Abu Qatada

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary made a number of points, some of which, I have to say, were either wrong or irrelevant to what we have heard today. She seems to be trying to argue that the Government have not been doing enough to deport Abu Qatada. I can assure her and the whole House that, if it was the case that this was one of those situations where it was just a question of a decision by the Home Secretary, Abu Qatada would have been on the plane on 12 May 2010. However, it is not that simple and we have to work in accordance with the ruling of the courts.

The work that we have undertaken with the Jordanians, which she referred to and seemed to brush to one side as if it was nothing, is unprecedented. The security Minister visited Jordan; I visited Jordan; and the Prime Minister has raised the issue with the King of Jordan. We have secured information and assurances that I still maintain should enable us to deport Qatada. Although the right hon. Lady was dismissive of those assurances, I will remind her, as I said in my statement, of what Mr Justice Mitting said about them. He said that the Jordanian Government

“will do everything within their power to ensure a retrial is fair.”

He continued:

“The Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial.”

SIAC stated that

“if the only question which we had to answer was whether or not, in a general sense, the appellant would be subjected to a flagrantly unfair retrial in Jordan, our unhesitating answer would be that he would not.”

The right hon. Lady asked whether we will continue our negotiations with the Jordanians. We are very grateful for the significant assurances the Jordanian Government have already provided. Of course, our work with the Jordanians will continue in the light of today’s judgment. The Jordanian Government put out a statement earlier today, which said:

“We understand there will be an appeal and accordingly we will work with them”—

that is, the UK Government—

“to be able to bring him back to justice here in Jordan. Concerning the fear of a fair trial for him—there were guarantees for the British government on that, but also our constitution and our judicial system guarantees him that.”

I am grateful to the Jordanian Government for that support.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of bail conditions. Abu Qatada will be subject to a 16-hour curfew. Other conditions will be determined by the court and announced tomorrow. I believe that a 16-hour curfew is as strict as the strictest of control orders, so I am afraid that what she says is not the case, and she needs to look at that issue again.

The right hon. Lady referred to the new test and to the relative merits of the article 3 and article 6 issues. Those are different matters: Governments have for a long time been able to seek assurances about article 3 —that process is mature and has existed for many years—whereas the need for assurances about article 6 emerged only because of the European Court’s unprecedented judgment early this year.

The right hon. Lady asked whether it would have been better had we referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. On that, she is wrong. Her argument seems to be that the European Court—the very court that has caused this difficulty by setting up a new barrier to deportation—is the solution to the problem. Not only is that palpably ridiculous, but an appeal to the Grand Chamber would have risked our wider deportation policies—[Interruption.] I suggest that she listens to this point. An appeal would also have made it harder to deport further terrorists, had we lost the appeal. It would have been unwise, as well as fruitless.

In April, and again today, the shadow Home Secretary told the House:

“We all want Abu Qatada deported as soon as possible, under the rule of law”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 508.]

Unless she is prepared to break the rule of law, she has no solutions other than what the Government have already done. I suggest that, instead of trying to score a political hit, she supports the Government, is straight with the public and supports us in what we are doing to deport Abu Qatada.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will recall that she has herself urged the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. In the light of these events, is it not now time to get on with this urgently? In that way, we will be able to protect not only the public from the likes of Abu Qatada but those alleged terrorists who deserve a fair trial. Let us give them a fair trial, legislate in this country and work out our own answers to these questions, rather than leaving it to the Strasbourg Court.

[Mrs May]

I am tempted to refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this issue in my last statement on human rights, because I am afraid that I am not going to depart from the answers I have given him in the past. I have made clear my position on the Human Rights Act. Work is being done on it, including by the commission looking at the possibility of a British Bill of Rights in line with our human rights requirements. That commission will report in due course. On the operation of the European Court, as he knows, we have already taken steps to ensure that the Court focuses on the complex points of law that it was originally set up to address, instead of becoming just a court of appeal in so many cases.

European Convention on Human Rights

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that this has been an issue for some time. I think it would have been possible for the previous Government to have done what we are doing today and bring a motion before Parliament, but we have done it and we are giving people that opportunity.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The motion recognises the qualification of article 8 and invites the House to agree that it is set out in the immigration rules. The immigration rules themselves have been laid before Parliament—[Interruption.] I am very happy to read the motion again. It states that the House

“agrees that the conditions for migrants to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life should be those contained in the Immigration Rules.”

[Mr Cash]

I am much encouraged by the line the Home Secretary is taking on all this. Over and over again, as she knows, I have raised the question of the interpretation by the courts of matters relating not only to the European convention but to European Union law. Is she taking the opportunity, by one means or another, to have discussions with those in the superior hierarchy of the judiciary? To bolster the assumptions that lie behind what she is saying in defence of the sovereignty of this Parliament, does she want to put the words “notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998” in front of the legislation so that the courts are under no misapprehension about what they are to do?

[Mrs May]

I think my answer to my hon. Friend will be shorter than his question. The motion makes it absolutely clear what we are asking people to do today and I am certain that the judiciary will take into account the view of Parliament. Indeed, as I have said, members of the judiciary have suggested that it would be helpful to have the view of Parliament.

