Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I am sorry for everybody who is feeling that, in effect, everyone is invited to the Committee, although I suppose everyone is able to attend. It is a reasonable new clause. At present the way we proceed in this country is that there is an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—there is a scientific expert body of opinion that informs our drugs policy—but I readily acknowledge that the threat posed to public health by legal highs is a fast-evolving one, and that is why I have been talking to people such as the New Zealand Health Minister about how we can best respond to those threats.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

10. What steps the UK Border Agency is taking to deter health tourism to the UK.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to tackle abuse of UK public services by illegal immigrants.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On 3 July I launched a public consultation on proposals to strengthen arrangements for regulating migrant access to the NHS in the forthcoming immigration Bill. We are working across Government to build immigration policy into our benefits, health and housing systems and other services.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome the consultation that has been announced. Can he confirm that bringing immigration enforcement back into the Home Office will deter all forms of abuse of our immigration system, including health tourism?

[Mr Harper]

I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. Part of the reason for the Home Secretary’s decision is to have two very clear cultures within what was the UK Border Agency, so we have both high-quality, fast decisions for those applying for leave to enter the UK and stay here and a very good enforcement function with a clear law enforcement culture. That is what we are building and will continue to build.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who made an incredibly powerful speech. I know the Opposition Front-Bench team have kindly indicated that it does not intend to press the House to a Division, so part of my task tonight is, perhaps, not to detain us all for too long.

I will speak principally about those parts of this Bill, which I support, that address the question of forced marriage. Before I do so, however, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to know that I have listened very carefully to many of the contributions to this debate, and he has a problem. He has a real problem with the measures that are supposed to deal with the difficulties caused by dogs. We have heard incredibly powerful contributions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) in particular, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). She made it clear to the Minister—I hope he is listening—that he needs to tell the House why the Government do not think that the measures that have almost universal support on both sides of the House, other than from the Front Benchers, and that are in place north of the border should not be included in the Bill. I understand the desire not to have a smorgasbord of measures dealing with antisocial behaviour, but we are talking about a specific problem, to which a specific solution exists in Scotland and which, from the contributions I have heard this afternoon, is effective. He will need to make it clear to the House, although not necessarily tonight as we are not going to divide, but certainly in Committee, and subsequently, precisely why the Government are not in favour of introducing those measures.

As I have said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, this is a wide-ranging Bill that deals with a large number of things. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) referred to the problem of illegal raves in his constituency. I have to tell the House that my constituency is not too distant from Cambridgeshire, despite what we feel may be frequently thought in the corridors of Whitehall, and it has the same problem. I was speaking only last week to some of my local farmers who have encountered it. Anybody who has seen the aftermath of one of these illegal raves knows that we need to have in place the measures necessary to deal with that problem. In addition to dealing with the questions about dogs that have been put to him by other hon. Members, one thing that I want to hear from the Minister when he winds up the debate is that the measures in the Bill will deal effectively with the problem of illegal raves.

As I said at the outset, the principal issue to which I wish to address my comments is that of forced marriage because I know that the forced marriage provisions in the Bill have support from those on both sides of the House. However, it is important to record precisely the problem with which the Bill needs to grapple and for the Minister to make it clear to the House that it will do that. I say that conscious, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) made an extremely powerful speech, touching on the measures in part 9 of the Bill, which it would be difficult to follow.

Let me begin by identifying what the problem is, because this issue is hidden from the vast majority of Members of this House and our constituents. Every year, thousands of people—principally the young and, therefore, vulnerable—are affected by it. We are talking about more than 1,000, based on the statistics we have from the forced marriage unit, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for supporting it when it was set up in 2005. We know from the research that has been conducted and from anecdotal evidence that the 1,000-plus people who contact the unit every year are simply the tip of the iceberg. We do not know quite how many young men and women are affected, but they deserve the protection of the law and they have not had it south of the border in the way that Scotland has enacted it.

It is therefore right that we welcome the measures in part 9 of the Bill, which address, for the first time, the criminal nature of forcing people to contract a marriage where one, or both, of them does not wish to do so. This intervention that the law requires to be made comes not just in the context of young and vulnerable adults; in the vast majority of cases they are being forced into the situation not only by the people they love, but by the people who are supposed to be looking after them, caring for them and ensuring that their transition from childhood to adulthood proceeds smoothly and in a way that makes them useful, valuable and happy members of our society.

As I say, the measures in the Bill are to be welcomed. The difficulty with the existing law, for which the previous Administration are to be criticised, is that the system to protect those who find themselves confronted with this problem contained in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 was simply to have in place civil law measures, which, in effect, led to an order or series of orders against those who might force people into marriage.

The first problem with that—a point that the previous Government failed to listen to—was that it sent out completely the wrong message. Forcing someone into marriage is not only not desirable; given the context in which it occurs, it ought to be a crime. Although some responses to the Government’s consultation indicated that there might be some downsides to criminalising such behaviour, we ought to be absolutely clear that this is not acceptable behaviour in our society, and if it is not acceptable behaviour in our society, it ought to be a crime in England and Wales, as it is in Scotland. Of course, other criminal offences may be committed during the course of forcing someone to contract a marriage, but they may not be, or they may be so serious that there is a reluctance on the part of the vulnerable person affected to instigate a complaint or a prosecution.

The second problem with having only a civil law system of dealing with forced marriage is that it led to a lack of awareness on the part of professionals, certainly in 2011 when the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported on what precisely could be done, as a matter of law, when a young person found themselves in this position. The follow-on point is that once a forced marriage protection order of some description had been obtained, as far as many professionals were concerned that was the end of the problem, but of course it is not necessarily the end of the problem; it is important to see that the order and its provisions are enforced.

