Stop-and-Search

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The use of the power will be monitored in a number of ways. As I have said, the figures will be on the website. We are introducing the requirement for extra information to be recorded so that it will be possible to monitor the extent to which stop-and-searches lead to a disposal, arrest or other action. We will then be able to look even more closely at how the power is being used. Getting that information will be an important part of the process.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Like many other people, I thank the Home Secretary for addressing seriously the misuse of stop-and-search powers, which is probably the worst form of legal racial abuse in our country, and for demolishing so effectively the arguments of the shadow Home Secretary by confronting her with the fact that Labour did nothing in office to stop the abuse. May I point out that there are Conservative Members who feel that legislative changes may be required? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that if the changes are not made, she will have no hesitation in coming back to the House and asking for primary legislation?

[Mrs May]

I give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. However, as I said earlier, the situation has changed because of the case law that was set by the determination in the Roberts case. I am very clear that if I do not see change, I will be back with primary legislation.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not have the details to hand, but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further information on the duration of detentions at Yarl’s Wood.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses to questions? Many outside observers of Yarl’s Wood would say that its management has improved in the recent past, but however good it is, we are still dealing with some very vulnerable women. Many of them have sought asylum here because they were victims of rape or abuse, and just because they could not prove that to an immigration official does not mean that it did not happen. The current process for detaining women for immigration purposes seems to me to be ineffective, costly and unjust. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity, after this tragic incident, to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the whole process of the detention of women for immigration purposes?

[James Brokenshire]

I respect the close interest that my hon. Friend takes not simply in Yarl’s Wood, but more generally. I underline the fact that there have been improvements at Yarl’s Wood, and he referred to them. We are seeking to speed up decisions while maintaining high standards in asylum cases and more generally in the immigration system. That is why we took the decision to split the old UK Border Agency, with visas and immigration as a specific command in the Home Office—responding to and accountable to Ministers—to ensure that we improve our decisions and their timeliness.

Immigration Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman, whose judgment on these issues I value acutely, referred to leaked Government correspondence. What is his position on whether my hon. Friend’s proposals would contravene our responsibilities under the ECHR?

[Mr Hanson]

I have served with the hon. Gentleman on a number of Committees. We have had useful and positive cross-party discussions. I say to him honestly that we have taken legal advice and we believe that the proposal would put us in contravention of ECHR responsibilities. The Home Secretary, I think, has had the same advice and the Home Secretary, I think, shares our view. The question for the Home Secretary is whether she wishes to exercise her judgement today or at a later date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I will make a little progress, but I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The key difference between my proposals and part 2 of the Bill is that my proposals would deal with the problem. They do not require us to scrap the Human Rights Act or pull out of Europe. To the great chagrin of some of my colleagues, my proposals do not dip their toe into those totemic, polemical matters. They would not be struck down by UK judges, because they would be unequivocal primary legislation with overriding force. They are expressly within the terms of the Human Rights Act. That is spelled out in the memo to which the shadow Minister referred, if he reads it carefully.

We must be clear that incompatibility and illegality are two different things. It is clear that the UK courts would enforce the new clause that I am putting before the House. It is also clear from the most recent Home Office advice that I have received, to which hon. Members have also referred, that the new clause would not attract a rule 39 injunction from Strasbourg. That is because there would be no irreversible harm. It is extremely rare that Strasbourg would even consider a rule 39 injunction in such a case. The original memo that the shadow Minister cited referred to this matter, but the most recent memo from the Home Office team that has been sent to me, which is from November, is very clear:

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

Of course, it is likely that if my new clause attracted a rule 39 injunction, the clauses in part 2 would be equally susceptible to such a challenge. That is the key point: the official advice from the Home Office is that such a challenge is very unlikely.

[Richard Fuller]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will just expand on this point. I have quoted the advice that I have received. If anyone thinks that the new clause has been tabled with the aim of flouting UK law or engaging in illegality, as opposed to doing something that might be incompatible with the wider, opaque obligations of the ECHR, they misunderstand the point. It is wrong to say that that is what the Home Office’s advice states, because I deliberately sought its advice.