Since the Human Rights Act was implemented in 2000, it has become clear that the existing immigration rules do not properly set out how article 8 should be qualified in real cases. As a result, foreign criminals and those who failed to meet the requirements of the immigration rules and who should not be allowed to come to or stay in the UK have increasingly been able to challenge their decisions in the courts on the grounds of a breach of article 8. So, for those who do not meet the requirements of the rules, grants of discretionary leave outside the rules on article 8 grounds have risen steadily to the point that in 2010 the UK Border Agency granted discretionary leave on the basis of article 8 in around 9,500 immigration cases. That means that in 9,500 cases, applicants could not meet the requirements of the immigration rules but were allowed to stay in the UK none the less. In addition, reflecting established policy on dealing with such cases, they were automatically granted full and immediate access to the benefits system. Perversely, that placed them in a better position than applicants who had met the immigration rules and were denied such access while they served a two-year probationary period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the Joint Committee on Human Rights does important work. The status of the motion is unclear, because we do not know exactly how the Home Secretary expects it to operate. For example, we know that the new immigration rules affecting foreign criminals, which were set out last week, explicitly refer to how article 8 should be addressed. We believe that is legitimate, but other immigration rules do not make such reference. The rules on foreign criminals also allow the courts to consider exceptional cases, but the process remains deeply unsatisfactory and confused. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to send clear signals to the courts, but she is not sending clear signals to the House.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Home Secretary aware of the series of speeches made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Judicial Studies Board and others? He has made it abundantly clear that in his opinion the judiciary, including the senior judiciary, have given far too much attention to the Strasbourg precedents and not enough to what he describes as the “golden thread” of the English common law. He says that it is therefore essential that we get this right and do not engage in generalised waffle about the question—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had two interventions that have taken up speaking time. I am sure he would not want to do that, in case he wants to catch my eye later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) has just said that he wants the House to discuss the wider issues of immigration, and I entirely agree with him. The immigration rule changes, to which the motion refers in a coda, go much wider than simply the interpretation of article 8 in respect of the deportation of foreign criminals. I would say, parenthetically, to the Home Secretary that while I support many of the other changes, I remain concerned about some of them, not least the removal of the right of appeal in family visit cases, which I introduced in the late 1990s. That measure has worked well and fairly, and in my experience it has led to abuse in very few cases. I therefore support the motion before the House in the context in which it has been brought forward—namely, to deal with the problem of the deportation of foreign national criminals.

The particular case that got me heavily involved in this matter as a constituency MP was the death in a motor accident of young Amy Houston. She was walking with her brother in Newfield drive in my constituency when a vehicle driven by an asylum seeker, Mr Mohammed Ibrahim, knocked her down and killed her, although she was alive for six hours after the event. He drove off without stopping or giving up any details. Amy’s bereaved father, Paul Houston, lives in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who will give the House many more details of the case.

That asylum seeker, an Iraqi Kurd, was convicted of a series of offences arising from the accident. He had no driving qualifications, he was driving while disqualified and uninsured, and driving without a valid test certificate. Subsequently, he was cautioned by the police for the possession of cannabis and for burglary and theft. He was again convicted of driving while disqualified and uninsured, and, six years after the accident, convicted of the offences of harassment, damage to property and theft, for which he was fined. In 2008, he was also arrested and fined £200 for offences arising from a dispute with the woman he subsequently claimed to have married. I shall call her Mrs Smith, as there are children involved and I have no wish to involve them.

That man’s rights of appeal were completely exhausted, and he was due to be sent back. When the matter went to appeal—at Mr Houston’s behest and mine—to an immigration judge, one of the points that the judge regarded as acting in the man’s favour was the fact that the Home Office had made no effort to deport him between 2002, when his right to remain here was exhausted, and 2006. That was because it would not have been safe to deport Mr Ibrahim to Iraq at that time, for reasons of which everybody was aware. Notwithstanding that, it was decided that the relationship he had formed with Mrs Smith, by whom he had had two children, was sufficient to justify a family life entitlement under article 8.

I have to say—I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) looked at this—that the evidence of a successful family life was very flimsy indeed. There was total confusion in the court about whether the two had been married and where the marriage had taken place—in Blackburn or Birmingham. Those two places are different and separated by well over 100 miles. There was dispute about the date. On her own admission, Mrs Smith visited this man only once during the nine months in which he was detained as an immigration detainee.

At the behest of my right hon. Friend, the former Home Secretary, there was a further appeal. We had hoped that the courts would use this as a test case to change the law in the direction that the current Home Secretary now rightly seeks. I regret to say that, sadly, that did not happen. As a result, I strongly believe that the only alternative, however imperfect, is to bring forward this motion and try to get a change in the approach of the courts.

I want to apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Home Secretary and to the House, because I have to leave shortly before 6 o’clock. I also apologise to the Minister for Immigration, as I shall not be in my place to hear his winding-up speech—unusually, in my case.