The third problem was that in the absence of criminality, there was a lack of effective protection, or a lack of an effective penalty, although of course people were put into custody for breach of orders made by the courts. The deterrent effect of having only civil law remedies, which were difficult to enforce and rarely enforced, was therefore lessened.

It is important to get this point across: none of this is to attack legitimate arranged marriages, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) referred to in an intervention on the Home Secretary. None of it has anything to do with proper arranged marriages, or interferes with the customs or culture of minority communities in this country. I understand that the original decision by the previous Administration not to criminalise forced marriage south of the border may well have been based on a desire not to be seen to target minority communities. Nobody wants to target minority communities, or to attack their culture or customs, but I have to tell Opposition Front Benchers that, given the problem of forced marriage, that was an error—an error that this Government propose to rectify, with cross-party support, in part 9 of the Bill. That is very much to be welcomed, as is the entirety of the Bill, subject to the points that I have made, which the Minister will need to deal with, about dangerous dogs. If we were dividing on Second Reading, which we are not, I would of course give the Bill my support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I commend her and the rest of the Select Committee on the report that they produced today. She is right that one improvement, which needs to be extended, is in the capacity of the police to investigate and of prosecutors successfully to prosecute those who commit these disgusting crimes. A number of trials around the country have led to multiple convictions and I know that many more such cases are in the pipeline. I hope that sends a clear signal that this crime is absolutely unacceptable and that the police are getting better at rooting out those who commit it.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

16. What plans she has to speed up the deportation of those refused asylum in the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

We want to continue to deport those who have no right to be in the United Kingdom, whether they are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders. Increased use of detained fast track and our national removals centre will reduce the risk of absconding, as well as being more successful in deporting people.

[Stephen Phillips]

One of the frustrations felt by all our constituents about the asylum and wider immigration system is the seemingly endless ways in which failed asylum seekers and immigrants are able to keep on appealing. I hope that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use the forthcoming immigration Bill to clamp down on the many rights of appeal.

[Mr Harper]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. and learned Friend that that is exactly what we are going to do. The immigration Bill plans to reduce the number of decisions it takes to remove someone who has no right to be in the country. Reducing the number of appeals will make the process easier and swifter.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

It must be because Bassetlaw has an outstandingly talented local MP, I assume. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the three strands of the Government’s strategy: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. Great progress is being made on all three in Bassetlaw and elsewhere.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T10. My constituents are fed up with extremists and hate-preachers such as Anjem Choudary receiving thousands of pounds of benefits. Will my right hon. Friend look at limiting those benefits?

[Mrs May]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the benefit position of an individual, but I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss policy proposals on a range of issues. As the Prime Minister said to the House last week, we should do all we can to challenge poisonous ideologies. It is right that we look at all options, including whether it is possible to limit the right of individuals of concern to access straight benefits. We robustly challenge behaviours and views that run counter to our shared values, such as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and the tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. When appropriate, we will use the full force of the law to challenge extremist activity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do agree. I mentioned the Border Force’s performance during the Olympic and Paralympic games. There was some scepticism as to whether it would be able to continue that during the very busy September-October period for student arrivals, but I am pleased to say that it performed very well during that period; we did not see a resumption of queues at Heathrow, and it can be very proud of that level of performance.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

7. What plans she has to speed up the removal of people refused asylum in the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

Swift action will be taken against all those who have no lawful permission to remain in the UK. That includes not only failed asylum seekers, but everyone who does not have permission to be here. We are not repeating the last Labour Government’s mistake of focusing only on one thing at a time and letting everything else get out of control, which resulted in the situation we inherited when we came to power.

[Stephen Phillips]

Speaking as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that the issue of those who remain in this country illegally is of huge concern to all our constituents. Can he update the House on what action is being taken to deal with it specifically in the east midlands and my constituency?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that question, and I will enjoy being scrutinised by him, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, in due course. I can give him a couple of examples. Obviously, we have conducted enforcement operations in his constituency, and he might also be interested to know that this summer in London Operation Mayapple led to more than 2,000 individuals from the London area without permission to be in the UK leaving the country. The number of enforced overstayer removals is up 21% compared with April to September 2011, and arrests are up 16% this year compared with last year.

Intercept Evidence

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for raising this issue and for the way he has done so, particularly in relation to his constituents, but also in respect of the wider issues of justice at stake. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I wish to discuss the big picture and then address specific issues relating to counter-terrorism and white collar crime.

The big picture is that in this country, particularly since 9/11, we have somehow started to view the justice system as an impediment to fighting crime and to law enforcement, rather than as something that is integral to and part of the solution. My view is that the justice system is a weapon, because without it and its integrity law enforcement will always be subject to flaws, be open to challenge and be fickle and fragile. Over the past 10 years, the prosecutorial edge that we have in this country has, if anything, started to become blunter, because of these prevailing attitudes.

In a cross-party debate that is being conducted in an admirable tone and spirit, I must make some criticism of the previous Government. Nobody doubts the pressures on government, given that the first duty is to protect the public, but since 9/11 and 7/7 we have seen a trend of excessive, hyperactive legislation, coupled with increasing surveillance, not just of terrorists and serious criminals but of the ordinary, average citizen. I am thinking of identity cards; the surveillance of not just terrorist suspects but people responsible for fly-tipping, dog pooping and so on; and the current proposals on the internet and e-mail, and text and BlackBerry messaging, which are really a rehash of earlier proposals under the previous Government.