Even if we face a longer-term claim to Strasbourg that is not based on injunctive relief, the new clause remains faithful to the convention. We must not forget that for a second. Paragraph 2 of article 8 on the right to family life provides a list of grounds for curtailing the right to family life, including law enforcement, crime prevention, public protection and protecting the rights of others, which is what the colleagues from both sides of the House who support the new clause care so deeply about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the risk from Syria—that individuals may travel out there and then come back and pose a risk to us in this country. That is why the Government have taken a number of steps. For example, the Home Secretary has highlighted the change and strengthening of approach in relation to the royal prerogative. We will not hesitate to take measures to disrupt travel and to prosecute those involved in terrorism whether here or in other countries, such as Syria.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure me that he will not follow the example of Labour Front Benchers who, in a debate last week, trampled on centuries of long-established principles of justice purely to look tough on this issue? Instead, will he continue to balance the principles of British justice with the rights of suspects?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the whole issue of the challenges that can be made in the courts. As control orders were being steadily eroded, we reviewed them very carefully as part of the counter-terrorism review at the start of this Parliament. The courts have upheld every TPIM notice that they have reviewed, and TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The independent reviewer’s proposals should be looked at very seriously. As I have said, there may be other options, such as the extension of time limits. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, any set of proposals will involve limitations. This is the kind of debate we ought to be having in Parliament, but it needs to be informed by that proper security assessment.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way once more, but I must then make some progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; I know that she wants to move on. Do I understand from her response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that her understanding of justice in this case is that the group of people concerned should not be allowed to see the evidence that will be presented in a trial that they will not actually undergo, and that they should then be forcibly relocated from their communities and kept in detention for at least 23 hours a day, for an indefinite period? Is that the Labour party’s view of justice in this case?

[Yvette Cooper]

No. We have made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation that these measures should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, and that there must also be a court procedure. There must be legal safeguards, and there must be judicial processes. I have cited the views of the judges, not just the views of the Security Service and the Home Secretary. However, we must also recognise that there are some cases in which it is very difficult to prosecute in the courts because of secret intelligence, and the risk to human sources who may put their lives at risk by providing that important information.

The Home Secretary should tell us this: does she still believe that each of the six men whose restrictions she is now removing poses a terror threat—yes or no? She told us 12 months ago that the answer was yes, because she renewed their TPIMs, but what is her answer now? We know what she thought of those men when she imposed the restrictions, but surely it is even more important for us to know the risk when she takes those restrictions away. We are not asking her to show Parliament the detailed Security Service assessment—she should show that to the Intelligence and Security Committee—but we are asking her to inform us of her conclusions, and to give us as much detail as she gave publicly to the courts.

The Home Secretary gave us her security assessment when Magag and Mohamed ran off. She told us then that she did not believe they posed any risk to people in the United Kingdom. If she could tell us that much about those two terror suspects once they were out on the streets without restrictions, why can she not do the same now in relation to all the others?

People change and risk levels change. If the risk has been reduced, restrictive measures may no longer be justified, in which case they should certainly be removed. We support the removal of restrictions as soon as they are no longer justified. Over the last decade, control orders have rightly been removed from more than 30 people because they were not longer justified. Terror powers such as these must always be kept under review, but the Home Secretary has removed these restrictions not because they are no longer justified but because of her legislation, the legislation she pushed through Parliament. How can Parliament assess whether that legislation was right, and whether she has done the right thing, without knowing the continued risk that any of these men is expected to pose?

We also need to know what action the Home Secretary has taken to prepare for the end of TPIMs. The independent reviewer warned us some time ago that serious planning should be done to work with those individuals to reduce the risk once the restrictions were removed. Has that happened? Has any work been done with them to address their extremism? Judge Wilkie suggests not. On the basis of the evidence that the Home Secretary submitted to the court, he said that she

“does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation.”

What planning has taken place to cope with the restrictions being removed? The Home Secretary has told us that the Metropolitan police have a plan for each person, but will she ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is shown those plans? Will she also tell us what those plans will cost? When control orders were downgraded to TPIMs two years ago, the Government provided extra funding for surveillance and investigations. However, that extra funding was clearly not enough to ensure that there was sufficient surveillance on Mohamed and Magag, who were able to abscond, or enough to deliver successful prosecutions. That reduction from control orders to TPIMs will have put additional pressure on the resources of the police and the security services, but surely the ending of TPIMs for those suspects altogether will put even greater pressure on those resources now, as there are no restrictions in place. Has any additional funding been made available to cope with the ending of TPIMs for those men, or will surveillance resources have to be redeployed from other important targets?

Before the Home Secretary stands up to answer my questions, let me address some of the points that she usually makes in her defence, as well as some new ones that she has added to her list in the past few days. She usually argues that control orders were not strong enough, and that people absconded while subject to them. She and I agree that the control orders without relocation powers, under the regime that operated before 2007, were not strong enough, but that is why the control order regime was tightened up in 2007 with a greater focus being placed on relocation, after which no one absconded. My response to that was to say that we should keep the relocation powers. Hers was to ditch them. She has lost two terror suspects as a result.

