Public Order

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The answer is very simple: we are the ones getting on and doing the job, and I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to our amazing police officers for their courage and their bravery in keeping us all safe. On far right activity, does she agree with the words of the head of the Metropolitan police anti-terror unit, who says that the far right is the “fastest-growing terrorist threat” facing our country, and if she does, what specific steps are we taking to challenge that threat?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the issue of far right terror. This has evolved in recent years —that is a complete fact—and we have seen all sorts of terror attacks in the UK carried out specifically by lone actors associated with this dreadful, hateful and corrosive ideology. Various activities are taking place, much of which is being worked on through agencies that work with the Home Office; significant investments have been put in place by the Home Office, but also with our agencies. I would be more than happy to provide further details to my hon. Friend, because this is a growing trend, and that is exactly why we have been investing very heavily in this area.

Draft Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020.

As always, Ms Buck, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This order removes the prohibition on recording Crown court proceedings to enable judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown court to be recorded and broadcast. Currently, the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings is prohibited unless, with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, an order is made specifying the circumstances in which those prohibitions can be lifted. That has already been done to allow live streaming from the Supreme Court since 2009, and in the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal.

The order before us extends the exemption from the prohibition—the circumstances under which court proceedings can be filmed—to include the sentencing remarks delivered by a High Court judge or senior circuit judge delivering criminal sentences in the Crown court. Recordings will only be made by broadcasters who have been granted permission in writing by the Lord Chancellor. Media parties have been working in the Court of Appeal since 2013, and we will be taking this next step forward with those experienced broadcasters.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

For many years before I entered Parliament, I prosecuted and defended cases in the magistrates court, Crown court and Court of Appeal. The public want transparency and accountability. Under the current system, not all the remarks are taken into account when a sentence is passed, so people cannot know the mitigating or aggravating features that the judge has taken into account. It is unfair on the judiciary for them to be labelled in the media as having simply given “x” sentence. The order will ensure that it is possible to make clear to the public the full circumstances considered by the judge, to ensure that there is full confidence in our great judiciary and our legal system.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, based on his many years of experience. By broadcasting the full sentencing remarks, we can make sure that sentences are fully understood by the public. It is very easy for the public to hear just a headline sentence, and not to understand or appreciate the reasons why that sentence has been handed down. By broadcasting the remarks in full—they will be available on the internet, and potentially broadcast live—the understanding that my hon. Friend has described can be better achieved. I should add that the decision to extend the filming of the sentencing remarks of senior judges to the Crown court is fully supported by the Lord Chief Justice and follows a trial in eight courts, which in turn followed a debate on this topic in Parliament in 2016.

We have, of course, carefully considered concerns about the potential impact of court broadcasting on victims, witnesses and other vulnerable court users. That is why only the judge’s sentencing remarks will be broadcast. This order does not permit the filming of anything else that goes on in court, whether it be submissions by barristers on either side, victims, witnesses, staff, defendants, jurors or anybody else. Only the sentencing remarks being delivered by the judge can be filmed and then broadcast. To give the Committee further assurance, I should add that the judge in any particular case has complete discretion, and if they choose to not give permission for their sentencing remarks to be broadcast, that judge can withhold their consent. If any media organisation breaches the terms of this order, or breaches the judge’s ruling on the matter, they will of course be in contempt of court.

I mentioned that the filming will be available on the internet. For the largest cases, it may also be broadcast live, but with a time delay to make sure anything unsuitable can be intercepted prior to broadcast. A limited number of specified media companies—the larger ones, such as the BBC, ITV and Sky—will be authorised to do this, and one of them will nominate a film crew to film the sentencing remarks. The cost of doing so will fall entirely on the broadcasters; it will not be borne by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

In conclusion, this order, which follows a trial and has received the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, will open up our judicial system a little more. It will give the public a better understanding of sentencing remarks and why particular sentences are being handed down, and it is a welcome move to demonstrate openness and transparency in our judicial proceedings. I commend the order to the House.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order, which my party and I support in principle. Transparency of proceedings is an important element of our legal system. In R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, of 1924, Lord Chief Justice Hewart stated:

“justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Although our courts are public spaces, in reality the average person would not be able to walk to the nearest Crown court halfway through the working day to watch the proceedings.