In saying all this, I make no criticism of the judiciary who dealt with these cases. One thing I learned from much contact with the senior judiciary is that precisely because the system rightly sees itself as subordinate to Parliament but does its best to interpret Parliament’s will, the courts sometimes get caught by precedent. As senior members of the judiciary sometimes told me in respect of other cases, unless there is an appeal that really hits the spot, which they can then sort out, the only remaining course is sometimes for Parliament to seek to clarify the law.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Brazier]

rose—

[Mr Straw]

I give way briefly to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) first.

[Mr Cash]

I am most grateful. In dealing with the critical question of proportionality, which is what arises in these cases when a balance needs to be struck by the courts either way, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the absence of very express provision, it will be impossible to fetter the court’s discretion—even with a steer from the wording—in the determination? The evidence is that individual judges will tend to continue to make their own judgment, whatever Parliament seeks to say.

[Mr Straw]

I am afraid that I do not accept that. A feature of our courts is that they are, quite properly, very conscious of the need to apply the law as they believe Parliament has laid it down. I am confident—I cannot be certain—that, had this proposed approach been passed by Parliament and if necessary enshrined in legislation, the courts would have been able to exercise their judgment on proportionality in a way that showed proper respect to the Houston family and to that poor child rather than to Mr Ibrahim and the woman with whom, in my judgment, he formed a relationship solely in order to evade immigration control and deportation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Let me finish the point I was making, which is that this is an object lesson in how not to go about influencing others, and certainly not the courts. The immigration rules’ legislative proposals were published only a week ago, and there are 45 pages of amendments to what is an even more detailed document. I ask Members who have read all that material to put up their hand. For the benefit of Hansard, I note that one Member has raised their arm—or perhaps two.

[Mr Cash]

As an assiduous reader of these documents, may I mention that the Journal Office has advised that the use of an approval motion for such rules is normally subject to negative procedure, although that is not taking place in this instance, and the contention that Parliament’s view is subject to review by the courts is also surprising in the context of article 9 of the Bill of Rights? The Clerks have clearly therefore taken on board some serious points regarding the procedure that is being followed.

[John McDonnell]

I heard those points when they were made previously, and the House of Commons Library note provided to us describes this as an unusual process—I put it no stronger than that. We are having this debate only a matter of days after having received the detailed and complex documents to which I referred, and I simply do not understand the reason for this haste.

Moreover, the first section of the motion is a statement of the obvious; article 8 is, indeed, a qualified right. It then tries to inveigle us into a commitment to support the immigration rules that we received only a few days ago, and which have not been debated. That is an unacceptable attempt to bounce the House into agreeing to something that many of us have genuine concerns about.

We would welcome a wider debate. I know this might sound unusual, but, frankly, I want to consult my constituents on the matter. I want to understand their concerns about these new rules. My anxiety is that we are now entering a political phase. During some Members’ speeches, certain other Members were suggesting, “Well, vote against the motion.” I want nothing to do with this motion, but they were shouting and bearding people about voting against the motion—[Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) has been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate, has he?

[John McDonnell]

I apologise and withdraw that comment, therefore, but there were definitely shouts of, “Well, vote against it.” Such behaviour draws us into the realm of political knockabout, when we should be having a considered debate about the legislative proposals, and what that results in is clear to anybody who has seen the Daily Telegraph campaign currently being waged, in which it is naming judges and publishing their performance in individual trials. It is saying how many people those judges have deported over the last period. This is taking the form of a witch hunt, therefore, and it is an unacceptable attempt to influence the judiciary. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) that there needs to be an honest debate about immigration, but to drag things down into a political knockabout on how to vote on a motion that is irrelevant in respect of any legislation is unacceptable and clouds the atmosphere in this House, and thereby undermines its ability to influence any law court or judge.

The procedure the Government have introduced today completely undermines the credibility of the House on this matter. We need to get back to the normal processes of legislation. We need to ensure Members have the necessary information well in advance of any debate, rather than having it in the curtailed time scale that we have experienced on this occasion—and that is particularly important in this instance, as the matter under discussion is very complex, and very sensitive as well. The full procedures of the House should be followed, including referring the matter for consideration by the relevant Committees of the House which will then report back, and giving Members the time to consult their constituents and then to come to a considered view and arrive at a decision on a vote. That vote may well prove to be unanimous, because people will feel they have been fully involved. No court can interpret this current process as expressing the definitive will of the House, however, because many Members will have not a clue what we are voting on as the information has been provided so late.

[Mr Cash]

I just wonder whether the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Home Secretary referred to the fact that as yet nobody has placed a prayer of annulment to the immigration rules. I understand the rules were introduced into the House only on 13 June. I therefore suspect that, in the event of such a prayer being put, he has the option—and the right—to call for a vote on the substance of the rules.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly the point I was about to make. It is important that Members take their responsibilities seriously and that the motion is prayed against. That will enable us to go through the due process of this House, so we can arrive at a decision that Members will feel party to, and that then will have some substance and significance in influencing future judgments in the courts—taking into account, of course, the separation of powers.