The Home Secretary has now come up with two new defences. She has told the Daily Mail that the problem was the fault of the Human Rights Act, and she has told The Sun that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats. Both claims are nonsense. She has also tried to claim that control orders had to be reformed because they were being undermined in the courts. The independent reviewer has made it clear, both to the Home Affairs Committee and in other statements, that the courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of control orders and upheld individuals’ cases time and again. The independent reviewer has said:

“The replacement of control orders by TPIMs was a political decision. It was not prompted by any court judgment, either from the United Kingdom or from Strasbourg.”

As for the idea that this was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault, the Deputy Prime Minister is not even strong enough to sort out the problems in his own party. No one believes that he is strong enough to make the Home Secretary put forward legislation that she does not agree with. Let us remember what she said at the time. She made it clear that it was her legislation, not his. She defended every one of the changes, including the two-year limit, the end of relocation and the granting of extra freedoms. Indeed, she was proud that she was

“re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 71.]

The Home Secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats, the Human Rights Act or the courts. She has only herself to blame if she does not like the consequences of her legislation. We need to know what she is going to do now, however. What is the risk to the public from those six men? What is the risk to the public from her legislation? What is she doing about this? She told us three years ago:

“Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

So can she now get up and tell us that she is not doing exactly that? Can she put her hand on her heart and tell us she is confident that she is doing the right thing for the British people by removing those TPIMs from those six individuals this month? And if she is really as uncomfortable with her own legislation as her briefings to the newspapers suggest, is it not time that she backed down and set up a cross-party review to look at this legislation again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

Relocation does not have to be part of an order—it would be within the Home Secretary’s box of tools. There would be no argument whatsoever if there was an agreement that that might be counterproductive. I do not think we are over those kinds of threats yet—I take issue with that—but I take the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point.

It would be a different matter if relocation was objected to by the courts, but that is not the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) quoted David Anderson and others. It would be a different matter if the removal of relocation was required by the Government’s independent advisers, but David Anderson thought we were going backwards on protecting the public. That is what he said in his first review, in so many words. Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not like to listen to Lord Carlile, and neither would I if I was in their position, but David Anderson’s predecessor said:

“On the evidence available, I am persuaded firmly—I choose my words carefully—to the view that it would be negligent to remove relocation from the main provisions.”

Both Governments’ reviewers said the same thing.

It was me who placed the control order on Ibrahim Magag, who was relocated away from London. Why was he relocated away from London? Because the ruling of Lord Justice Collins was that

“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period.”

That was the courts, not me. Why on earth did the current Home Secretary allow him back into London, enabling him to hail a taxi and disappear? In times past, media pressure would have meant a taxi being ordered for the Home Secretary.

[Richard Fuller]

As the right hon. Gentleman is making such a substantial point on relocation, and as he is experienced in the use of control orders, can he advise the House which other European Union countries have relocation as part of their protections against terrorism suspects, and, if it is not used in other EU countries, why does he think it is particularly apropos in the United Kingdom?

[Alan Johnson]

We could have a seminar for hours on other European countries and their much better abilities to detain, and to detain for many years, as we have seen with suspects in France. The hon. Gentleman’s Government reviewed this and decided that they needed an element that they could call a control order. The “T” in TPIMs did not stand for temporary; it stood for terrorism. Having concluded that, why would relocation be removed? That is a mystery to me. The Home Secretary herself placed the control order on Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, before control orders were changed to TPIMs. Humiliatingly, he has absconded.

The two-year limit is completely arbitrary—that is the mystery. It is not as if a terrorist who has served a sentence is about to be released after a period in prison. TPIMs relate to people who, we had cause to believe, posed a danger. The question we have asked consistently of the Home Secretary is why, after this arbitrary period, do they suddenly not pose a threat?

I am very familiar with the activities of three of the people covered by TPIMs. Incidentally, one of them is known as DD. I am not sure if that is a reference to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who may well have been put under one of these orders by his own Front Bench. Those three people do not have to be engaged in any fresh activity for me to be extremely worried about their release. Indeed, it is a curious point that TPIMs come to an end if people subject to them are not engaged in any fresh terrorist activity. That suggests that TPIMs are so weak that people on them could be gaily getting involved in fresh terrorist activity. However, it is not the fresh terrorist activity I am worried about, but the original reasons for the order.

Let us go back for a moment to the Home Secretary’s words, which we have heard before. She said that there are

“a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security”,

and that

“no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 307-8.]

back on the streets. The motion is genuinely trying to reach a consensus. This matter is too serious for us to score political points. Parliament is concerned that people previously thought too dangerous for our streets will now be released. We need to find a solution, and I urge the Treasury Bench and Government Members, if not to support our motion, which might be too much for them, at least to find a similar way to reach a consensus on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman can have a look at the report of the debate in which I described the method that I should prefer, which is far more focused on prosecution, and note the amendments that I tabled.