The move might also serve to better inform the public about how the courts work. Increasing public understanding of the court system allows for transparency in one of the most important institutions of the state. Evidence suggests that the more informed people are about the justice system, the more confidence they have in it. We also accept that we live in times when people increasingly rely on the television and the internet for access to news and current affairs. It is vital to respond to changes in technology and society, and therefore to allow the cameras into our Crown courts.

[Rehman Chishti]

Like me, the shadow Minister was a barrister. We appeared in courts at the same time, and it was always a pleasure to do so. Public accountability is crucial, and it links to the point that the Minister made earlier about judicial discretion. This is about letting the public know how the system works and why decisions have been made. It is also crucial to ensure that judges can decide, for whatever reason, that filming should not happen. Our great legal system works on the acceptance of judicial discretion across the board so that there is no straitjacket involved, and the order allows for that.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was a great pleasure appearing in court with him, sometimes against him and sometimes on his side. Although it is important that justice is seen to be done, that cannot be at the expense of the proper administration of justice, the integrity of the trial process or the reputation of the courts. The courts deal with very serious matters that can affect the liberty, livelihood and reputation of all parties involved.

Has the Minister considered that if only the judge’s sentencing remarks are broadcast, the public will have only a snapshot view of the case? Although sentencing remarks include summaries, and a recapping of the salient points of the Crown’s case and the defendant’s mitigation, it is impossible for a judge to set out everything that they consider in their decision. Does the Minister agree that there is scope for misunderstanding about why and how a sentence has been reached? Will he clarify what guidance and training will be made available for court staff, and where the budget for it will come from?

We are pleased that the order will protect victims, court staff and legal professionals from exposure. However, it will no doubt open judges up to intense scrutiny. Televising the sentencing remarks will not prevent certain sentences from being unpopular with the public, and it will not stop declarations about “enemies of the people”. Will the Minister tell us what will be done to protect judges from any increase in attention that results from the change?

Our justice system has always been associated with dignity, and it is far removed from the sensationalist aspects of the justice systems in other countries where proceedings are broadcast. Although we welcome the order, we should not underestimate or disregard its potential impact. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with the concerns I have raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the police standing on the side of decent citizens. When I hear distress calls from across the country about people who are not getting the response that they require from the police, I refer everybody to the police and crime commissioner for that area, who is responsible for performance and priority in the police force in question. Happily, the right hon. Gentleman will know that 200 police officers have been allocated from the uplift to Merseyside police, as a target for it to recruit over the next 12 months or so, and there will be more to come when we settle years 2 and 3. Like him, I want to see more police officers patrolling in Birkenhead, particularly in Hamilton Square, which holds fond memories for me as a child.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Police officers are on the frontline of defeating terrorism. The Minister will join me and all others here in welcoming the news of the demise of Baghdadi, the leader of the evil, vile and barbaric organisation Daesh. My question to the Minister is this: military action alone will not defeat Daesh—in 2015, I led the campaign to get the terminology right—so what step will he take to ensure that further work goes on to defeat the idea, the ideology and the appeal, which suck in vulnerable individuals from around the world and here in the UK?

[Kit Malthouse]

I well remember my hon. Friend’s persistent questioning from the Back Benches of former Prime Ministers to get the terminology right about this mission. He is quite right that we all need to work together on a multi-stranded approach to prevent young people from being seduced into these evil ideologies and practices across the world, and the police are at the forefront of that. I hope and believe that some of the measures put in place to bind the police as closely as possible into society will assist in that mission.

Public Services

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

When it comes to criminality and the justice system, it is important to reflect that every case is looked at on a case-by-case basis—that is the purpose of the system. At the same time, it is important to ensure that victims of crime get justice and that the perpetrators of crime are given the appropriate sanctions.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s no-nonsense approach. I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and I prosecuted cases before I came into Parliament. I welcome the joined-up approach of having not only enough extra police officers, but an extra £85 million for the Crown Prosecution Service, so when individuals are brought to account they can quickly go through the justice system, which will ensure that those who should be acquitted are acquitted and that others are sentenced for their crime.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is correct, because it is vital to have a criminal justice system and a Crown Prosecution Service that work to drive the right outcomes. Resources do matter.

As we leave the EU, the public want to know that we are enhancing our co-operation with international partners, particularly in bringing foreign criminals to justice, and that their Government, and no one else, have full control over the borders of our nation. That will end the free movement of people once and for all.