Today’s debate is almost a waste of time. It will be looked on as an embarrassment to the House. If we want to improve the standing of MPs and the Houses of Parliament within our community, this is not the route we should be pursuing. I therefore want nothing to do with this motion. I want my position recorded very clearly. I oppose the motion and I wish to get back to a process of legislating whereby every Member feels fully involved—and involved in a process that is serious and significant, not trite as in this instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. He crystallises things cogently, but in this case there were no dependants, so what he says does not apply. This is an interesting case. There are many examples where someone has committed a vicious, violent crime—it might be murder or, as in some cases, a sexual offence—has had a child in the meantime and has coerced members of the family, putting them under duress, so that they give evidence, which this person has then relied on to stay in this country. I challenge the view that it is always in the best interests of a child to be with a father of such character and background, but it is very difficult for a court to make that determination when they have evidence in front of them.

I shall discuss one case, which is the most skewed and perverse that I have come across. There are reporting restrictions on it, so I shall be careful about talking about some of the details. It involves an individual raping his partner and then claiming that relationship as part of the family life that he relied on to stay in this country. Many people would regard that as both legally unsustainable and morally perverse.

This is not just about the deportation of foreign criminals; it is about the shifting goalposts of article 8. It is very important to understand that the state of the law now—that static snapshot—is not the sole issue; it reflects years of development. My worry is about the direction in which things are headed. I worry that it will be increasingly impossible to apply border controls, be they in relation to the deportation of foreign national criminals or to other aspects of coalition policy, including cracking down on things such as forced marriage, increasing language requirements or dealing with sham student visas and bogus colleges. All those things will come later because the goalposts will keep shifting. That is a real danger for this Government and for future Governments.

[Mr Cash]

In his excellent, extremely well researched and powerful speech, my hon. Friend has not yet referred to the manner in which section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 impinges on this question. When I was shadow Attorney-General and I invoked our party to repeal the Human Rights Act as part of our policy, it became the policy up to and including the general election. Does he agree that nothing will stop the courts striking down immigration rules as a disproportionate violation of article 8 if they decide to do so?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If he is patient, he will find that I will come on to deal with exactly that point, but I wish to avoid duplication at this moment.

I shall now deal with the points made by the shadow Home Secretary. She clearly knows little of the history of this problem or has conveniently forgotten it, so let me remind the House that this problem has been created by the Human Rights Act that her Government introduced. In fairness, there is an additional element to this, because the previous Prime Minister at least recognised that there was a problem. The House may recall his barnstorming 2007 conference speech in Bournemouth. His biggest cheer came when he vowed, all misty eyed, that

“any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out. No-one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country.”

As a result, we got changes, including the UK Borders Act 2007, to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. Section 32 of that Act deals with the deportation of foreign national criminals—so far, so good. However, by including an express reference to the Human Rights Act in section 33—something that was totally unnecessary and a matter of political choice—the previous Prime Minister, far from strengthening our capacity to deport, fatally weakened our capacity to deport. Ultimately—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is making—primary legislation trumps the Human Rights Act, but not if that Act is expressly written into the relevant statute. That may sound like a technical point, but it is crucial to understanding what went wrong with the 2007 Act. The former Prime Minister emasculated his own deportation law, and that speaks volumes about the expediency with which Labour has approached this debate. I believe that the shadow Home Secretary will be a bit less pious about this issue and will perhaps eat a little more humble pie before the House—I am sure that the shadow Immigration Minister will do so. [Interruption.] We live in hope.

I welcome the changes and the motion, but there are questions about whether the changes to the guidance and a mere resolution of this House can deliver the reform we need. I put that precise question to the Lord Chief Justice in November, when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He made it clear that without primary legislation the courts would probably not rein in the expansion and application of article 8 in deportation cases. So I would be grateful if the Minister said what the Government will do if these changes are not fully effective, as at least Government Members hope they will be. Does he agree that if we cannot stop the rot, we will need a new UK borders Act to deal with this issue clearly, categorically, once and for all? It is vital that we can measure the success of the proposed changes we are debating today. Will he ensure that the Home Office now records the number of deportation cases frustrated on human rights grounds, with a breakdown in respect of articles 3, 6 and 8—the main offenders—so that we can measure, see and scrutinise whether this problem gets better or worse as a result of the changes being introduced? The Home Office has not routinely recorded those data. The Immigration Minister went out of his way to ensure that it produced a single quarterly snapshot in 2011—I welcome that and commend him for it—but can he reassure us that that information will be routinely recorded from now on?

Human rights reform is contentious and it needs to take place on three levels: reform of the Strasbourg court; replacement of the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights; and UK legislation to strengthen our border controls.

For my part—others might feel differently—I recognise that our coalition partners are sensitive about the Human Rights Act. I accept that we are unlikely to see the reform that I would like to see in this Parliament and I have already made clear my commitment to the absolute prohibition on torture. I cannot understand, however, why anyone except the lawyers, non-governmental organisations and academics who have made an industry out of human rights would die in a ditch to stop the deportation of serious criminals because it might disrupt their family, social or private ties. To me, as I have said, that suggests a skewed moral compass, not just legal chaos for our border controls.

