European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Sam Gyimah Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

It is with a sense of trepidation that I stand to speak from the Back Benches for the first time in six years and for the first time since I resigned last Friday in order to vote against this withdrawal agreement. I loved my job. Innovation, scientific endeavour and our universities represent the best of Britain, and they underpin our future and our place in the world, so I did not take the decision lightly. At this point, I would like to say congratulations and good luck to my successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), and wish him all the best in that job.

I carefully considered the deal, which has been described as having a remain flavour. Even as a remainer, it became clear to me that it was not politically or practically deliverable, and that it would make us poorer and risk the Union. I encourage everyone to look at the deal and come to their own decision. I believe that whether we are leavers or remainers we are all first of all British and that it is the national interest we care most about, but the political declaration is not a deal; it is a deal in name only. It is a framework for negotiation with a lot of aspirations. Yes, it has all been hard fought for and hard won—I give the Prime Minister and her team the credit for that—but, now that it is in front of us in Parliament, we have to look at it as parliamentarians. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary admitted at the Dispatch Box that the deal might not be perfect, almost implying that this was like trying on a pair of shoes that were not the right colour and perhaps a bit tight, but getting on with it and life would be fine. However, this deal is like a pair of shoes with holes in the soles. It is fatally flawed.

There are three big reasons for that. The first is that all the big issues, whether they relate to security, home affairs, agriculture, fishing, our independent trading policy or frictionless trade, have been kicked into the long grass. While the public are being told that this is almost like the end of the process, we are actually just finishing one process and about to begin on another long and arduous process. We will be doing that at a time when we will have given up our vote, our veto and our voice, and will have no leverage whatsoever.

The ultimate fall-back position in this deal is the Northern Ireland backstop. We will be negotiating with the clock against us, with a fall-back position that is existential for us and not existential for the EU, and we will be expected to get the best deal for Britain. I doubt very much that we will. I believe that, in voting for this deal, we will be losing and not taking control of our destiny. We must be clear-eyed as we go into these negotiations because they have been set up for failure. The EU will manage the timetable, it will manage the sequencing of the negotiations, it will set the hurdles and it will tell us when we can progress to the next stage. That is what happened in the first phase of the negotiations and that is what will happen in the second phase. We will always be in a position in which we have to walk away or fold, and I know what will happen: we will always fold because the clock will be ticking.

The EU elections next year will pose a big problem for us. In 2019, everyone in the EU will be focused on those elections, so I doubt that much progress will be made during the first year of our initial two-year implementation period. At the end of that year there will be a new Commission and a new Parliament, which will not be party to the political declaration on which we will vote in the House. A new Trade Commissioner will be appointed. We will then have one year, as part of the first implementation period, in which to negotiate or go for an extension. In all likelihood we will go for the extension in June-July that year, so we will trip into the second implementation period and pay a significant amount of money for the privilege. We will go into the second period with a general election on the horizon, a Northern Ireland backstop that no one in the House wants, and yes, whatever assurances we are given, in all likelihood we will pay any price that the EU asks of us in order to get out of that backstop. So what do we have? We have “best endeavours” to rely on.

In my previous job as science and innovation Minister, I was involved in the Galileo negotiations. The EU stacked the deck against us time and again. Before the ink was dry on the transition deal, we were served notice that we could not participate in the security aspects, although when we were negotiating the deal we were led to believe that we could. We were then served notice that British industrial interests could not bid for contracts, even though British companies had built the encryption and security elements of Galileo—or, rather, they could do that, but they would have to move to countries within the EU in order to do so. We threatened to use our veto. The date of the vote was moved, and during the interregnum the EU changed the rules to involve simple majority voting, so our veto did not apply. Galileo is a foretaste of what is to come in these negotiations. We are setting ourselves up for failure by going down this route.

[Carol Monaghan]

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the concerns about Galileo were raised as long ago as the summer of 2016. It is simply not the case that the potential problems of access were not known during the negotiations. Many articles were written about it and many representatives of industry raised their concerns with us.

[Mr Gyimah]

The concerns were raised and were discussed. We signed a transition deal on the basis of best endeavours, only to realise that that was not the basis on which the other side was operating.

I bear no grudge against the EU for putting the EU first. I bear no grudge against the EU for aggressively prosecuting its interests. What does concern me is that, given the political declaration that we have before us, we do not have much leverage. The unique relationship that we are being told we can negotiate is unlikely to happen. What is most likely to happen is that we will be given a free trade agreement dictated to us by the EU.