In the three months since the Government came to power, we have begun urgent work, particularly on supporting the police. All hon. Members on this side of the House agree that our police forces are the best in the world. Every day, we see examples of their professionalism, bravery and dedication. No matter how good they are, however, they can do their job only if they are supported. Officers on the frontline need to know that they have a Prime Minister, a Home Secretary and a Government who stand beside them, and that when they run towards danger, they are not alone. This Prime Minister, and this Government, will always back the police.

Shamima Begum and Other Cases

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It is worth reminding the House that there is no British Government consular presence in Syria, which is why we have made it very clear since 2011 that no one should enter Syria. Syria is incredibly dangerous, and what the British Government can do to help or protect any British citizen is very limited.

My hon. Friend refers to a particular case, but where a child is in a camp or anywhere else in Syria who happens to be a British citizen, it is not possible for our officials, without risk to their own lives and their own safety, to enter Syria. To do so would be to provide that consular presence, which cannot happen. That is why we have been very clear in our approach.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, whenever a decision is taken to carry out a citizenship deprivation and a child may be affected by that decision, it is taken into account.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The Home Secretary knows I have immense respect for him, but I disagree with his judgment on this case. He has just said that he is working closely with international partners and our EU partners to ensure that we keep our citizens safe here, across Europe and around the world. What is the difference between that and the policy applied by France, which is taking back all its Daesh fighters? France had the largest number of Daesh fighters who went to Syria, and they are now coming back. What is the difference between France’s policy and the United Kingdom’s policy?

As I have previously raised with the Home Secretary, 900 British nationals went and 400 have come back, and 40 of those have been prosecuted, with some receiving heavy sentences. The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law and justice. What is the difference between those cases and this case in depriving a person of their citizenship? We need to apply our laws fairly, justly and consistently.

[Sajid Javid]

First, let me say that I have respect for my hon. Friend, too. I say gently to him that, although he is absolutely entitled to his view, he could not possibly know the facts of each of these cases, including the one he is referring to. He has asked me what the difference is between a case and potentially another case, and this is why we take a case-by-case approach; each case has to be balanced and a judgment has to be made about what is in the best interests of the UK and protecting its citizens. That has to be balanced against all other concerns, and that is what is done. He has also referred to France, suggesting that it somehow has a policy of taking back all children. I do not believe that is France’s policy.

Deprivation of Citizenship Status

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Again, I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot talk about an individual case; I hope she recognises that. But if individuals have voluntarily left this country, joined a terrorist organisation and have for a number of years been supporting that terrorist organisation, it is self-evident that individual is a risk by dint of the fact that they have joined a terrorist organisation. As I said a moment ago, some of the acts of this organisation are there for us to see. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady can understand why such individuals could be a threat to this country if they returned, and that if I have a proper reason, based on the facts put in front of me in each case—this should be done on a case-by-case basis—that the best way to protect our national interest, and in particular the security of people living in the UK, is to exclude someone from re-entering the UK, that surely has to be the right decision.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, what I was saying to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought clearly in terms that brooked no misunderstanding, especially by one of his perspicacious intelligence, was that now was not the time for a point of order, but if he wanted to put a question he could. If he wants to wait for his point of order, we will all wait with bated breath, beads of sweat on our brows and eager anticipation. Meanwhile I call Rehman Chishti.

[Rehman Chishti]

Having previously successfully pushed the Government to accept the correct terminology, Daesh, to defeat the idea, the ideology and the appeal that is sucking in hundreds of individuals from the UK to Syria and Iraq to fight for this poisoned ideology and entity, may I ask the Home Secretary the following? Peter Neumann, one of the world’s best experts, based at King’s College London, has said the presumption must be for host countries to take back their foreign fighters. Unlike France, which is taking back 120 of its foreign fighters straight away in one lump, will the United Kingdom be looking at taking them back in a gradual way, for example taking back first those who assist the UK by giving evidence against those they have been fighting with and excluding them until they do that? Linked to that, on the issue of revoking the citizenship of individuals with dual citizenship rights, can the Secretary of State explain the following? Before the Government do that, do our Government speak to country x or y where these individuals may have originally come from to see if they will take them back? If not, they will become stateless, and that would not be what the Government want.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has now acquired the dubious distinction of being known in the House, I think for ever after, as among other things a cheeky chappie, as he somewhat abused my generosity in asking a question of that length. But never mind, he has done it now, and he can repent at leisure.