The system that was set up by the last Government involved secret evidence. People did not know what their orders were based on. There was a huge range of punishments, including long curfews—virtual house arrests—and there was this awful internal relocation. People were not even allowed to be in their own homes. All that could continue for an indefinite period. To me, internal exile without trial does not sound like what I would expect this country to be doing; it sounds like the way in which the Soviet Union would behave. In the review that he carried out for the Government, Lord Macdonald said of relocation:

“This is a form of internal exile, which is utterly inimical to traditional British norms…It is disproportionate and there is no justification for its retention.”

That view was expressed on the basis of a detailed study.

[Richard Fuller]

Is it not also the case that whenever that regime is in place, the Government of the day—acting as judge and jury in the case of people who have never been brought to trial—will see the Opposition trample over our civil liberties in order to look tougher than the Home Secretary, and try to scare people about what may happen with no evidence that it will happen at all?

Immigration (Detention of Pregnant Women)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate and to call for the ending of the detention of pregnant women for immigration purposes. In making my case, I want to challenge my hon. Friend the Minister on the numbers; on the efficacy of current Government policy; and on the ethics of the Government’s policies on the detention of pregnant women for immigration purposes. However, in those challenges, I want to encourage him in making the change; it is an achievable change in the context of the Government’s policies to reduce immigration. Such a change will say more about the morality of the Government and the country and our handling of our immigration policies than any other change within his control as Minister for Immigration.

I am motivated in introducing the debate because I believe profoundly that there is no incompatibility between effective control and limited numbers, and the standards of our behaviour and how we treat people caught in the historical mess of the UK immigration system. I am motivated because of the excellence of the Medical Justice report, “Expecting Change”, which, for the first time, pulls together information that can provide a clear picture of the reality of the situation for pregnant women in detention in the UK.

I am also motivated by news that has come to me today from Yarl’s Wood Befrienders—Yarl’s Wood is a detention centre for women just outside Bedford—that directly contradicts the Government’s stated policy on the detention of pregnant women. Today, a lady who was 28 weeks’ pregnant was released from Yarl’s Wood after six weeks’ detention. That detention was in complete contradiction of the current UK Border Agency policy on the detention of pregnant women. I will point out the reasons for that discrepancy.

This debate is core because of the consequences of the disastrous open-door immigration policies pursued under the previous Labour Government, and the efforts of this coalition Government to deal with them. This debate is often held in the context of people talking about statistics and numbers, or the effectiveness of current Government policies to deal with that open-door policy. It is right that we have a debate about the number of people allowed into this country, the growth of our population and whether public services can manage. That is exactly right; we should be doing that. Equally, it is right that we talk about the efficiency and effectiveness of our border controls, so that we can hear the Minister—as he did yesterday so admirably—explain how we are managing to improve the situation and get our borders under control.

We must also ensure, however, that we do not lose sight of the individual people caught up in this bureaucratic mess, and its impact on them and their children. The Government recognised that when they ended the policy of detaining children for immigration purposes. That was the right thing to do: it was right from the point of view of effectiveness and right from the point of view of morality. It is important that we recognise morality in our immigration policies. Imprisoning children was not only ineffective; it was morally wrong. It should not be seen as just an inconvenience of bureaucratic policy.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a compelling case that, in practice, when it comes to pregnant women, the policy of not detaining is not enforced. Is he aware that the same is true of children, who are also being detained at present, despite Government policy to the contrary?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I am sure she would want to welcome the changes the Government have made after the previous Government’s policies on detaining children. There are always things that need to be done to improve policies. The issue here is this: how are our bureaucratic systems harming children, whether they have been born or are being carried by pregnant women?

The report produced by Medical Justice provides the most effective understanding of the current situation for pregnant women, and is why 334 organisations and charities support its recommendation to end the detention of pregnant women. I would also like to point out to the Minister that that position is supported by the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—the experts in this field. They have set a challenge for the Minister. Ahead of his response, I want to explain that challenge.

Let me start with some statistics. Every year, about 27,000 people are detained for immigration purposes, of whom 4,000 are women. Of those, approximately 100 are pregnant women. One hundred women—that is what this debate is all about. In the grand picture of immigration control, that number barely registers, but in an assessment of what type of people we are, and how we manage and care for those 100 women and the children they are carrying, it matters a great deal.

The reason for detaining pregnant women is to achieve their removal. Home Office policy states that:

“Pregnant women should not normally be detained. The exceptions to this general rule are where removal is imminent and medical advice does not suggest confinement before the due removal date.”

However, the stated policy is not, in my view, and according to the evidence that I have been given, being implemented in practice. In practice, pregnant women are not being detained in exceptional circumstances only. This concern has been raised by Medical Justice and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, and the pregnant women are not detained for periods of time that would match any description of what an imminent removal would be.