While we have had this ever-expanding criminal legislative base and net of surveillance, it seems that the one set of characters we are getting worse at tackling and bringing to justice using that surveillance are the terrorists. Between 2006 and 2010 convictions for terrorism offences fell by close to three quarters—75% is a massive drop at a time when we supposedly have an ever-increasing threat, a massively expanding criminal base and ever more use of surveillance. Despite all that we cannot address the No. 1 priority, which all in this House would agree is counter-terrorism. Incredibly, the most serious seem to slip through the ever-expanding net of surveillance.

There are various aspects to what I regard as a serious and substantial prosecutorial deficit in this country. I understand the English Bar’s concerns about plea bargaining, but without going the whole hog and adopting the American approach we could make an incremental and stronger use of plea bargaining, particularly in cases of “joint criminal enterprise”, where concentric circles of active criminal participants are involved. We need to look at the issue of plea bargaining.

We also need to have a far more robust prosecutorial policy. We saw with the Abu Hamza case the tendency of the intelligence agencies to sit back and watch, whereas he should have been nailed the minute he did something that crossed the line—the Americans take the latter approach. We saw the same thing at the time of the protests in 2006 against the Danish cartoons: eventually there were four convictions for the clear and flagrant criminal activity of inciting violence and murder but, boy, were we slow to respond. What message does it send if it takes six weeks to arrest people who were advocating murder on the streets of this country? We need to be more robust in the use of prosecution, because it is a weapon.

The real missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle has been intercept evidence. I make no claim that it is the silver bullet or some kind of touchstone panacea, but its law enforcement value is beyond doubt. We are, as others have said, alone in the democratic world in not taking advantage of it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden discussed the visit that he and I made to Washington in 2007, taking in the White House, the FBI and all the relevant law enforcement agencies. The impact there of intercept evidence is clear in action against kingpin mafia dons and counter-terrorism. An excellent report by Justice in 2007 reviewed 10 US terrorism plots involving 50 suspects since 9/11. The US authorities secured charges and convictions in each case using a 48-hour maximum pre-charge detention limit—bear in mind the debate we had in this country—and in every single case, that was made possible by intercept evidence.

Former US Assistant Attorney General Ken Wainstein argues that intercept evidence is a vital part of the preventive strand of US counter-terrorism strategy—not just the prosecutorial, but the preventive strand—because of the disruption it causes in the concentric circles of terrorist actors. The way the US authorities use it in the joint criminal enterprise approach is to use plea bargaining to turn the minnows against the big fish and then work their way up the ladder, so to speak. Its disruptive impact is not only powerful in and of its own right, but it also has a strong deterrent effect.

The Australian Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Damian Bugg QC, has highlighted the value of intercept evidence in drug trafficking cases, as well as terrorism cases. When asked about the analogous position in Britain, he says:

“The use of telephone intercepts in trials for terrorism offences and other serious crimes is now quite common in Australia and I cannot understand why England has not taken the step as well.”

Senior Canadian prosecutors make precisely the same point. We also have the evidence from our own law enforcement officials. The former DPP Sir Ken, now Lord, Macdonald told the Home Affairs Committee in 2009:

“If we had intercept available as an evidential tool and if we were directing intercept capability towards the gathering of evidence, I am absolutely confident that our experience would mirror the experience of other jurisdictions where it is used very frequently to great effect”.

The current DPP has drawn similar conclusions. He told the Committee:

“Evidence obtained by interception would be of benefit to prosecution in this country, particularly in respect of counter-terrorism and organised crime.”

That was not some abstract conclusion. He continued:

“I base that answer on an analysis of the cases where we have been able to use foreign intercept evidence. There have recently been 11 such cases involving organised crime. In eight of those cases, there were pleas of guilty based on foreign intercept evidence.”

We are missing a massive trick in this country. As others have mentioned, the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism in the very difficult period between 2005 and 2007, Andy Hayman, said that while he began as a sceptic about the value of intercept evidence, he was turned around. Although I respect the Chilcot review and its conclusions, I have to say that in the light of the evidence made available both in this country and abroad by people who have taken a big picture, overarching and strategic view, I cannot accept that intercept is not of serious and substantial law enforcement value.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton—[Hon. Members: “That’s you.”] I am sorry; I meant my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I was confused because he was referring to me.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

And you made yourself a Privy Counsellor.

[Mr Raab]

I think it is the only way I will get promotion these days.

It is an anomaly that we have so many other sources of sensitive information that can be used in UK courts. What is so special about intercept evidence? The objections to its use—certainly those from Chilcot and other reviews—cluster around three or four issues. We have heard about article 6, the threat of disclosure of sensitive sources and the inadequacy of public interest immunity, but the truth is that every other jurisdiction that uses intercept evidence has a killer back-stop: if they fear disclosure, they drop the charges. There is zero risk of disclosure because the option of dropping charges and dropping a prosecution is always available.

Another argument that has been made ad tedium is that a disproportionate part of the resources of the intelligence agencies, particularly GCHQ, would be absorbed, but that argument, which relates to transcription of the evidence, has been made almost totally redundant by modern information and communications technology and the ability to use it to store data and subsequently search it. That argument has therefore fallen by the wayside, but even so, the senior prosecutors I mentioned have made the point that the costs, to the extent that there are costs involved, are more than offset by the increasing number of people who plead guilty as a result of the use of intercept evidence.