Migrant Crossings

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The two are consistent. They do not cancel each other out. One can take something into account because one seeks to make it inadmissible.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The Home Secretary knows that I raised the issue of illegal migrants coming to Kent in November, when he came before the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Then, there were around 100 individuals and 13 boats; in December, there were more than 95 individuals. He said there was a joint co-ordination centre with France that would resolve issues to a certain extent. Is he saying that joint co-ordination centre did not work, or were additional resources required?

I very much welcome the two additional cutters, which are coming from Gibraltar and Greece. When will they arrive and do what they need to do? Will their place be taken by our international counterparts? They, too, have a responsibility to ensure that those who would come in from north Africa and the Gulf are deterred from doing so in the first place.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend mentions the UK-France joint co-ordination centre now opened in Calais. It is not that it does not work—it makes an important contribution—but it is not enough on its own, and its work needed to be supplemented, which is why we have taken further action in recent weeks, including working much more closely with the French on disruptions. As I mentioned earlier, of all the crossings we know about, the French have successfully disrupted just over 40%. We need to step up law enforcement co-ordination—the French have recently made several arrests—and ensure better co-ordination of maritime patrols and shared intelligence, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

We have a number of schemes that already allow children to come to the UK, including Dublin and the Dubs commitment that I have outlined. We are determined to make sure that we meet our international commitments and our humanitarian commitments, to make sure that, where we can help children in desperate need across the continent and, indeed, in the wider middle east and north Africa region, we do so.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to safeguard people from online radicalisation.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

The Government have been clear that there should be no space online for terrorists and supporters to radicalise, recruit, incite or inspire. The UK has led the way in setting up the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, to ensure that the larger communications service providers and all internet providers take down that material.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. From speaking to experts such as Professor Peter Neumann from King’s College London, I am aware that the vast majority of Daesh supporters have moved away from using online systems such as Facebook and Twitter, and are now using private messaging systems such as Telegram. What steps has the Home Secretary taken, by working with such organisations, to help to tackle these threats?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. He is right to say that a lot of the activity by radicalised people has migrated to the smaller sites. That is partly due to the some of the success that Facebook and Twitter have had; these people are now moving to the smaller sites. We reckon that more than 450 were set up just last year. It is so important to have the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism because the larger companies have committed to working with the smaller companies to show them how to adapt their platforms to keep the terrorists offline.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will be aware that we had a Westminster Hall debate on that subject last week and that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has a private Member’s Bill on it, which will come forward on 16 March. This is a policy area where we enable some refugee families to be reunited here. We have a proud track record of so far resettling 10,000 of the 20,000 we are expecting under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. This is an important policy. We are determined to be as compassionate as we can within the commitments we have already made.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T4. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Kent police, which has been rated outstanding for the third year in a row by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary? It is the only police force to get such a rating and is doing a fantastic job in keeping the residents of Kent and Medway safe.

[Mr Hurd]

I can certainly do that. Kent police is regularly rated excellent for the good service it delivers. It performs well across all strands of inspection and has been rated outstanding for the legitimacy with which it keeps people safe and reduces crime. Through my hon. Friend, I would like to congratulate the commissioner, the leadership and all the frontline officers in Kent for the outstanding work they do.

Police Officer Safety

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I rise to support the Government’s amendment, and in doing so I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is a good person leading a good campaign on police officer safety. As a barrister, I have represented numerous police officers in courts and tribunals, which has brought me into contact with many police officers and cases where they have done work in exceptionally challenging circumstances, day in, day out. Since becoming an MP, I have focused my work with the police in Kingston, and I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Metropolitan police officers there, led by borough commander Glenn Tunstall. They do an amazing job keeping us safe, day in, day out, and this year Kingston became London’s safest borough. We are not as good as we should be at publicising the everyday heroism and excellence of our police officers, which I saw when I went on a ride-along with PCs Donna Hatton and Sarah Skultety, two fine officers who are a credit to policing.

Police officers volunteer to do a fundamentally dangerous job—to walk towards danger where most of us would run away—but they are entitled to have the best protection possible, through kit, training and legislation, and through the full weight of the law being felt by those who assault them.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Kent police and our excellent police commissioner have ensured that all police officers have body-worn cameras to ensure that their safety is taken into account and that those who commit the crimes we are talking about are brought to account. As a result, the number of complaints against the police has also been cut. Does my hon. Friend think all police forces should do that?