It concerned me that the UK Border Agency was not collecting information on the detention of pregnant women, so questions could not be answered about whether policy was being followed. With no information, how are we to understand whether this important policy relating to vulnerable people is being pursued correctly? I asked Medical Justice to review the 20 cases in its report. It found that the average detention period was 11 weeks, and that in four of the 20 cases the women were detained for 20 weeks or more. By no stretch can that be described as pursuing the stated policy of the UK Border Agency.

A trimester ago, I asked the Minister to ask the UK Border Agency to check its facts. I appreciate his response, but I would like to ask him again today, because collecting information is so important. Does he know how many pregnant women are currently in detention? Can he advise the House what the detention period has been for each of those women and for all other pregnant women detained in the past 12 months? Is he satisfied that the procedures for identifying pregnant women and applying the UK Border Agency’s policies are being implemented fairly? Only 5% of pregnant women who are detained are deported, with 95% released back into the community. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister could confirm those numbers. If he can, what is his assessment of their implications for the efficacy of the UK Border Agency’s policy? Spending more than £700 a week to keep a pregnant woman in detention when we are going to release her, compared with spending £150 a week to keep that lady in the community with people who can support her, is the complete opposite of an efficient and effective policy.

There is another issue: our ethics. In my view, a pregnant woman who is in detention is vulnerable almost by definition. The circumstances that led her to that position will already be associated with heightened vulnerability. She might have been seeking asylum or she might have been trafficked. She might have been left on the streets and made vulnerable in terms of accessing housing, which might then have made her vulnerable to the actions and motivations of people who wanted to provide her with housing. Then, while she is pregnant, she is put in prison—we can use the language of “detention centres” all we like, but it is a prison. That tells us something about how we are treating people.

It seems utterly wrong to ignore the moral and ethical arguments. I am concerned about the response of the UK Border Agency when ethical issues are presented. Let me present two ethical differences and concerns of mine. The first concerns the use of force to remove a pregnant woman, which has now been resolved. In 2012, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons said:

“Force should never be used to effect the removal of pregnant women or…children.”

However, only in February 2013, and only after a High Court case, did the Government yield on that point. I do not understand the ethics of that. That leads to another question. If we have accepted that force cannot be used in the removal—as we have heard, only five out of 100 women are removed—why detain pregnant women at all?

The second ethical question relates to the medical guidelines for pregnant women who are deported to countries with a high risk of malaria. That issue was given particular focus in Medical Justice’s report. The NHS guidelines for British citizens are quite clear: “If you’re pregnant, do not travel to a country with a high risk of malaria.” However, the UK Border Agency guidelines say: “It’s okay to go, but take your tablets”—have pill, will travel. Why the double standard? It is important that the Minister is clear. Do we want to treat the health of those who have come here in that way—I understand that they are here illegally—differently when we deport them to other countries, or do we think that the United Kingdom Government should take the same approach in their treatment of all pregnant women? If he accepts that point, which I hope he does, he must accept it as another strike against the ethics and morality of detaining pregnant women for immigration purposes.

I am no expert on pregnancy and the issues that may arise. The Minister may have more understanding than me—you yourself may have more, Mr Speaker—but I am sure we would all yield to the experts on this issue. Let me quote the director for midwifery at the Royal College of Midwives:

“The very process of being detained interrupts a woman’s fundamental human right to access maternity care. The detention system makes it very difficult for midwives to put women at the centre of their care. We believe that the treatment of pregnant asylum seekers in detention is governed by outmoded and outdated practices that shame us all.”

The previous Government lost control of our immigration system. That has led to major concerns around the country about immigration levels, and this Government are rightly focusing on reducing them and ensuring that we control our borders. However, I urge the Minister to recognise that it is morally wrong for a bureaucracy to act wilfully to harm a child’s prospects when there are superior alternatives available that would reduce or eliminate any such harm. Those alternatives exist.

I urge my hon. Friend to listen to the experts who understand the care of pregnant women, to understand the facts—which we have and he does not—as they are presented, to consider that the ethics involved here are the same as those that motivated this Government to end the detention of children, and to end now the detention of pregnant women for immigration purposes.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for securing this debate. As he acknowledged, he and I have had detailed discussions on this issue. Yarl’s Wood, the principal immigration removal centre holding female detainees, is located in his constituency, so I completely understand his interest in this particular issue, both from a policy and a constituency perspective.