We should level with the public. This deal does not bring closure. It is not a case of “Sign here, let us have a compromise and all the discord and disharmony that we have experienced over the last few years will suddenly disappear.” We will see Brexit Secretaries resign next year because so many of the issues have still not been thrashed out. The deal will not heal the divisions that we see in our country. Ultimately, we are at the foothills of a long and arduous process. Brexit will not be over as a result of the vote next week.

The Home Secretary said that there was no alternative, but I believe that that is a false choice. There are many options. What we have is a deal that has been engineered to put maximum pressure on all the other options in favour of the options that the Government are putting before us. We could list some of those options, and I will list them without prejudice initially. First, there is the Government’s deal. Secondly, there is the revocation of article 50. Thirdly, there is no deal. The important thing about those things is that all are within our control and do not require negotiation with the EU. If we want to negotiate with the EU, we can negotiate to extend article 50 in order to look at the backstop again. We can negotiate with the EU to extend article 50 in order to hold another referendum. We can negotiate with the EU to extend article 50 in order to look at the Norway option, in which I know a number of colleagues are interested. The Government may box themselves in with their own red lines, but that is no reason for Parliament to accept being boxed in by those same red lines.

There is, however a constraint. The ultimate constraint seems to me that there is no majority for any option in this Parliament. There may be plenty of options, but I doubt that there will be a majority for them. I have said that we should not rule out, if need be, going back to the people. When I say that, everyone says that it will be corrosive of our politics, it will be destructive of our politics and it will be hugely divisive. We should not be presumptive about where the electorate are, but I believe that that is not a reason to vote for the withdrawal agreement. If we vote for the agreement, we will give the public the impression that this is the best compromise and there are no problems further down the line: this is Brexit done. Waking up and seeing that Britain is being hobbled and crippled in those negotiations would also disappoint voters and that would also be corrosive of our politics.

I resigned because I thought, “This is probably the biggest vote in which I will take part during my political career.” It is for each Member in the House to decide what to do but, for me, the national interest is not served by voting for the Government’s motion.

Refugee Family Reunion

Sam Gyimah Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate those who have brought forward this debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I have pronounced his constituency much worse than our English colleagues have done this afternoon. I hope my mum, who is an Irish speaker, is not watching or there will be a row when I get home.

To be serious, the true horror of the reality of the pain of children separated from their families was brought home to us this week by the audio and video footage of the children weeping in the cages constructed for them under the immoral and ghastly policies of Donald Trump. Like other Members on the Opposition side of the House and, I suppose, some on the Government side as well, I was a little disappointed that the Prime Minister could not bring herself to condemn Trump yesterday in quite the way I would have liked. There are many of us who would do so today without hesitation. I may have many criticisms of the UK Government, but I do not think they would ever stoop to that level, and I am pleased to be able to say that. It is very important for us all to distance ourselves from what is happening in America—

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I did.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Well, you’re much better than Donald Trump.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Sam Gyimah Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Ottaway]

Absolutely. It also reinforces my point that, although the police might have knowledge or suspicion of criminal activity, it is hard to prove when there are no records. There is often no way of pinning that criminal activity on the offenders.

My Bill will repeal the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and addresses the cashless loophole by introducing a comprehensive ban on cash payments for scrap metal, including for mobile collectors and vehicle salvage operators. It is worth noting that when France introduced cashless payments last year, metal theft in Paris fell by 50%. My Bill will also oblige scrap metal dealers to verify the ID of all sellers of metal at the point of sale and keep records of the transaction available for inspection for a period of two years.

This will build on the notable success of Operation Tornado, a voluntary scheme led by the British Transport police under the wing of the national metal theft taskforce. It requires anyone selling scrap metal to dealers to provide photographic proof of ID. The results so far are impressive. The initial pilot scheme was in the north-east, and in the first six months, overall results showed a 50% drop in metal thefts. In the city of Durham, there was a fall of 73%. Operation Tornado is now being rolled out across the country, and we all have high hopes for its continued success.

The key feature of my Bill is the provision, in clauses 1 and 2, that no one may carry on a business as a scrap metal dealer unless they have a licence from their local authority. That will include motor salvage operators. The licence will be valid for three years, and a licence fee will be charged to cover the cost to local authorities of administering the licensing regime and ensuring compliance.