I will refer briefly to the Natunen case, because there has been a huge amount of misreporting of its impact and what it really means for the use of intercept evidence. The 2009 Home Office report, and other GCHQ sources, point to the Natunen case and claim that it requires

“full retention of all intercepted material”

just in case it might include something that shows a suspect is innocent. That is simply an inaccurate reflection of the Strasbourg case law. In the Natunen case, which concerned a drug dealer who was convicted in Finland using intercept evidence, the Strasbourg Court emphasises that

“disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right”,

acknowledging

“competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses”.

The Court stated that it was not its role

“to decide whether or not such non-disclosure was strictly necessary since, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them.”

Far from requiring “full retention”—this is the key point—the Strasbourg Court required that defence requests for disclosure of sensitive evidence be backed up by “specific and acceptable reasons”. The intelligence agencies would need to retain some relevant material. However, the Court made it clear that that necessitated neither defence access to that evidence nor the wholesale retention of all intercept material. In the Finnish case, it merely required that a judicial body approve the destruction by the intelligence agencies of relevant intercept material, collected over a limited three-week period. Frankly, I think that the Natunen case has been blown out of all proportion.

The real issue—I do not think that the agencies are making this up—is not the Aunt Sally or the false reasons that have been put up and are rebutted by the empirical evidence. The real reason is that GCHQ, which was originally an intercept organisation confined to the military zone, has had its functions broadened to include counter-terrorism and other serious crimes. Its role has increased exponentially. I can see why it worries about lack of focus and the huge competing obligations being placed on it with finite resources, notwithstanding the increases in its budget. I understand that, but that is a strategic issue of tasking intelligence, not a technical issue of viability.

Likewise, the fact is that we face a cultural shift with regard to law enforcement and the division between intelligence and prosecution. It is a shift that has taken place in other countries but that our authorities have not yet to bridge and overcome. There is a cultural aversion in this country to combining intelligence with prosecution, and I think that we have to overcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), I hesitated to rise in this debate; I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on having secured it. His contribution and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) have been extraordinary and among the best that I have heard on this subject since I have been in the House.

The debate has been extraordinary not only in its quality but in the fact that the House is having it yet again. I entered the House only in May 2010, yet the issue has been rumbling on not only in this Chamber but among lawyers—including those, such as me, who sit a few weeks a year judging crime—for a considerable period.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is entirely right in saying that, as the position prevails at present, courts and prosecutorial authorities have one hand tied behind their backs. It is extraordinary that, as our colleagues from not only other democracies but other common law jurisdictions tell us, we are the only country that has never permitted the use of intercept evidence to secure the conviction of the guilty and—almost as importantly—the acquittal of the innocent.

Notwithstanding the powerful speeches from both sides of the House, I want to concentrate on one other point. While we continue to exclude such evidence from our prosecutions in this country, we run the risk of interfering with our civil liberties. It may be, of course, that, as the last Government said during the last Parliament, none of those on control orders could have been prosecuted even if intercept evidence had been capable of being used in the courts. However, that is the sort of thing that Governments always say because they have it on advice from their security advisers.

One of the things that has concerned me about the non-use of intercept evidence, which must compel us to move in the direction not only of looking at this question more closely but of coming to a resolution in favour of using such evidence, is that if we do permit it to be used we may end up with prosecutions in cases where hitherto we have had to use administrative measures that begin to interfere with people’s civil liberties. I hope that that is yet another reason why the Minister will be compelled to indicate to the House precisely when we will see the introduction of legislation in this context, in accordance with the recommendations not only of the whole House but of the Privy Counsellors who previously considered the matter.

Extradition

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The cases that the hon. Gentleman raises were considered through a series of proceedings in the courts in the United Kingdom and by the European Court of Human Rights. All those courts determined that it was perfectly appropriate for those individuals to be extradited to the United States.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The correct decision to which my right hon. Friend has come has been warmly welcomed across the House, and I join in welcoming it. She referred to the fact that she is having discussion internationally, both with the United States and with EU member states, in relation to our extradition arrangements. Are any changes to the European arrest warrant being suggested by other EU member states, and what does she propose to do to carry those forward?

[Mrs May]

If I may just clarify, I think that my hon. and learned Friend has picked up on the discussions that I referred to in response to the shadow Home Secretary, which were international discussions about cybercrime. We will indeed be having discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. It is already the case that other member states have raised issues, for example, on proportionality. This is a matter of concern for other member states, not just the United Kingdom.

Abu Qatada

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I think it absolutely right for Parliament to have the opportunity to ask questions, and to raise the issues that Members wish to raise, in response to this case. As I said on Tuesday and have said again today, it was always going to be the case that various legal avenues would be open to Abu Qatada and his lawyers which they could pursue in an attempt to delay his deportation, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. The fact that they are using those delaying tactics comes as no surprise to anyone. The Government are clear about the deadline, and clear about our case and the strength of the assurances that we have received.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Given some of the opportunistic nonsense that we have heard from Opposition Members, may I assure my right hon. Friend that she has the full support of Government Members? She will know—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman. As well as being the Member of Parliament for Sleaford and North Hykeham, he is a distinguished Queen’s counsel. Let us hear his views.

[Stephen Phillips]

My right hon. Friend will know that the European Court of Human Rights’ own practice direction on rule 39 indicates that rule 39 measures should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Will she discuss with the Attorney-General whether it is now open to the Government to apply for removal of the rule 39 injunction, and indeed whether it is still in place, given the expiry of the time limit, which is so obvious to every Member on the Government Benches?