First, I would like to emphasise that the decision to detain someone is never taken lightly and only as a last resort. My hon. Friend acknowledged that in his speech. Generally, when we decide that detention is appropriate, we ensure that we take care of detainees’ welfare. That obviously includes pregnant women, who have particular needs. He set out the Government’s policy quite fairly. It is that we do not, in general, detain pregnant women except in two sets of circumstances. The first is when a woman’s removal from the UK is imminent and medical advice suggests that her baby is not due before the expected removal date. The second is, under the asylum system, when the decision not to grant asylum would allow for the woman to be removed.

I thought that the statistics that my hon. Friend cited suggested that we were doing as the policy required. He described the significant number of people who were detained, then said that only 100 of those were pregnant women. I think I have got that figure right; I was listening carefully to his speech. That shows that we detain very few pregnant women and that we do so only in the circumstances that I have described.

We factor into our decisions the timing issue that my hon. Friend raised. Obviously I do not have the details of the specific case that he mentioned, but I will explain in a minute why I do not think that that case would have contravened our existing policy. We factor into the decision on timing the International Air Transport Association’s guidelines to airlines on carrying pregnant women, which provide for travel up to 28 weeks or, if medically certified, up to either 32 or 36 weeks depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy. Women who are less than 24 weeks pregnant may also be detained under the fast-track asylum process operating at Yarl’s Wood, which would allow for a case to be processed and, if appropriate—that is, if asylum is not granted—for removal to take place within those time frames.

In regard to the case that my hon. Friend described, I can give him only a general answer as I do not have the details. If he would like to write to me after the debate with those details, however, I will of course look into the specifics of the case and correspond with him about them. We might have detained the woman for removal, and the removal might then not have gone ahead for a reason that was not anticipated at the time. There might have been a further legal challenge, for example, or perhaps a travel document was unavailable. Alternatively, she could have been detained under the fast-track process prior to the 24-week point. All those circumstances would fall within published policy, but it would be better if my hon. Friend could furnish me with the details of the specific case so that I can look into it.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister has just indicated in his answer the very reason the current policy does not work. It is based on imminence, and imminence cannot be predicted, for the very reason that he has just set out. He has therefore just stated why ending the detention of pregnant women would be a clearer, fairer, better and more moral policy. We are talking about 100 women. That is it. Would it not say more about the ethics of his policy if he were to accept that reality and stop the policy now, rather than pretending that the policy is actually happening in practice?

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend, for this reason. The use of statistics was mentioned, but we do not collect statistics on this matter because women are not, of course, obliged to tell the Home Office whether they are pregnant. They may tell us, and if they do, the information will be held on their individual case file and they will be provided with appropriate health care, broadly comparable to what is available from an NHS general practitioner. The women are under no obligation to tell us, and I do not think forcing them to disclose the information would be right. That is an issue about the statistics.

Making decisions about the imminence of removal is clearly based on our best intelligence, but as we know, the people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom and who should leave the country voluntarily often throw all sorts of legal obstacles in the way. We may detain a woman when removal is imminent and she may attempt to secure a last-minute legal challenge to throw a roadblock in the way of her removal, and we have no way of anticipating that before she does so. That provides my hon. Friend with an example.

If we were to do what my hon. Friend suggested and have a blanket policy of not detaining women, first, having read many cases, I fear we would find quite a lot of people saying they were pregnant as another method of delaying their departure from the UK. I have seen people throw many obstacles in the way when they have no right to be here, and I do not want this to be one of them. We are committed to treating pregnant women properly, providing proper health care and treating them well. I do not want this to be an excuse that women who are not pregnant dream up in order to throw a legal obstacle in the way. I fear that that would be the result of adopting the blanket policy suggested by my hon. Friend.

A logical follow-on policy from what my hon. Friend suggests would mean not removing the women from the UK when they were pregnant and allowing them to give birth to their child, but then seeking to remove both the woman and the very young child from the UK to their home country or country of origin—and I am not sure that that would be an improvement. If I anticipate correctly, if we did that, we would then be criticised for trying to remove the mother with her very young child back to their country of origin. As I say, I am not sure that that would be an improvement on the present situation, because the fact remains that these women have no right to be in the UK: they should not be here and they should leave voluntarily. [Interruption.] I cannot quite tell whether the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is dying to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

That may be the case, but our objective is not to let the people out of detention, but to remove them from the UK. That it is the point, and it is one I think my hon. Friend is missing, too. The fact is that these women have no right to be in the UK and should leave. I am not sure that a policy that allowed them stay in order to give birth to their child, when we would immediately want to remove both the woman and the child from the UK, would be a better policy than the one we have today.

[Richard Fuller]

If the purpose is to remove people, will the Minister counter my statistics with statistics of his own, and explain why only five out of 100 women have been deported and 95 have been returned to the community? I am not sure that his argument stacks up.

