earth is going on? When are the banks going to act in the national interest? Acting—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is at risk of sounding like he is all mouth and no trousers, because he had the chance to vote for a general election and he turned it down; he had the chance to avoid no deal; and the best chance now is to back this Government in securing a good deal—good for the United Kingdom and good for all quarters of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Q7. On Saturday, I was out knocking on doors with my listening team, listening to the views of local people, as we do every week. The message to me, whether they were leave or remain voters, was crystal clear: get Brexit done by 31 October. Deputy Prime Minister, can you reassure my constituents that we will leave the European Union by the end of this month, come what may, no ifs, no buts?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend gets straight to the crux of the matter. We must leave by the end of October, come what may. We are committed to doing that. The most effective way of doing it that will unite this House and bring the country back together is to get behind the Prime Minister’s efforts to secure a good deal. I think it is incumbent on all Members on both sides of the House to support the United Kingdom rather than try to undermine the negotiating position in Brussels.

Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I have not commissioned any specific, bespoke legal advice on the point the hon. Gentleman raises, but we have been informed right the way through about the implications. Section 13 of the withdrawal Act was informed by legal advice not just from Government lawyers, but from all the lawyers across the House. It was scrutinised very carefully and at length in Committee, and it will give effect to what the House voted through in the Act.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As I understand it, all votes in this House are meaningful—that is my first point. My second point is that the Act states that the House will vote on whether or not the withdrawal agreement should stand. I might be voting against that agreement, but it will be the meaningful vote. Amendments would then follow, if that motion was lost.

[Dominic Raab]

Subsections (4) to (6) of section 13 set out the process, which includes the Government coming back to Parliament in a no deal scenario—it is all set out very clearly in the legislation and amplified in the memorandum that we have provided to the Committee.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important to ensure that Brexit works for all parts of the United Kingdom. We continue to engage with all the devolved Administrations on all the devolved issues, including in Scotland, as I set out in my statement, in relation to Scottish and Welsh Ministers and officials from the Northern Ireland secretariat. We want to make sure that we continue to engage in the process that he has described and ensure this great opportunity for the people of Scotland.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the excellent Secretary of State for coming to the House to make this statement. Obviously he would like to get a Chequers deal, but as the European Union has already rejected that—in some ways insulting the Prime Minister in the process, I have to say—and as he thinks that coming out without a deal is sub-optimal, should we not learn from a former great Labour Prime Minister about a third way? Labour Members didn’t cheer that point; I do not know why. If Chequers fails, is not Chequers-plus-plus-plus the way forward?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend knows that we have made it clear that we will listen to the other side, but we need to understand their objections. We are not going to just take the face-value, “computer says no” approach, when we have put in a huge amount of effort and looked at our proposals in a very innovative way. We will therefore continue to press our case to make sure that we get a good deal, but I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me that, whatever the view on no deal, it would be a far better outcome for this country if we can secure a good deal, and that is what we are aiming for.

Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I think that most of it is already in the public domain, but I will entertain any reasonable request that we receive from our EU partners in a constructive way. The hon. Lady should be under no illusions about the fact that Michel Barnier is seeking to make the case for regulatory checks along the Irish sea. We have made it very clear that we would need to be very careful about that, and that we will not countenance any customs border down the Irish sea.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This morning the Secretary of State’s permanent secretary was before the DExEU Committee. He was affable, fluent and spoke at great length, and, with panache, he did not answer any of the questions whatsoever. So can we try this on the Secretary of State? I recognise that he wants to do a deal with the EU, but there must be a moment in time when a decision has to be made that that cannot be achieved. Will he tell us what the date will be? Will it be October or November? It clearly cannot be 28 March.

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sounds like my permanent secretary was doing a rather good job earlier today, so I will go immediately back to the Department and praise him to the rooftops. On the timing, we need to aim for the October Council; there is a measure of leeway and we need to be mindful of the Brussels process and that there is some slippage, but I think we should be aiming for the October Council.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I do not think that I have ever said that this is an increasing risk, but it is certainly a real risk. As the time for the deal approaches, the only responsible thing for us to do is to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. Without going into some of the more hair-raising examples that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted, I think it is right to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities by having the logistical infrastructure and legislation in place. I hope that we will have his support.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity to give us the chance to scrutinise the White Paper. I have not had a chance to read it myself, so will he confirm that the Prime Minister’s principles of ending the free movement of people, of not giving billions of pounds each and every year to the EU, and of making our own laws in our own country, judged by our own judges, are not broken by the White Paper?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to get back to the key overarching objectives. I believe that, with this White Paper and the previous one, the full strategy can be seen in the round. Yes, we have had to take a pragmatic as well as a principled approach, but it is faithful to the referendum in the three key areas that he describes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

No, because we are not in the position of Iceland. We start from the position of the European arrest warrant, with strong, intensive co-operation on extradition, and we will make sure we continue that operationally for many years to come.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one reason people voted to leave the European Union was to make the Supreme Court the supreme court?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us also not forget the advice of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, who made it clear in his evidence to the independent review of extradition that there were problems with the European arrest warrant. We have legislated for extra safeguards. We are ending the jurisdiction of the European Court, but there has been no suggestion that we are dispensing altogether with vital EU extradition—except, perhaps, as a figment of some of the furtive Liberal Democrats’ imaginations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Government’s policy of bringing in a British Bill of Rights will, I am sure, be welcomed across the House. Will the Minister confirm that rather than rushing through the proposal, we should get it right and bring it forward when everyone has had their say and it can stand the test of time?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We make no apology for thinking through tricky constitutional issues. If only the last Labour Government had done the same—but we were saddled with the Human Rights Act 1998. Tony Blair claimed that he had secured an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, only to find that it leaked like a sieve. It may take a little longer to clear up the constitutional mess, but that is what we intend to do.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who makes a valid point that I will come on to address. There is certainly an element of truth in what he describes.