[Mrs May]

My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point. I can tell him that in indicating that it has received an application for referral that will be put before the panel of the Grand Chamber for consideration, the European Court has made it clear to the UK Government that the rule 39 injunction still applies.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate and on the fierce advocacy that he has deployed both in his speech this evening and generally in relation to this issue. There have been a number of powerful contributions from both sides of the House. The contribution on the European arrest warrant from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) was particularly impressive. He said that he was not a lawyer and that being a politician was criminal enough in his constituency. All I can say is that I will not be taking my holiday in Bournemouth this year.

Extradition serves an extraordinarily useful function in the administration of criminal justice throughout the world. Merely fleeing a jurisdiction should not be equated with acquittal. It is very important that decent and proper extradition arrangements exist between civilised nations so that those who are accused of crimes, or at least of serious crimes, can be brought before the criminal courts of the jurisdiction in which those crimes are alleged to have been committed—provided of course that appropriate safeguards are in place, along the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), to recognise that those accused of crimes are not guilty of those crimes until such time as a jury, or in some cases a judicial body, has said so. There was nothing more inimical to justice than the spectre, after the end of the second world war, of many war criminals who were guilty of genocide being able to travel to jurisdictions where there were no extradition arrangements with European nations, and in those circumstances being able to evade justice for a considerable period. During the debate, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are victims of crime who are as much entitled to justice as those who are accused of crimes and who are in fact innocent.

As has been recognised in the debate—we have begun to reach a consensus on both sides of the House—a balance needs to be struck between, on one hand, the protection of the fundamental right of a citizen not to be extradited abroad if there are inadequate safeguards to protect that citizen from an unfair trial and, on the other, the need to prosecute very serious crimes. A number of principles pervade this area of law but, given the events at the beginning of this century that led to the Extradition Act 2003, sufficient regard might not have been paid to them.

The first of those principles is that trivial offences should not trigger extradition at all. In circumstances such as some of those alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, it is entirely inappropriate that any citizen be removed from his own jurisdiction, taken to a foreign place, perhaps not granted bail and locked up, and prosecuted for something that, on the face of things, is minor.

The second important principle is that of speciality, of which no mention has been made during this debate but which requires that the only offences with which someone extradited to a foreign jurisdiction can be charged be those for which he has been extradited in the first place. Two of the problems in this area that perhaps have not been properly grappled with by the Extradition Act are the absence of enforceable assurances from some countries seeking extradition from this country and the fact that the Home Secretary and the courts cannot take the principle of speciality properly into account in those circumstances.

There is also the principle that there should not be double jeopardy—that nobody should be tried twice for the same offence—save perhaps in limited circumstances. Again, I do not think that any mention has been made of that in the debate. Furthermore, there are principles surrounding the protection of people’s human rights—the principle that we do not require those domiciled in this country, regardless of whether they are citizens, to be extradited if they might face capital punishment. That was alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—although I could not agree with all her remarks about torture.

Two issues have arisen out of the 2003 Act. The first concerns the disparity—or lack of reciprocity—perceived to exist between the arrangements that we have in place for extradition to the United States and the arrangements that the United States has in place for the extradition to this country of those accused of crimes here. Notwithstanding what was said by the then Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland, when the commencement provisions of the 2003 Act were debated in the other place, I agree with the Baker report that there is little difference between the tests applied on this side of the Atlantic and on the other side. Fundamentally, there is no difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

What so concerns our constituents—certainly in my constituency—and many lawyers is that whereas in the United States the fourth amendment to the constitution, which requires probable cause to be shown, requires that an extradition request go before a court, there is no such requirement in this country. In those circumstances, it is perceived—I think, perhaps, correctly—that citizens or anybody domiciled in this jurisdiction whose extradition is sought to the United States are being denied a right that they might otherwise have had.

The commencement of the forum provisions contained in the Police and Justice Act 2006, in so far as they amended the 2003 Act, would go some way to meeting these difficulties. I agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it is difficult to understand why those provisions have not been commenced, including by the previous Government. Liberty obtained advice from leading counsel, Edward Fitzgerald and Julian Knowles, that no amendment to the treaty between this country and the United States would be required were those provisions to be commenced. I would like to hear from the Minister, therefore, that the Government will at the very least bring forward the commencement of those provisions.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend is talking about the immediacy and the timing of some of these issues. That Babar Ahmad, who is the most pertinent example, has still not been brought to trial after seven years is further evidence of a scar on general jurisprudence in this country. Does that not give a sense of the importance of immediacy?

[Stephen Phillips]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a stain on justice in this country and, in my view, on justice in the United States that Babar Ahmad has been locked up for seven years. If Babar Ahmad wanted a trial, he could have one in the United States, but one of the great difficulties with forum issues is this: why on earth should he have to do so? Why should he be taken to a foreign jurisdiction, when the witnesses, the evidence and his legal representatives might be here, to defend himself against these very serious accusations? As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion pointed out, these are very serious allegations indeed. I was horrified to hear her comments about the absence of evidence before the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that that matter will be looked into and that the Minister will assure us that the evidence will be made available.

The other area of debate has been the European arrest warrant, the problem with which is that the standards of justice that prevail in this country and other countries in Europe, such as Ireland, Germany and France, are not necessarily those that prevail all over the European Union. I regret to say that I do not share the hope of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Baker report that the system will sort itself out. That is the triumph of hope over experience.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I start by congratulating the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on how he introduced it. I also place on the record my pleasure that, after the unfortunate way in which the debate was punted into Westminster Hall, we now have it on the Floor of the House. I thank those concerned and those who campaigned to ensure that these huge petitions were responded to properly.