[Mr Harper]

I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend’s statistics, but I do not have the details. Because, as far as I know, the Home Office has not been given the details of the 20 people to whom Medical Justice referred, it is difficult for us to validate its assertions. The difficulty with giving my hon. Friend overall statistics is that although when women provide the information that they are pregnant, that information is held on their health records, we do not log it statistically, and obviously we can do so only when they disclose the information to us. Of course, in the early stages of pregnancy they may not even be aware of the fact themselves.

When a pregnant woman is detained she will, like all other detainees, have access to free on-site health care facilities and medical advice broadly equivalent to that which is available from national health service GPs in the community. At Yarl’s Wood, for instance, all midwifery services are provided by Bedfordshire NHS Trust. Midwives from the trust visit the centre every week. At Dungavel immigration removal centre, where women may also be detained, midwifery services are provided by NHS Lanarkshire. In line with practice in the community, the visiting midwives will determine how frequently they need to see patients.

Women can make requests for additional midwife appointments through the health care centre if they wish. The centre is staffed by nurses around the clock, and the GP can be called upon seven days a week when necessary. In the event of a particularly difficult medical problem, health care staff can refer women to the antenatal clinic or early pregnancy unit in the local hospital, or to another appropriate health care service. I therefore do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is a health care issue.

My hon. Friend asked about pregnant women being returned to countries where malaria is prevalent. We take steps to ensure that they are given the appropriate course of anti-malaria medication before their removal, but decisions about that medication must, of course, be made by doctors.

As for my hon. Friend’s point about advice to British nationals who are travelling, he should bear in mind that these women are nationals of their home countries, the countries where they should live. The NHS is a national health service whose purpose is to provide health care for citizens and residents of the United Kingdom. It is not an international health service. I do not think that the comparison between the health care that a woman would receive in the United Kingdom if she lived here and the health care that is available in her home country is relevant. Her home country is the country in which she should live. It is not the job of the national health service to become a health service for everyone in the world. If it were to do so, it would rapidly collapse, and I do not think we want that to happen.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister is right to say that the NHS is a national and not an international health service, but that is not quite the point that I was making. One of the consequences of losing control of immigration is that people have been in this country for a long period, and when people have spent a long period in another country, their immunity to malaria is lowered. We are sending back pregnant women with low immunity. Their health condition is not the same as the health condition of a lady who becomes pregnant in her country of origin. That is the comparison that I was trying to make. I certainly do not want us to have an international health service, but I think the Minister must accept that delaying the repatriation of people who are here illegally has consequences in terms of their health status, particularly when it comes to malaria. That is a key point for pregnant women.

[Mr Harper]

And that is exactly why we ensure that pregnant women are given a course of anti-malaria medication. We also provide them with mosquito nets, free of charge, to use in their countries of origin. I am not sure that I follow the logic of my hon. Friend’s argument. If we allowed those pregnant women to remain in the United Kingdom and give birth here, we would still later be removing both mother and child to that same country of origin where malaria may be prevalent.

The fact is that we will not allow women to stay here when they do not have a right to do so. Not only will their cases have been judged by the Home Office, but a number of appeal routes will have been open to them, and only when all those routes have been exhausted will we be in a position to remove them from the country. We try to persuade people to return home voluntarily, and that includes providing assistance when they are in their home countries. Those whom we do detain—those to whom my hon. Friend is referring—will be people who have no right to be here. We will have tried to persuade them to leave voluntarily, and to give them support that would help them to do so. Only when they have refused all those offers of assistance and help from the United Kingdom will we seek to enforce their removal. Therefore, by definition they are people who are not co-operating in their removal from the United Kingdom. That is why I anticipate that if we change the policy to the one my hon. Friend suggests, people will use that to throw legal obstacles in the way—not to do what the hon. Member for Slough said, but at least to suggest to us that that is the case, which would at least delay, if not stop, their removal.

I am therefore unable to give my hon. Friend the outcome he desired. I am very happy to continue this dialogue with him and to look into the case he has raised with me, and if he thinks there are other cases where the Government are not following the policy we have set out, I will look into them. On his central request, however, I am afraid the Government have no plans to change the current policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I have heard these representations from various representative areas in Cardiff before, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, successive Governments have not thought that a particular grant should be made. I hope that he will join me in congratulating his police force in south Wales on the 5% fall in crime in the 12 months to December 2012.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I commend again the Home Secretary’s announcement of a consultation on stop-and-search? Will she advise the House what steps she is taking to increase participation in that consultation, and whether she has drawn any early thoughts from the review by HMIC into stop-and-search as provided by police authorities throughout the country?