The changes we need require primary legislation, but we do not have to touch the Human Rights Act to solve this specific problem. It can be done by statutory amendment. I hope that the proposals before us today will tackle the problem—they have my full support—but, if they do not, I hope that all parties will agree to consider very seriously the case for amending the UK Borders Act. We need to draw a line in the sand, to restore democratic control over the criteria for deportation, to stop the ever-expanding list of legal excuses used by some of the worst criminals to stay in this country, to protect the public and, above all, to restore their confidence in British justice. We will do that only by injecting a healthy dose of common sense back into the increasingly perverse application of our human rights law.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Sometimes, I do not know why we bother. We all turn up for these debates. All those who take an interest in home affairs and issues such as human rights are here, and you are here in your finery, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have heard a very confused speech from the Conservative Secretary of State and we have heard from Labour Members, ever compliant on human rights and home affairs. We have not heard from the Liberals; I do not know whether we will, but I would be interested to hear what they have to say. We are all here, but we are all more or less wasting our time. Why not just get on with it and get The Daily Telegraph, along with the Daily Mail, to conduct our immigration policy? That is what we are getting, with immigration rules that are practically out of The Daily Telegraph’s leader column.

What an absolute farce this afternoon has been. What on earth are we debating? I do not have a clue. We have had three different explanations from the Government about what we are being asked to consider. We are asked to consider that article 8 is a qualified right. Yes, that is a restatement of the bleeding obvious, as I said earlier, and we all know that. We are then asked to support the Government’s immigration rules. Does that mean the immigration rules in their totality, as the Home Secretary said when I intervened, or part of them? Or are we just giving a direction to the judges? I have absolutely no clue whatsoever what we are being asked to consider this evening. It is a total waste of time and a farce. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) says, we need a proper process to consider this very important subject—and it is important.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way, but I know exactly what is coming.

[Mr Cash]

The motion simply reads

“those contained in the Immigration Rules.”

It does not state which immigration rules. Indeed, they might change, as we expect that they will, from those proposed on 13 June.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but that seems to be another interpretation. When he sums up, the Minister for Immigration must tell us exactly what we are voting on this evening, because I do not know. I cannot support the immigration rules in their totality, so if the Government are saying that we have to accept them tonight, I unfortunately cannot support them and will press the matter to a Division. We cannot accept the rules as they stand. This is a very important debate condensed to four hours and a lot of nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help him by describing what the Liberal Democrats are doing today, because I am not responsible for them. However, having been involved in a lot of human rights, anti-terrorism and immigration debates over the many years I have been in Parliament, I know that there are different allies in different Parliaments. Sometimes there are Conservatives one agrees with, sometimes there are Liberals one agrees with, and sometimes there is nobody one agrees with, but that’s life, and we plough on.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because he and I have agreed on several matters, including the Chagos islanders. May I offer him the thought that absence of the Liberal Democrats may have something to do with the lack of clarity in the motion? If it was as clearly expressed as I would like, notwithstanding the Human Rights Act and all that goes with it, I rather suspect that there might be some difficulty for those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, because they would want it to be less clear than I would.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I respect him for standing up for his principles and acknowledge that he and I have agreed on quite a lot of occasions, particularly on the disgraceful treatment of the Chagos islands by all Governments over very many years. We hope that the European Court of Human Rights, which is now hearing that case, will come to a good judgment, which we expect imminently.

When I intervened on the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) about the torture and ill-treatment of people in other jurisdictions, he did not agree with me, and that is fair enough; he does not have to. However, he should understand that the European convention was a very important step in improving human rights standards around the world. The principle of a continent-wide human rights court has been copied to some extent on other continents—for example, central America has such a court. The idea of an international convention such as the United Nations convention against torture is a very powerful one. That is why I disagreed so very strongly with Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister, on his agreeing to the deportation of people to jurisdictions that had not signed the international convention on torture. That undermined the convention, damaged the human rights of the individual, and damaged us as a country that is supposed to stand up for human rights and justice.

I cannot really describe what we are debating today, and I do not think that the Home Secretary can either. I look forward to a full debate on her proposed immigration rules, because some of them will have a devastating effect on the family life of very poor people in this country who have migrated here, work hard, clean our floors, look after our children, drive our trains, and help our industries to get along. We should also remember that immigration in this country has helped to create our relatively high standards of living. It does the House no credit when people condemn all immigration as an economic problem. Immigration is an economic benefit to our society, and it is about time we publicly recognised that.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I agree with what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said about some of the benefits of economic immigration, but there is something else that I would like to put on the record. As many of us know, the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. I sincerely hope that that does not apply to the speeches that I have heard today—particularly, if I may say so without any disrespect to Opposition Members, those by my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who made a superbly forensic speech, and for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox).

Although my remarks will not necessarily be entirely consonant with wholehearted support for these proposals, for reasons that I will explain, I still genuinely support the idea that it is important to give an indication of the Government’s views. A great deal of hard work has been put into this. The more I look at it, the more I realise that the Government’s advisers have really applied themselves to it. As we now know, the immigration rules were tabled on 13 June but have not yet been decided on by the House and will, I suspect, be subject to an annulment prayer because Labour Front Benchers will decide that that is what they want to do.