I want to pay tribute to the changes that the Government have made. I recognise that some additional checks have been introduced. However, as Fair Trials International—we should bear in mind that it has handled these cases—and, today, Liberty have made clear, those checks are wholly and woefully inadequate to stop the flow of injustices. The proportionality test is too skewed in favour of extradition; the safeguard to prevent “hit and hope” warrants is too flimsy; there is nothing to deal with mistaken identity; and, perversely, appeal rights were weakened, not strengthened. We never got a chance to scrutinise those measures on the Floor of the House, because they were slipped through in Committee. That is a shame, because I, and colleagues, would have wanted to be able to try to strengthen the safeguards. It should have been debated on the Floor of the House on Report. I twice tried to table amendments, but we were given no time.

It is crystal clear from the rising volume of EAWs that Britain receives that we will have more problems ahead. This year the number of EAWs we received reached almost 8,000—a record number. With this broad net, it is almost inevitable that more and more innocent Britons will face rough justice and be caught within it, and, as a result, be subject to Kafkaesque courts and gruesome prison conditions.

I do not think that the checks are inadequate: I know that they are, because since July, when they came into force, I have been contacted directly by another victim, Keith Hainsworth, a 64-year-old tutor of ancient Greek. In July, with his wife, he visited the Peloponnese region of Greece, where they pottered around ruins and old churches, at the time of a local forest fire. The couple’s hire car was spotted in the vicinity—by a well-known local mischief-maker, as it subsequently turned out when they got to court—and on the strength of that alone, out of the blue, he was arrested in October in France under an EAW on his way back from a weekend away in Paris. He was apprehended by British customs officials who took his passport. He was denied basic rights. He spent a month under house arrest in France. He was surrendered to the Greeks to be held in awful conditions for 30 hours. He was charged for a bottle of water. That is what you get as a Brit abroad in some of these jails. When he finally faced a Greek judge, the court was in almost comic disarray at the farce that had come before it and dropped the case immediately, but not without Keith Hainsworth and his family having been traumatised and subjected to a legal bill of £40,000. Let us ask ourselves how many of our constituents could afford to pay that. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone, and nothing in the new legislation will stop it.

I want to pick up on a point made by the former Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place. Ministers have been very candid in saying that there has been no renegotiation of the EU framework decision because there is no renegotiation to be had. It is clear that there is no possibility of revising the framework decision. I might take a different view if there were, but that is not on the cards. That tells us that we have a stark choice: either we opt out and negotiate a bespoke extradition treaty with the EU, as one member not 27, that allows streamlined extradition—no one wants to go back to the bureaucracy of the past—but with proper safeguards, or, mark my words, we will continue to hang our constituents and British citizens out to dry. The Home Secretary made it very clear today that there is a legal basis on which to do that; the issue is political will, on our side and on the EU side.

We have heard a string of scare stories about the operational cliff edge that police would face if we opt out, but no one is suggesting that we opt out and do nothing. That is not a serious suggestion by anyone in this House, so we do not need to dwell on it for too long. If someone wants to intervene on me, I would be happy to take a question on that. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be suggested that Britain would somehow become a safe haven for the worst criminals if we are outside the EAW, when that is precisely why all our EU partners have a strong mutual interest in agreeing a new extradition relationship, as long as we had made our position clear.

This debate is not just about extradition; it is about something far bigger. Everyone wants strong operational co-operation with our EU partners, but we are a global nation and we should be able to do that, as we do with many partners from around the world, without sacrificing democratic control. Why is it only with our EU partners that giving up democratic control, whether to the ECJ or to harmonise laws, is the strict red-line condition on co-operation, when it is not such a condition with the Australians, the Canadians or the Americans?

The long-term direction of travel is very clear, as Viviane Reding set out in a speech for the Commission last year.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. When the three Front Benches agree on a law, is it not normally a bad one?

[Mr Raab]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but it does not matter how many people agree—or how many law enforcement people stand up and do the bidding of whoever—because our job is to scrutinise the proposals. I must tell him that very few people who support opting in have given me examples of victims to whom they have spoken. When I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I spoke to a range of victims, and others now approach me regularly. What has been lost in this debate is not only their voice, which is why it is so important that we are having the debate, but the systemic nature of the problems.

In the time available, I want briefly to make it clear that the direction of travel is very obvious. The Commission makes no secret of the fact that we are heading towards a pan-European code and an EU public prosecutor, with the ECJ presiding and ultimate accountability being to an EU Justice Minister. We see such stepping stones being paved in the package of measures that we are opting in to. We see it with the new EU public prosecutor, and Jonathan Fisher QC has made it clear that our opt-out from it is in tatters and is already ineffective. If we do not take this opportunity to step back, when will we get a better moment to renegotiate our relationship in this vital area?

Immigration Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Dominic Raab

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.