Clause 3 will give local authorities the power to turn down applicants unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person to carry on business as a scrap metal dealer. Unsuitability may be determined by a range of factors, including a criminal conviction. Clause 4 will give local authorities the power to revoke a licence. The Bill will also give the police and local authorities greater powers to take action against unregistered dealers. It contains powers to enter and inspect, and clause 9 will give the police and local authorities the power to close unlicensed premises with a court order. At long last, we will be able to ensure that any scrap metal dealer, whether mobile, on a site or a motor salvage operator will not be allowed to conduct business without a licence.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s comments about the licensing of scrap metal dealers, but I am still at a loss to understand how we can prevent people who steal metal from war memorials—as happened in Lingfield, in my constituency—from selling it. Even a licensed dealer could still buy stolen metal.

[Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. The Bill on its own is not a silver bullet. It is part of the overall picture, and it will be necessary to work with the Home Office and the police on its enforcement. The Bill will give the authorities the necessary power to implement a much tougher regime than the one that we have now, which is manifestly not working.

Clause 7 provides for the creation of a single, national publicly available register of all licensed scrap metal dealers, which will be maintained by the Environment Agency. It will be fully transparent and accessible to the public, and will for the first time give a national picture of the industry. That is another feature that I hope will be welcomed.

The current legislation does nothing to stop metal theft. It does nothing to incentivise good trading standards. It excludes mobile collectors from rules on cash payments, and it does nothing to support the law-abiding, legitimate scrap metal dealers. I believe that my Bill will address those woeful shortcomings. The worst breaches of the provisions of my Bill, such as operating as a scrap metal dealer without a licence, trading in cash or failing to keep proper records of dealings, will attract punitive unlimited fines. Many have complained that sentences for metal thieves do not reflect the economic and emotional impact of the crime. That matter will be considered by the Sentencing Council this autumn.

As I have said, the Bill is not a silver bullet; it will not provide all the answers. It is part of a comprehensive plan to address the overall problem. Many questions have been raised about scrap metal exports. Much of that goes through our ports in containers—some legally, some illegally—and intelligence evidence suggests the majority of stolen metals that find their way into those containers have been through scrap metal dealerships first. However, I am pleased to report that excellent work is being done in this area, under the umbrella of the national metal theft taskforce, which I hope will continue to receive financial support from the Government. Analysts from the British Transport police, who co-ordinate the taskforce, have joined forces with the UK Border Agency, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the container intelligence team at Felixstowe port to help identify and intercept containers carrying stolen metals. The taskforce has also established the force intelligence unit, which brings police and the industry together to function as a central hub for all metal theft intelligence. Work is also under way to design pioneering DNA techniques to improve the traceability of stolen metals.

If I may behave out of character for a moment, I want to applaud the British media, who have been quick to highlight and condemn incidents of scrap metal theft. The stories and campaigns, such as the “lest we forget” campaign by The Sunday Telegraph to protect our war memorials, have ensured the issue is constantly topping the agenda. I also congratulate the War Memorials Trust on its worthy “In Memoriam 2014” campaign, in partnership with the SmartWater Foundation, to protect all memorials in the run-up to the 100th anniversary of world war one. Half of the £6,000 cost to replace the plaques that were stolen from my local Sanderstead war memorial is being met by the trust, and I am delighted to have its support for my Bill. I pay tribute to it for its work.

We need a holistic approach in order to tackle the problem of metal theft. My Bill will sit at the heart of the chain of reform. This is our chance to support the legitimate traders and stamp out the loopholes that are allowing a sinister criminal underworld to grow in strength and in numbers. I have been deeply encouraged by the groundswell of support for my Bill right across society. Private Members’ Bills are notoriously vulnerable to opposition, but I ask the House to give this Bill, and its cause, its unanimous support.

Parliamentary Representation

Sam Gyimah Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point; I certainly pay tribute to Operation Black Vote, with which I have also worked in previous years and had people shadow me, and I know that many other Members have done the same.

There has been a lot of progress that we should celebrate. Recommendation 56 that civil partnership ceremonies should be allowed to be held in the House has been actioned. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might have been the first to take advantage of that change. [Interruption.] Perhaps he was not the first but there have been several, which is great.

Recommendation 51, about having a nursery and crèche within the House of Commons, has been implemented. That facility is used by many Members I know, and is very welcome. Even the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which does not always have a good reputation in the House, has implemented recommendation 52, which allows Members to take part of their salary in the form of child care vouchers. Previously, that option had long been open to other members of staff in the House but not to MPs.

There has been progress through the coalition agreement on the establishment of a disability democracy fund, but I hope the Minister will say more about where exactly that has got to. I know there was a consultation last year and it would be good to know when that will come to fruition.