When I was first elected to the House, I never would have dreamed it possible that public campaigns and public concern could result in a debate in the House of Commons. We spent years trying to secure debates on the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and several other cases that turned out to be serious miscarriages of justices and which, in the current atmosphere, would undoubtedly have attracted the same number of petitioners as the cases being discussed tonight. We should welcome the fact that Parliament has manoeuvred itself into a position where it can be more responsive to public concerns and justice issues. I hope that it continues. After all, that is what we are sent here for—not only to write laws and change laws but to consider issues of miscarriages of justice.

I want to refer briefly to three cases and then make a couple of general points. I shall not talk at great length about the first one because others have done so. The case of Gary McKinnon has been well reported and documented, and his mother and family have campaigned so assiduously on it, as has his own MP and many others. It is time that we understood that the McKinnon case goes to the heart of a whole load of inadequacies, of both our system and our relationship with the United States, which, as the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) pointed out a minute ago, is not a reciprocal arrangement, but something fundamentally different.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Is not one of the problems with the McKinnon case that there is nothing in the 2003 Act to enable the Home Secretary to take into account either mental or physical illness? That means that Gary McKinnon’s Asperger’s cannot be taken into account when deciding whether he should be extradited.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. That is the fundamental weakness in the 2003 Act, which does not allow that discretion which any sensible, right-thinking person would apply straight away on a humanitarian basis.

I was not going to mention the General Pinochet case until I got to the end, but I may as well do so now, as it fits with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point. Like many others, I fought to get Pinochet extradited so that he could go on trial. We won the cases all the way through, but unfortunately the then Home Secretary decided that there was an overriding medical reason for allowing General Pinochet to return on the “Lazarus flight” to Chile, where he walked off the plane and seemed to be perfectly healthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear, no. Don’t get me started on that. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the aetiology of how we got to the European arrest warrant. It was a Conservative Government who ratified our membership of the European convention on extradition in 1991, which has almost all the same provisions and applies to nearly all the same countries. Indeed, in 1993 it also included Hungary.

Secondly, I wish to mention prima facie rules. Under the 2003 Act, there is no prima facie rule in relation to EAW countries, known in the legislation as category 1 territories. However, in countries in whose criminal justice systems we do not have the same legal confidence, a prima facie rule still applies. That includes several Commonwealth countries covered by the London scheme and many others covered by bilateral treaties, such as Brazil and Argentina—the countries that were formerly quite happy to receive people from Nazi Germany without asking any questions.

There is no prima facie requirement for designated category 2 countries that share our respect for human rights and the rule of law, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the US. The Opposition believe that that distinction is a proper one, even if we would constantly seek to urge reform and modernisation of legal systems in many EAW countries. Hon. Members have said that we cannot just hope that that will happen and that we need to try to ensure that it does. However, we would not do so by suddenly inserting a prima facie case for all EAWs. If we did that, we would be leaving the EAW. Some hon. Members might like us to do that—as well as leaving the EU—but it would be a mistake because of the effects it would have on the UK.

[Stephen Phillips]

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is therefore advocating that it is perfectly acceptable for citizens of this country to be extradited to jurisdictions where conditions in the justice system are less than ideal when no prima facie case is shown. Is that right?

[Chris Bryant]

The Committee makes it clear in its report that the

“EAW is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and… mutual trust”

between the judicial authorities of EU states. That is a legitimate position for us to adopt, just as it was adopted in 1991 by the Conservative Government when they signed us up to the ECE—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering, but I cannot hear what he says. Unless he wants to chunter louder, I am at a loss—[Interruption.] He says he will chunter more quietly, for which I am very grateful.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

That is a very helpful intervention, because I want to move on to the evidence that was given to the Committee by Stuart Osborne, the deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police service and senior national co-ordinator for terrorism investigations. He also represents ACPO. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked Mr Osborne how long it would take for a new regime to bed in before it becomes law, to which he replied:

“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 10, Q31.]

On the basis of that evidence, which mentions the period of a year, hon. Members are concerned that we could be putting ourselves in a risky situation by rushing headlong into the new TPIMs regime.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will, because I have just referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Stephen Phillips]

It is important that the evidence is not taken out of context. My hon. Friend the Minister subsequently received assurances—as he will no doubt be able to confirm—from the security services and the Metropolitan police that there would be no problem with the Government’s proposed timetable for the introduction, and I am therefore surprised that the hon. Lady has referred to that passage of evidence without drawing the House’s attention to those assurances.

[Diana Johnson]

It is important that evidence given to the Committee, which I read out verbatim from the transcript, is put before the House when we are debating the amendment on 365 days. The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly put his point on the record.

Evidence was also given by Lord Carlile, and he talked about the cost of the new surveillance techniques that would have to be employed. He said that the costs would be between £11 million and £18 million per person per year, and he also mentioned that as far as he was aware the cost of a control order was £1.8 million per person. So a huge amount of money will need to be invested in ensuring that these new surveillance techniques are properly available.