[James Berry]

I most certainly do; this is a matter for local police and crime commissioners, but there has been a reduction in the number of complaints against the police when body-worn cameras have been used, because people know that they cannot try it on when there is evidence. These cameras also provide fantastic evidence in court when a police officer is assaulted. There has been a big improvement in the personal protective equipment available for the police, although there has been an issue with procurement, which I am glad the Home Office is looking at. When I see people from the Police Federation, one issue they raise is that officers want to be armed more routinely with Tasers, so that they can protect themselves. There is sometimes a misunderstanding about Tasers, as they are not non-lethal weapons, but less-lethal weapons. Unfortunately, people have died after being tasered, but Tasers are to be used only where the officer faces a lethal threat.

Another piece of police protective equipment that has been in the press recently is the spit guard. It is clear to me that if an officer faces being spat at in the face, they should be able, where appropriate, to use a spit guard. Liberty describes spit guards as “primitive, cruel and degrading”, but what I think is primitive and degrading is a police officer being spat at in the face. Perhaps the hon. Member for Halifax would like to send a copy of the Hansard report of her speech to the Mayor of London, who seems to have the same problem that Liberty has with spit guards.

The quality of training is another issue that police officers raise with me. Our police officers want to do a first-class job, and to do that they need first-class training so that they can do their job safely and well. I see an increased role here for the College of Policing, which currently validates training. That role would include registering officers who work in specialist areas, and providing syllabuses, validation and re-validation. I hope that that will be done under the banner of a royal college of policing, so that our professional police officers have the professional badge that many others working in professions have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted that people are calling for more people to be sent to prison. I have been arguing that case for an awfully long time, and I am delighted that I seem to be getting some traction on it.

The problem with the sentencing guidelines is just the tip of the iceberg. I have asked parliamentary questions about this for a while, and have been shocked to find out that only one in seven criminals convicted of an assault on a police constable in the execution of their duty received a prison sentence at all. In the latest year shown in the figures, 7,829 assaults on police officers were recorded as being dealt with in our courts where the offender pleaded guilty or was found guilty, and yet only 1,002 of the offenders were actually sent to prison. That is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Other parliamentary questions I have asked revealed that someone with an astonishing 36 previous convictions for assaulting a police officer managed to avoid being sent to prison for a further assault on a police officer.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The outstanding speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) was a truly memorable parliamentary occasion, as was the fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I do not often say this, but the other side of the Pennines has a lot to be proud of, including even the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). To elicit from him an emotional reaction and support for the Labour party is a truly big achievement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen has managed that today.

This is an important and well-timed debate, because it provides me with an opportunity to put into proper context the recent work that I have been doing on policing. I am sure that some people might see challenging past injustice as in some way anti-police, but nothing could be further from the truth, and I am glad to have the chance to say that. I am pro-police, and I want to do whatever I can to strengthen the position of those out there on the frontline.

There are three ways in which we can do that. The first relates to police numbers and funding, and the second to protecting police officers through the powers we give them and through sentencing. The third is that we can build public trust in our police force by challenging past misdeeds. Unresolved past injustice can infect the present and unfairly leave a cloud hanging over officers on the frontline. It is right to remove it.

I want to touch on each of those three issues briefly. First, on funding, I am afraid that the Minister is wrong to say that the police budget has been protected. It has not been protected; it has been cut in real terms. Greater Manchester police’s revenue support grant was cut by £8.5 million this year, and the precept powers that it was given raised only £3.5 million. Let us get these facts straight, because otherwise the public will get confused. About 1,800 officers have already been lost from the frontline. We cannot take these cuts anymore. A story in The Mail on Sunday over the weekend said that the thin blue line of Greater Manchester is the thinnest of them all—it is the thinnest in the country. The cuts cannot continue. We need a commitment from the Government to honour their promise of no real-terms cuts to police budgets, because that has not happened.

Secondly, on protection for police officers, body-worn cameras need to be introduced now, because they can protect police officers today. We need a debate about the greater use of Tasers, and we really need to look at sentencing. I have mentioned the Dale Cregan situation previously, but there are other examples. An off-duty police officer, Neil Doyle, was killed in Liverpool. His attacker also committed a violent offence against two other individuals, but he only got three years and will soon be moved to an open prison.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one area that really affects police officers and the public is drink-driving and driving while disqualified? Repeat offenders can only be given sixth months’ custody—it does not matter whether it is a second, third or fifth offence—so we have to review the sentencing on that. My previous private Member’s Bill was designed to increase the maximum sentence to two years. Does he think that that is a good idea and that we should do it?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have always been too lenient on motoring offences, particularly death by dangerous driving.