There is also the recommendation that section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 should be abolished to prevent discrimination against Members who have mental health problems and have been sectioned, who currently are not able to retain their seat. I understand that there is a private Member’s Bill before the other place, but I should welcome any response from the Government about their commitment to the issue.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

I welcome the points the hon. Lady is making about what Parliament as an institution should be doing to lower the barriers for entry to the House, and to teach people who want to be Members of Parliament the rules of the game, but does not the prime responsibility fall on political parties? They need to make sure that they improve representation. On the Conservative side the numbers of women, and certainly of non-white candidates, increased substantially at the 2010 election, but that was because of the efforts of the party rather than of Parliament as an institution.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That point is vital, and I shall refer briefly to parties later.

Progress has been less good on other recommendations. Recommendation 4 is that Parliament’s education service should have its objectives changed so that it explicitly encourages a wider range of people to become candidates. Unfortunately, that recommendation has not been accepted by Parliament; a response to a parliamentary question was that it could be effected under existing objectives. That does not go far enough. When someone comes here for a tour of the House it is one of the most opportune times to ask them why they do not consider standing for Parliament and becoming an MP. That is the moment when there may be the most inspiration, and we should make that an explicit objective of the education service.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South touched on recommendation 5; she talked about political parties being honest in publishing exactly where they are at in terms of candidate selection. That monitoring data should be in the public domain so that researchers can analyse it and use it to show where some of the issues are. That still has to be put into action by all the parties, although some have made more progress than others. I hope that today’s debate may encourage more movement, although we should congratulate the hon. Lady on managing to say something positive about the Deputy Prime Minister—I hope she did not find it too difficult—and I am delighted that he responded in full to her letter.

European Arrest Warrants and Extradition

Sam Gyimah Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address this issue and for allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) to speak too. This issue has affected several of my constituents, often referred to as the Crete five, as well as my hon. Friend’s constituent, Andrew Symeou, who is a notorious example of the frailties of the legislation. The subjugation of an individual to the will of the state—any state—is an important issue and one on which the new Government are right to focus attention.

I commend the Government for appreciating that all is not right with our extradition treaties at present and that a review is a sensible step to address some of the concerns felt by many people. Without doubt, there are discrepancies between the justice systems of the many countries involved in extradition treaties. For example, a number of the offences for which a European arrest warrant can be issued are not crimes in this country. Indeed, many have fought hard so that racism and xenophobia do not become crimes in Britain. There are also clear differences between nations regarding prisoner rights and prison conditions, and these were at the forefront of the minds of the Crete five when they faced extradition proceedings earlier this year. Not only were they concerned by the initial summons they received, which was unclear as to its force and required them to appear in a Greek court just two weeks later, but they also feared a repeat of the case of Mr Symeou, who spent 10 months in a Greek jail without trial.

Those concerns remain very real for anyone facing the threat of extradition to a foreign country. Irrespective of innocence or guilt, the nature of the alleged crime or indeed nationality, certain standards must be maintained regarding the treatment of prisoners. That is as much a part of our justice system as the final verdict handed down, and we should expect our treaty partners to adhere to those same values.

At present, not enough safeguards exist to ensure that people are not sent to foreign prisons under foreign laws without good reason. The experience of many is that extradition is a fine thing only to someone who is running the criminal justice system. Individuals risk their whole life collapsing while they are hauled away without evidence and without hope of a trial any time soon.

We must be careful that the long-held, much cherished value of “innocent until proven guilty” is not swept under the carpet as simply the price we have to pay for international co-operation. I hope we do not move towards the French system, about which some have commented that people are seen as guilty from the moment the judicial system is interested in them. Judiciaries of any nation should have to provide some sort of prima facie evidence before extradition takes place. It cannot be right that an unfounded allegation based on evidence that would never stand up in a British court can lead to an extradition once a couple of boxes have been ticked.

There should be some element of proportionality in the system. I would venture that spending vast sums of money to extradite someone accused of stealing a piglet, as has happened recently, may somewhat diminish the power of the warrant when it is issued for more serious offences. The Government should seek assurances about the provision of legal aid and representation for extradited citizens. We must never send people overseas without any idea of whether bail will be granted or whether they will spend the next year of their life in prison with no trial date and no chance to clear their name. As we have seen in the case of Gary McKinnon, Britain should not be signing treaties that will allow other signatories to refuse to extradite when we are sacrificing that right. It is not in the interests of British citizens, and it leads to unbalanced treaty agreements.