Irrespective of that general sense of support for these proposals, there is also a rather unfortunate element that was indicated in the excellent speech by my hon. and learned Friend. He said, using very carefully chosen words, that the proposals will create an impression or perception whereby, in some of the national tabloid press and elsewhere, they will be construed, as we have already read, as being simply about slamming criminals and unacceptable persons who should not be allowed in this country in the first place and should be deported. I think that that general perception has been conveyed and that, given that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons, the spin that is put on this will carry the day.

However, that will not affect the courts, which will make their own decisions. Moreover, the proposals are geared in the direction of indicating to the courts that the general will of Parliament is to move away from the free-for-all of applying Strasbourg precedents, and that Parliament is making a statement that must be had regard to. Indeed, in line with what I said in an intervention, that has been a matter of concern in the generality of judicial interpretation, which has been criticised by the Lord Chief Justice in a series of very measured speeches. On one occasion about two years ago, he strongly advised his brothers and sisters in the judicial profession in the High Court that the most important matter for a judge is to uphold the common law. I think that he said it in those terms. He went on to say that they had to be much more careful about not simply adopting Strasbourg precedents in the application of their judgments in English courts and, by implication, that they should have more regard to what Parliament has said.

This exercise is being conducted with great complexity. One only has to look at the new immigration rules, which I have in my hand, to notice that they contain strong gearing elements. Whether they will have any effect on certain members of the judiciary remains to be seen. Individual cases, some of which have been mentioned, raise difficult questions of family law and relationships. As has been said, we hear about such cases in our constituencies. I do not think that what we heard earlier was a rant. There is an important point here. I have been confronted by some difficult family issues in the field of immigration. We ought not to be dismissive of the importance of forming a proper and proportionate judgment about these questions.

Important questions have been raised in the debates in which I have taken part over the past few years on the interpretation of statute law. An example is the Jackson case, which was not to do with human rights in the same context as this matter, but was to do with interpretation by the judiciary. Tom Bingham, the late, lamented Lord Chief Justice, took to task two Law Lords in the Jackson case. He said not only in the judgment but in his speech that they were exceeding their role by asserting judicial supremacy over Parliament.

It is therefore essential that we pay tribute to the intentions that lie behind this exercise, while at the same time being clear that the proposals lack clarity. The intentions that lie behind this extremely careful operation will not necessarily produce the results that many people expect. Given the latitude that will still be conferred on judges and the rules of proportionality that have to be applied, I anticipate that there will be ructions down the line when the rules are applied by individual judges.

I suspect that the lack of clarity has something to do with the attitudes of some in government, some in the civil service and some in the higher reaches of the judiciary and in certain chambers, who have no doubt been consulted. It might also have some connection to the attitude that would have been adopted by the Liberal Democrats if they had been confronted with the kind of clarity that could be provided, but that certainly is not. I can do no more than speculate on that. When I pressed an amendment in the Lisbon treaty debates that stated, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”, on which 55 of my hon. Friends followed me into the Lobby with enthusiasm, despite the suggestions from the Whips that they should do no such thing, the Liberal Democrats said that if I had pressed the other amendment that I had tabled, which stated “notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”, they would have supported it. I therefore ask whether we are always entirely clear as to what the Liberal Democrats are up to at any given point in time.



There is a further point regarding the motion, although I do not want to be too pedantic or legalistic. It states that article 8 is a “qualified right” and that

“the conditions for migrants to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life should be those contained in the Immigration Rules.”

I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for pointing out that as we are debating this matter today, on Tuesday 19 June, I construe those words to mean the immigration rules as they now are, not as they are anticipated to be under the proposals printed on 13 June.

On page 1 of the statement of changes, which I suspect will be debated, there is a provision titled “Implementation”, which states that, with the exception of an awful lot of paragraphs,

“the changes set out in this Statement shall take effect on 9 July 2012.”

The other paragraphs

“shall take effect on 1 October 2012.”

It goes on to say:

“However, if an application for entry clearance, leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain has been made before 9 July 2012 and the application has not been decided, it will be decided in accordance with the rules in force on 8 July 2012.”

Therefore, the new immigration rules will not, I am glad to say, have retrospective effect. The implication of the wording in the motion might not be as clear as it should be. That leaves us with the reasonable position that the motion relates only to the immigration rules that are in force at this time. That is a technical point.

I regard the proposals as a steer. The Government are hoping that they will succeed and I wish them well if it is possible for them to do so. However, I think that there will be difficulties of interpretation. The harder the case, the more likely it is that an individual judge will say, “I am not bound by this motion. I am bound by what the law says.” The law that they are construing, from 9 July and 1 October 2012, will be the new rules.

The explanatory memorandum states:

“The new Immigration Rules provide a clear basis for considering family and private life cases in compliance with Article 8. To accompany the new rules, a statement of ECHR compatibility is being published on the Home Office website”.