I was talking about police officers, who need greater protection in law and in the sentencing guidelines. The Police Federation said today that the sentences that are handed out are often inadequate and inconsistent, and they simply do not provide the strong message that is required. We must resolve across the House to strengthen those sentencing guidelines, and I want to make my support for that absolutely clear.

I will finish on the point of public trust in the police. I believe we are all sent here to challenge injustice wherever we find it. Where we have evidence of it, we have a moral duty to act. Failure to do so corrodes the bond of trust between public and police, and it damages policing by consent. The decision on Orgreave this week was, in my view, wrong, and it makes it harder for the South Yorkshire police to move forward. That decision does not help officers in South Yorkshire who are out there on the frontline, because it leaves a cloud hanging over them.

Let me give the House a quick quote:

“Historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations… We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then. That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on”.

I could not agree more with those words—the words of our Prime Minister to the Police Federation this year. She is right, so what has changed? Why are we now pushing away those things and leaving them unresolved?

The Government have made their decision, but this House should make a different decision. I have today advanced the idea, based on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that a Select Committee should look at Orgreave. In my view, that is the right thing to do. I appeal to Members from all parts of the House to back that suggestion, so that we can build trust in our police and give them proper funding and protection.

UK Citizens Returning From Fighting Daesh

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman gets to the point of the debate and I will return to that issue in a moment. The Government and the country need a clear and consistent policy. If we let individuals go, why should we arrest them for terrorism on their return?

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I applaud my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The opposite happened in my constituency. Anthony Harrison, a constituent, went to Iraq and fought with the Kurdish YPG forces. When he returned to Heathrow, he expected to be stopped, but was not. He then went back to Gillingham and self-referred to the police. The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. We should be checking those individuals who have gone out and come back, otherwise there is a real risk to our national security.

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Whichever side of the argument we take—whether we are supporters of these individuals or have reservations—their stories suggest that there is no clear policy. Those stories do not give us great confidence in our border controls, as different individuals have clearly been treated in different ways.

A growing number of individuals have been profiled in the media. Some have even been on more than one tour, as it were. I have been in contact with 20 families, some of whom I will refer to this evening, including that of one of my own constituents, Aiden Aslin. Two Britons and an Irishman were arrested this weekend crossing back from Syria into northern Iraq, so this remains a topical issue. At least one British citizen, a former marine, Konstandinos Erik Scurfield from Barnsley, has been killed in action. The Foreign Office says that owing to the difficulties and the lack of consular services in the area, it is difficult to estimate whether more British citizens have been killed in action and what may have become of their bodies.

Behind every one of those individuals is a family. I have been in regular contact with my constituent Aiden’s mother, Angela, and his grandmother, Pamela, throughout his 10 months abroad. I cannot overstate their concern and anguish. Their initial thought was that one day they would turn on the television and see their son and grandson in an orange jacket. In their case, at least, there is also acceptance that their son and grandson took this extraordinary decision freely, in sound mind and good faith, because he could not continue to watch the atrocities on the television every night and turn a blind eye. I would not dare to generalise about the motives of all who have gone out there, but I have now met several, and they are brave and good people who deserve our respect and fair treatment under the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I completely concur with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. It is important that Facebook and others take down not only sites that are actively recruiting British citizens to fight for IS, but sites that might be preying on naive and vulnerable Britons who, in their eyes, have decided to do the right thing, but are none the less getting themselves into grave danger.

Some of those individuals, particularly ex-servicemen and women, would be advised not to go to the conflict zone. Few questions are asked by the recruiters and no military experience is required. Health is never checked, and many if not most people arrive at airports such as Sulaymaniyah completely in the dark about what they should expect. They could be kidnapped and held to ransom—who knows?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend says that health is never checked when people go out, but given the trauma that people may have suffered on the battlefield, their state of mind needs to be checked when they come back if we are to consider security, because such people may inadvertently get drawn into other criminal activity.

[Robert Jenrick]

The short answer is that very little support is offered to returning individuals. Indeed, my research suggests that the vast majority of people are not even questioned by the police or security services on their return.

Many people going out have little knowledge of the principal militias such as the YPG. My purpose tonight is not to besmirch the YPG, but to point out that it divides opinion and that many if not most Britons who go out have no real knowledge of that group or the accusations against it. Amnesty International has accused the YPG of war crimes.