There are many reasons for a review. It is long overdue, so I applaud the Government for acting so quickly on the matter. However, if I may, I would like to offer a word of caution. The European arrest warrant was introduced into British law in 2003. The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, dismissed concerns raised by the Opposition, saying that

“there is one problem with the proposal for a large part of the Conservative party; it has got the word “Europe” in it.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 836.]

Although I recognise the politics he was playing, I would not agree with the substance of what he said. This is not an issue primarily about Euroscepticism. It is not a rant against all things European. It is to do with the British values that we hold and our determination to protect those values and our citizens wherever they are in the world.

I urge those conducting the review not to be browbeaten into believing that the valid concerns that were raised in 2003, and which will undoubtedly be raised again, are in fact nothing but the rantings of anti-Europeans. In fact, we have seen, with every day of this coalition Government, that co-operation between different tribes is a good thing. It gets things done, and can turn a desperate situation into a more promising outcome. So there are good reasons for having extradition treaties, and there were many good reasons when the Extradition Act 2003 was first passed. It is now quicker and easier to bring people to justice for the crimes they commit. They cannot just flee across the channel, and they cannot drop in and out of countries with scant regard for the law, and in the globalised world we inhabit, it is a tool we can use to combat one of the biggest challenges facing us—that of a terrorist threat which knows no borders and no nationalities.

At the time of the 2003 Act, however, concerns about how these laws would operate were raised from across the political spectrum. We ploughed on unbowed. Perhaps that was understandable. The events of 9/11 tipped the balance in favour of the EAW. The catastrophic nature of those events no doubt shaped much of our security policy in the following years, and the belief prevailed that “needs must” and that although the objections had some merit, they did not outweigh the need for immediate, decisive action. Now that those events, although still a constant reminder of the danger we face, are less pressing and less immediate, perhaps we can have a period of considered reflection under this review, so that we can begin to answer some of the questions that were batted away when the law was first introduced.

That is why a review is long overdue. Our allies have made the EAW work for them—for example, Germany has the sort of proportionality test I have mentioned—and I hope that the review does the same for Britain. Yes, if British nationals break the law, they must face justice, as should those from other countries who transgress here. However, every time we read about one of these cases I have mentioned, every time someone is mistreated in a foreign prison off the back of a loosely issued EAW, and every time a year of a young person’s life is lost because of something that someone somewhere claims to have seen happen, we lose faith in this process as a proper tool of justice, and we retreat to an unhelpful position of instinctive distrust in international co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

The Minister has mentioned the Home Secretary’s involvement in the Gary McKinnon case. Would it not be helpful to ensuring justice if she became more directly involved in other extradition cases? At present, political involvement is completely absent from extradition.

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the extradition review will consider a range of issues relating to extradition arrangements. Obviously I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point will have been heard very clearly.

A number of concerns have been expressed about the European arrest warrant, but, as Members have pointed out this evening, it has been an invaluable tool in the fight against international crime within the EU. The European arrest warrant system has simplified and speeded up the extradition of persons both to and from the United Kingdom, and has made possible some procedures that were not formerly possible. Before the warrant was introduced, some EU member states had a constitutional bar on the extradition of their own nationals. The warrant has removed that barrier to extradition, and has updated or streamlined the extradition process in a number of other ways.

An increasing number of European arrest warrants are being dealt with in the United Kingdom. They are issued for a range of different offences. For an offence to be extraditable, it must be punishable by the law of the issuing member state with a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least 12 months, or, when sentence has been passed, with a sentence of at least four months. Offences that fall into one of the categories on the list contained in the European arrest warrant framework decision—all serious offence types—and that are punishable with a maximum sentence of at least three years in the issuing state may not be subject to the dual criminality test in the executing state. However, for the purposes of all other offences, the United Kingdom has implemented an optional further safeguard, and requires that the offence must also be an offence in the United Kingdom. The EU is actively exploring the best means of addressing the issue of proportionality in the number of warrants issued, and the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in its discussions.

When it comes to justice and home affairs in the EU, the picture is constantly evolving. The Government have decided to opt into the EU directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Opting in will help to protect the civil liberties of our citizens abroad without compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey mentioned legal aid. Legal assistance is an issue that is included in the Stockholm programme and the Commission is introducing a proposal on legal assistance for consideration next year.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements with member states of the European Union. Clearly, the issue is being examined carefully as part of the review that I have highlighted. That is why the review has been set up. It will report next summer, after thorough consultation—