It goes on to say, although I doubt whether this can be taken for granted:

“The new Immigration Rules will reform the approach taken as a matter of public policy towards ECHR Article 8…in immigration cases.”

It goes on to say—the distinguished Immigration Minister is sitting on the Front Bench and knows this backwards:

“The Immigration Rules will fully reflect the factors which can weigh for or against an Article 8 claim. The rules will set proportionate requirements that reflect the Government’s and Parliament’s view of how individuals’ Article 8 rights should be qualified in the public interest to safeguard the economic well-being of the UK by controlling immigration and to protect the public from foreign criminals. This will mean that failure to meet the requirements of the rules will normally mean failure to establish an Article 8 claim to enter or remain in the UK, and no grant of leave on that basis. Outside exceptional cases, it will be proportionate under Article 8 for an applicant who fails to meet the requirements of the rules to be removed from the UK.”

Why have I bothered to read all that out? So far, none of it has been mentioned in the debate, but it is what we are actually debating. It is about whether the courts will be steered by Parliament and apply its decisions—hopefully the right decisions—as a matter of proportionality.

As a number of Members have said, article 8 already provides a qualified right. As ever, I am afraid that the qualification simply has not been explained. Article 8 states:

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right”—

and then the crucial words, which the shadow Home Secretary conveniently left out—

“except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The words

“except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society”

prompt the very question that we have to debate. Until I hear the Minister’s reply, I have to say that we are doing so without any confidence that “the law” means the law of this Parliament.

In the democratic society in which we in this country live, those words must mean the law passed in this Parliament. In certain instances, that will exclude decisions taken by the judges in Strasbourg and/or principles adumbrated in Strasbourg but applied in our courts that are contrary to the views expressed by, for example, the Lord Chief Justice. In the context of article 8, it would be nonsense if “the law” meant anything other than the law of the United Kingdom.

We have to resolve that question in the interests of Parliament, which will decide how this country is to be governed. We must decide whether it is to be governed under the European convention on human rights. I believe that we should withdraw from the convention altogether, because we have been continuously besieged by interpretations of it that are contrary to the views expressed by the people of this country as a whole. We can perfectly well legislate to protect human rights, which I would be the first to defend, by passing appropriate laws in our own land according to our own wishes. Many of those laws may well be parallel, if not identical, to those passed under the convention and the Human Rights Act.

The reason I called for the repeal of the Act 10 years ago, when I was shadow Attorney-General, was precisely because of the mess that we are now in. I hesitate to say so, but I anticipated that we would be in this position, as I did over the Maastricht treaty. By keeping ahead of the curve, whether on the convention or the issue of Europe as a whole, we would have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble. We would have defended Parliament’s right to legislate on behalf of the people of this country, who in a democratic society have a right to govern themselves. That is the central principle at the heart of our Parliament. The debate raises questions about that matter but does not entirely resolve them.

I do not say that the courts should in any way be inhibited from making a decision based on their interpretation of the law. However, the law is made here. We have to decide what the law is, and it behoves us to make that law clear. In this case it could have been made clearer by our simply saying, “Notwithstanding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, we legislate for these immigration rules accordingly.” There would have been absolutely no argument about that in the courts, because the courts would have had to say, “We have no option but to administer the law as laid down by Parliament.” That is the crucial issue at the heart of this debate.

Although I will support the general steer that we are providing, I am afraid that there may yet be difficulties and ructions further down the line, with the courts taking disconsonant decisions that are contrary to the intentions behind the rules, which are supposed to represent a clear basis but do not.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I see; otherwise, I would have thought that it was a rather tautological name for a constituency.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: many of our constituents, in many different parts of this country—in Wales, just as in Scotland and England—have significant concerns about matters relating to the deportation of foreign criminals, and they want them addressed better in the criminal justice system.

I always enjoy listening to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), not least because I see him as a very successful barrister, and I am aware that there is a convention in this House that if an hon. Member were to ask another Member who practises at the Bar to represent them in court, that Member would be required to provide their services, free, gratis and for nothing. I therefore look forward to him representing me one day in some action, free, gratis and for nothing. [Interruption.] I think he is mouthing something at me, but I am not quite sure what it is. I know that he was seeking to be helpful to the Government and to support the direction of travel in which they are moving, but I noted that he said, “I do not hold out an enormous amount of hope.” I think he was referring to whether this proposal is going to be a successful manoeuvre, which is partly our concern as well. It is not a concern about the direction of travel, but a concern about whether this measure is precisely the right way in which to steer ourselves in that direction of travel.