[Mrs May]

I am indeed taking steps to encourage as many communities as possible to respond to the consultation on stop-and-search, and will be writing to a number of faith groups around the country in particular to encourage them to respond to that consultation. The figures that we saw in the HMIC report on stop and search show why it is so important that we hold this consultation. This is a valuable tool for the police, but it must be used properly.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I note my hon. Friend’s comment. Clearly, his own experience was very shocking and I well understand why he would wish to intercede in the debate to make that point clearly. Proscription can be an important mechanism to disrupt activity. We therefore believe that it is an appropriate mechanism to send a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and to act as a deterrent to their operating here. It also means that an organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate.

It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of that organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that they may be a member or supporter of such an organisation. We believe that proscription is a powerful mechanism to disrupt and take firm action against terrorist groups, which is why 49 international and 14 Northern Irish terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.

On the specific groups before the House this evening, having carefully considered all the evidence we firmly believe that both organisations, Boko Haram and Minbar Ansar Deen, are currently concerned in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of each group.

Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation based in Nigeria whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic caliphate. Seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks, it has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas day 2011 that killed at least 26 people, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013 that killed over 60, were both attributed to the organisation. The organisation has also sought to attack international targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. It has also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the past few years.

I stress to the House that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism across the globe.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning some of the disgusting attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We live in an interconnected world and I am sure that the Government of Nigeria will be pleased at the action being taken by the British Government today. Has my hon. Friend had any conversations with the Nigerian Government with respect to the motion before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

What I can say to my hon. Friend is that Boko Haram has carried out indiscriminate, mass-casualty attacks, and clearly we are conscious of all the events I have outlined. We believe that proscribing that organisation shows our condemnation of its activities very clearly and will prevent it operating in the UK and give the police powers to tackle any UK-based support for it, so proscription is an important step. I cannot comment on specific discussions we have had with the Nigerian Government, but clearly those continue. I stress the point I made earlier about condemning any human rights abuses in that regard. I think it is important to state that in this context.

The second group we are proscribing is Minbar Ansar Deen, a Salafist group based in the UK that promotes and encourages terrorism. It distributes material through its online forum, which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity, specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries. Proscribing it sends a clear message that we condemn its terrorism activities.

Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It of course would not be appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decisions to proscribe, but clearly we keep the whole area under constant focus.

Stop and Search

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the number of times members of black or minority ethnic communities are stopped and searched under section 60; the number is significantly higher than for white people. The Met police have already looked at their planned section 60 authorisations and significantly reduced the number—from 103 in June 2011, to just six in June last year, for example.

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me with an invitation to come to Leicester and to stand on the same side as him and listen to the community. Nearly two years ago, I visited a charity involved with the Met that works on getting young people more involved with the police and improving their interaction. I remember that stop and search was raised by two members of the group of young people I met on that occasion. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it makes an impact when one hears people who have been subject to stop and search talk about their concerns and their feelings about the police as a result of how it was conducted.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her recognition of how corrosive it can be to the spirit of young people when they are stopped and searched for no better reason than the colour of their skin. I echo the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee in encouraging my right hon. Friend to have an extensive consultation. Can she provide some examples of how she will engage communities in the consultation? It is a fantastic initiative, but it must have teeth if it is to bring real hope to people who have suffered from prejudice for far too long.

[Mrs May]

There will be a place for responses to the consultation on the gov.uk website, but we intend also to hold a number of consultation meetings with people who are involved in the issue. Obviously, we want to speak with those who administer stop and search, as well as groups who have commented on it in the past, but I am sure that there will be opportunities to hear directly from people who have been subject to stop and search, as well as from communities about how they feel stop and search should be used in their community.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his early remarks, and for the work of the Home Affairs Committee in its consideration of the Bill. We value its work. The answer to his question is no. It is still a matter for decision. I was clear, at an early stage, that it would not be right to make a decision on where counter-terrorism should sit before the Olympics or before the National Crime Agency was properly up and running. The legislation has now passed and we are working towards the formal and final launch of the NCA later this year.

The Bill marks the next stage of our reform programme to deal with the challenges we face.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will she take this opportunity to congratulate the retiring chief constable of Bedfordshire, Alfred Hitchcock, who manages one of the smallest forces in the country? Crime rates are down, detection rates are up and our budget has been reduced in line with Government expectations. As he rightly said:

“instead of an 82-page business plan we have a card that explains what we do and why.”

[Mrs May]

I am grateful—[Interruption.] I suspect there might be one or two more sedentary interventions; it was an interesting moment when I was told that Alfred Hitchcock was in my office at the Home Office waiting to see me. I congratulate retiring Chief Constable Alf Hitchcock on the work he has done in Bedfordshire. I congratulate all police staff who work in Bedfordshire on the impact of their work in ensuring that crime has gone down. We now see a much clearer focus for members of the public on what the police are doing and how they are delivering for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others.