Given the evidence put before the Committee and in the other place, we know that some senior police officers still have concerns about the readiness—[Interruption.] Well, in recent weeks there have been reports that senior police officers are not satisfied. I understand what the Minister said, and I shall ask him to address the point in a moment, but while we welcome the Government’s move from 28 days to 42 days—and I understand what the Minister says about that being appropriate during the holiday period—it is sensible to reconsider where we are at this stage. Given that some senior police officers feel that we are not prepared enough, that the Mayor of London has made his views clear and asked the Government to think again on this issue and that the Olympics, Paralympics and diamond jubilee celebrations are ahead of us, it is appropriate for the Minister to reflect on what the provision will mean. We have a two-week extension. Would it not be sensible to give the police and the security services more time and some flexibility to ensure that we have the resources, the people and the training in place? Is it not better to legislate now to keep control orders for that flexible period until we are absolutely certain and confident that surveillance is fully in place and all systems are operational?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

I am afraid that this is one of the rare occasions when I cannot help my right hon. Friend. I cannot for the life of me think why, if I were a Minister faced with this level of risk and if I had a practical solution that would not cost me a great deal of extra money, I would not seek the House’s agreement to an extension of the transitional period as a precautionary, preventive measure, just to get us through what I believe will be a time of heightened risk.

I am grateful to the Minister for placing information from the police in the Library to reassure us about their readiness, but I want to ask him a question. What provision exists to cover the—possibly—six people who are currently subject to control orders and to relocation provisions, and who are likely to return to London? In Committee, I raised an issue that has still not been resolved. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 allows a TPIM to be applied which specifies a residence where a person must reside, but paragraph 3 contains a power to exclude a person from a locality. I believe that there is still a contradiction between a person’s right to reside at his or her own residence and the power that would allow that person to be excluded from, for example, east London. What if the person’s residence is in east London? Which power will have priority, the power to exclude under paragraph 3 or the power relating to residence in paragraph 1?

I have still not received an answer to my question, and I am very worried about the position. If those six people, many of whom may well have residences in east London, choose to live there, will the TPIMs regime include a power to exclude them from a broader area than the locality in which the Olympics will take place? I should appreciate a clear answer from the Minister today. If it is necessary for me to write to him I shall certainly do so, but I should be reassured if he could give me that further information.

[Stephen Phillips]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Hazel Blears]

I will—

Border Checks Summer 2011

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. She can sit down and she can read out what the Whips have given her on some other occasion.

Other Conservative Ministers—

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not trouble the House with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), but he has now three times described the Secretary of State as “arrogant and indolent”, which, if not unparliamentary, is offensive. Being a new Member, I would ask whether he needs to withdraw those comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman are not unparliamentary, in the sense that they are not impugning the personal honesty of a Member of this House. But comments are being made by Members on both sides and we would all want to reflect on whether they show this House at its best. They are sailing pretty close to the wind of good parliamentary conduct, and I take this opportunity, therefore, to say that there is no requirement for anything that has been said thus far to be withdrawn, but perhaps everybody could bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), with his considerable knowledge of the way that the Department functions. However, for me, and I hope for other Members of this House, the most disappointing feature of this debate has been that it has taken place not only in a heated atmosphere but, at times, in an extremely ill-tempered one. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that he was concerned that the office of Home Secretary might be diminished by this affair. I am similarly concerned that this House has been diminished by some of the debate this afternoon. I say that because I think the British people are interested in three things as a result of this affair and, indeed, of their more general interest in the question of immigration—but not interested in an opportunistic fashion. I venture to suggest that this is an opportunistic motion, albeit that there have been opportunistic contributions from both sides of the House.

First, the British people want to know precisely what has gone on. Secondly, they want an acknowledgement by politicians in all parts of the House—but particularly, if I may say so to Opposition Front Benchers, by those who formed part of the previous Administration—that something went very badly wrong with immigration in this country for a very lengthy period, as a result of which many of our constituents spent much of the last general election campaign raising immigration with us as an issue that seriously concerned them. I know that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has done this in the past in relation to aspects of the previous Government’s immigration policy, but it would do her, and those who sit with her, no harm at all to acknowledge that something went very badly wrong under the previous Government, that having an extra 2.2 million people—twice the population of Birmingham—in this country during the course of the 13 years that Labour was in power was not a good thing or something that increased community cohesion, and that real mistakes were made in relation to other areas such as establishing quotas for those from new-entry members of the European Union.

Thirdly, our constituents want to hear about what ministerial responsibility means in the 21st century in the context of a Department that, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn made clear, is at the forefront of relations between the state and the individual, which is why it has caused such problems for so many Home Secretaries in the past.

I was enormously pleased that the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford acknowledged, because this must be the case in the 21st century, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can know precisely what is going on in their Department. What we therefore need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) indicated, is to get to the bottom of what happened on this occasion by virtue of the inquiries that will take place, to listen to the results of the inquiries, and only then to make judgments about the conduct of the Home Secretary and her officials and advisers in the Home Office.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Stephen Phillips]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very glad. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems a bit surprised that he is giving way to me.

How can we get to the bottom of the matter if it is not guaranteed that the inquiry will be published and that all the paperwork that will be provided to the inquiry from the Home Office will be published? If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it should be, he should vote for our motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I am not voting for the motion—let me deal with that point first—because it is entirely premature, as I have made clear. On whether the papers should be produced to the House, which is what most of the motion calls for, the answer is obviously no. The papers need to go before the inquiry. I have no doubt that after the inquiry has reported, a statement will be made to the House. I express no view at the moment about whether the report will be published. My view, which I will share with the hon. Gentleman, is that it ought to be published so that the House knows what it says, suitably redacted if necessary to protect the advice to Ministers that is not generally produced in this House, or indeed at all. That is necessary given the form of government that we have.