The Turkish Government believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is an offshoot of the PKK, which is of course a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK and the USA. Recent reports suggest that some foreign fighters have left the YPG in the field because of its views and joined other even more obscure militias such as the so-called “self-sacrifice” group, which operates in the Nineveh region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, showing the complexity of the situation. As I understand it, the Kurdish army, the peshmerga, has said that, as a result of direct representations by the US Government, it is no longer recruiting foreign fighters, but militias are different and continue to recruit foreign volunteers. Some of these groups use a language of martyrdom that is not altogether dissimilar from that of the people they are fighting against, which certainly makes me extremely uncomfortable.

The position of British citizens in the field has become even more complex recently because it appears that Turkey has applied pressure on Iraq to take action against the YPG and foreign fighters because of its links to the PKK and the Kurds. The two Britons and an Irishman arrested over the weekend were detained by the Iraqi Government due to “visa irregularities”, which seems a fairly spurious reason for arrest, given that there is no working Iraqi-Syrian border. It none the less suggests that, given our limited consular services in northern Iraq, British citizens are getting themselves into a complex and dangerous situation. British citizens should be discouraged from going out. The sites should be taken down and the Government should, behind the scenes, persuade the Kurdish authorities to keep British citizens out of the conflict. The peshmerga are no longer accepting foreign volunteers, as I say, but the militias certainly are.

Why are individuals not being prevented from travelling when they openly inform officers of their intentions at the airport, as my constituent did, when these immigration and security officials should surely know that these individuals are likely to be arrested on their return? If British citizens are to be arrested under the Terrorism Act, why are we waving them through immigration and on to their planes? That is perverse and unjust to those individuals.

Let me turn briefly to how we treat these individuals on their return. Of the 20 I have spoken with or their families, two were arrested under the Terrorism Act; four were questioned, but not arrested; 14 came and went at will, unquestioned, three of whom have been on a second or third tour of duty overseas. That does not give me a great deal of confidence in our border controls.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend talks about people being stopped and questioned by the police. I have a letter here from the Minister in the other place who is responsible for tackling extremism, which states that the stopping and questioning of these individuals is an operational matter for the police, but surely we need guidance for each case from the Government rather than having issue after issue being looked at by the police.

[Robert Jenrick]

I could not agree more.

I do not know whether this is a representative sample, so perhaps the Minister will tell us in his remarks how many British citizens have been arrested in these circumstances, but it is clear that there is not a consistent approach. Much, as my hon. Friend has just said, is left to individual police forces. My own police force in Nottinghamshire arrested my constituent on his plane and took him for brief questioning, yet he has awaited news of whether he is to be charged for the past 12 weeks. The outcome has now been postponed once again. I am told that the Crown Prosecution Service has not been given the file or been asked for its advice.

Do police forces know how to handle this situation? Some treat these individuals and their families in exactly the same way and in the same circumstances as they would for those fighting for Daesh, which is particularly rough on the families and loved ones, whose homes are searched and computers taken while neighbours watch on through twitching curtains. Others may well chose not to get involved as some individuals have been in the press, but are never troubled by the police.

Clearly, individuals need to be questioned; we need to understand what they have done. I can appreciate, as the Minister may argue, that a single mistake or an individual wrongly assumed to be fighting on the other side who then returns home and commits a terrorist act, is a risk that we cannot bear. However, I suggest that we should exercise caution before arresting individuals, because that will remain on their records for the rest of their lives. If we do arrest them, it should be done consistently, and police forces should be equipped with guidance so that people like my constituent are not left in limbo for months and months while they decide what to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that someone might think that they are going out for what might be the perfectly noble cause of fighting our common enemy, but there is always a great deal of uncertainty about what happens when they get there. Such people are by their nature often quite ignorant of what they will encounter and may become linked to, tied to, or involved in all kinds of organisations and groups, some of which are proscribed in this country and engage in all kinds of other activities as well as the battle against Daesh. This is a complicated issue and should not be presented as anything else, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s sympathy.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way one more time, and then I really must make progress.

[Rehman Chishti]

The Minister will agree that both categories of individuals—those who go to fight Daesh and those who support Daesh—are of concern. Around 800 individuals are fighting with Daesh. Do the Government or the Minister have an estimate of the number of individuals out there fighting against Daesh? Both groups should be on our intelligence services’ radar.