In the time that remains to me, I will briefly answer those three questions. What happened here? There was a limited pilot that was agreed to by the Home Secretary, which meant that under limited circumstances European economic area national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index when assessed by a border force—

[Alun Michael]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Phillips]

I will give way.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying what the limits were. Can he enlighten us about whether he is speaking from the Whips’ brief or whether he has seen all the exchanges and information on what limits were applied?

[Stephen Phillips]

I am speaking from my notes for the purposes of this speech. I am a little tired of Opposition Members intervening to make some point when I am trying to assist the House by saying what I understand the position to have been.

[Alun Michael]

On what basis?

[Stephen Phillips]

I know it in part because I read the evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Home Affairs Committee, and indeed watched most of it.

I will state what appears to have happened on the basis of the evidence that we have at the moment. We do not have all of it because of the prematurity of this debate and because we have not heard Mr Brodie Clark’s side of events. Mr Clark, according to his boss, accepted that he went beyond what he was permitted to do under the terms of the pilot and what had been agreed by the Home Secretary. It was for that reason that he was suspended, not by the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, but by his boss, as the Home Secretary has made perfectly clear and as his boss has confirmed, after it became apparent that the terms of the pilot had been exceeded.

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to correct something that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might have misunderstood. He said earlier that the warnings index was still being checked for children. It was not. The document that the Home Secretary says covers her guidance expressly states:

“We will cease... Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the Warnings index”.

Those passports were never scanned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

If I said that, I misspoke.

My understanding is that the terms of the pilot were that children travelling in school groups or with their parents would no longer be checked. Those were the terms that were agreed. They were no broader, in many ways, than the terms of the pilots and systems that were applied by the previous Government. What gives great cause for concern is that the terms of the pilot seem to have been exceeded without reference to Ministers. It is that that the British public need to know about.

We need to get to the bottom of this matter, forgetting the sheer opportunism and ill temper that have permeated this debate, and find out what has happened so that it does not happen again. I also think, if I may say so, that the previous Administration must recognise their faults in the area of immigration.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already spoken.

We also learned today that data do exist. The Home Secretary admitted that for the first time this afternoon, but she is refusing to publish them. [Interruption.] She is looking confused again; of course she is, because she has not bothered to burrow down into the detail. We want her to publish the data as soon as possible. She also admitted that the interim operational instruction, which we have referred to over the last couple of days, represents Government policy and that it does not stretch Government policy at all.

We have learned today, too, that the Prime Minister and several hon. Members who have been given Government Whips’ handouts think that this policy was a good idea. Well, if it was a good idea, are they going to do it again next year? I suspect not because they know it was not a good idea in the first place. What have we seen in this country?

[Stephen Phillips]

The pilot caught an extra 10% of illegal immigrants who were trying to enter the country, so why was it not a good idea?

[Chris Bryant]

It is interesting, is it not, that the only pieces of data that Government Members can come up with are the pieces of data that they think will help their argument. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the House to have data, let him publish the whole set of data, so that we can know exactly how successful or unsuccessful the operation was. He may wish to present a private Member’s Bill next year, in which case I look forward to seeing how many Government Members support him.

What have we seen in the country, though? One person from the neighbouring constituency of Cynon Valley contacted me, having arrived at Heathrow in the summer. He said that

“all those with biometric passports were called up and just waved through”.

That is precisely the opposite of what Ministers have been saying. I also have a piece of paper from the chief operating officer at Heathrow, who writes:

“Within the passenger environment the highest risk currently at Heathrow is the onset of the student season, which brings with it large numbers of people”.

She goes on to explain how she and her colleagues will be dealing with that. It is, of course, one of the main issues with which the Minister for Immigration is meant to be dealing. The chief operation officer writes:

“We have a number of ways of mitigating that risk, and these are now in place: use of Level 2 measures”—

in other words, the lighter touch—

“with the opportunity to use additional measures where required”.

That flies directly in the face of everything that the Home Secretary has been saying, and everything that the Minister has been saying.

We also know that some operations were suspended which the Home Secretary says were not. On Monday afternoon, she said:

“First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 45.]

That is her basic defence. Yet the very document that she says reflects her policy states:

“We will cease…Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings index”.

Those children’s passports were not swiped. The warnings index was not involved. That is directly contrary to what the Home Secretary said on Monday.

As for the Immigration Minister, who has been notable by his absence over the last few days, I think the whole House would agree that he is a nice man. I myself would argue that he is nicer than his politics. However, the fact remains that he has been completely absent. I should have thought that an interventionist Minister— [Interruption.] Will he calm down? I should have thought that an interventionist Minister who wanted to introduce a new policy on border controls and had organised an experiment would be ringing up members of staff at Heathrow, Gatwick and Calais to find out exactly what was happening. In my view, the Minister has been so hands-off that much of this problem is directly his fault.

I note that this afternoon, when the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked on eight separate occasions whether any Minister other than the Home Secretary had sanctioned the extension to further areas, the spokesman expressly chose not to answer the question. I suspect that that is because it was the Immigration Minister himself who gave a further sanction to the extension of the regime.

Government Members would love to talk about anything other than the fact that what has happened is due to two decisions that were made on their watch: the decision to cut the number of staff in the border force by 886 this year and by 1,552 by the time of the next general election, and the decision to suspend some border controls throughout the summer. This was not a pilot; it was a change of policy. It has blown up in the Home Secretary’s face, and she simply has not the decency to own up.

All that my constituents want to know is this: did anyone dangerous or criminal enter the country this summer at a port or airport near them? Sadly, we will not know the answer unless the Government do what our motion calls on them to do and publish the facts in black and white.