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is one of my favourite Members, because I have debated with him so many times—and he also told me once that he loved me, so I cannot dislike him. He referred to the application of the rules of the European Court’s decisions in relation to the courts in the United Kingdom. He, too, said that whether the decisions we make today will have any effect remains to be seen. I say that—and I think he said it, too—not out of a desire to undermine where we want to go, but to ensure that we securely get change in the direction to which many hon. Members have referred.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a moving speech about some of the experiences that she has had personally and in dealing with her constituents. In particular, she mentioned the situation facing many women and children. We would do ourselves a disservice if we were to pretend that the European convention on human rights had done nothing to protect the sorely abused rights of women around the world. In many cases, it has acted as a beacon for what a decent society should look like and how a decent society should go about its business.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he thought that there would be no Division on the motion. I thought that he might have been having a dig at the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon when he said that everything goes wrong when lawyers get involved. He was also critical of some of the judges in the European Court of Human Rights because they sometimes did not have the level of qualifications or the amount of experience that we would expect of a British judge. I am certain of the need for reform of the way in which the judges are appointed and the way in which the Court does its business and comes to its decisions, but that is not a reason for us to leave the European Court or to abandon the convention, not least—I might not be able to carry the hon. Gentleman with me on this—because it is a requirement of membership of the European Union that we should be a signatory and adhere to the Court.

The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who has just fled the Chamber, made a tiny intervention on the hon. Member for Strangford, in which he pointed out the difference between the European Union, the European Court and the European convention on human rights. He was absolutely right to say that that difference was often not recognised.

The Home Secretary made several issues crystal clear in her speech. First, she made it clear that Pepper v. Hart was right, and that it is absolutely right for the courts to bear in mind what is said by a Minister or in a debate in the House of Commons—or, for that matter, the House of Lords—when legislation is ambiguous and the court is uncertain of how to proceed, without breaching article IX of the Bill of Rights, which states that a court is not able to question or impeach a proceeding in Parliament.

[Mr Cash]

In regard to interpretation, certainly in the field of European law—whether in the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights—the travaux préparatoires, as they are called, include all sorts of explanatory memorandums and so on. So when we talk about a clear basis, the question is whether it will stand up in due course. I hope that it will, but I am not sure.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not entirely sure whether I agree with that, so I am afraid that I am going to gloss over it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me a better lecture on the matter later.

We agreed with the Home Secretary’s point on Pepper v. Hart. We also agreed when she effectively said that she accepted the judgment in the Pankina case of 2010 that the mere tabling of new immigration rules is often not enough to provide legal or political clarity to the courts. We agree with that, which is why we would wholeheartedly welcome a debate in Parliament on these matters. There are those who would say that the process that the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon referred to earlier has been inadequate in the past.

The Home Secretary also referred to changes in the operation of article 8 in relation to the deportation of prisoners. Again, we completely agree with the direction of travel that she is taking and with what she is trying to do. In a sense, that is what we tried to do in 2007 with the changes in the law, but we accept that further work needs to be done. She said specifically that foreign criminals had used flimsy human rights arguments to remain in this country, and we agree. She said that the broader issue of the other changes, tabled last Wednesday, was a separate issue. We wholeheartedly agree with that, too.

We have some concerns about the process, but I do not want to overstate them. The motion expressly refers to “the Immigration Rules”. It therefore stands to reason that we are debating the rules that are in force today, rather than any that have been tabled but will not come into force until 9 July and could, in theory, be annulled in the future. So I am not sure that this motion provides quite the level of legal clarity that the Home Secretary would like.

Furthermore, there is the question of exactly how much influence a motion of the House has. We have already heard from the shadow Home Secretary about the ruling from the Clerks on that point. A few weeks ago, a motion of the House, which was agreed unanimously, stated that nobody wanting to come to this country from Russia should be allowed a visa if they had had anything to do with the death of Sergei Magnitsky. That motion has no force in law, however; it is just an interesting statement from the House of Commons. It has not been agreed by the House of Lords, and it has not gone through any kind of primary or secondary legislative process.

It might have been better if the measures had been taken in a different order, with the full set of rule changes being followed by the motion that we are considering today. Indeed, many hon. Members have said that there might well be a need for primary legislation to provide the courts with the absolute clarity that they need.

I want to make it absolutely clear that we are supporting the motion today on the understanding that it applies solely to the operation of article 8 in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals. In the words of the Home Secretary, the rest is a “separate issue”.

Abu Qatada

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said in response to an earlier question. The arbiters of whether a request for a referral put in by Abu Qatada should be accepted—whether in response to a deadline or, as we believe, outside the deadline—or whether discretion should be applied to accept it outside the deadline are not a north London firm of lawyers but the five judges who will be sitting on the panel of the Grand Chamber of the European Court.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is trying her best—there is no question about that—but unfortunately it is not working. The root causes of this problem are the questions of what the rule of law is, whose rule of law is applicable and who interprets it. Those questions should be decided in this House. We should withdraw from the European convention, repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and get the matter straight because the people of this country demand it.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I think is fairly similar to previous questions that he has asked me on this issue. Let me assure him that I take this issue extremely seriously and I am absolutely clear that we want to deport Abu Qatada. However, I also made it absolutely clear in the House earlier this week that the Government must operate within the rule of law, and that a number of legal avenues would be available to Abu Qatada. It is no surprise that he is using delaying tactics to try to delay his deportation from this country. It is right to say that we need to reform the European Court of Human Rights, and that is exactly the work that is being undertaken by my right hon. and learned Friends the Justice Secretary—I think I inadvertently referred to him earlier as the shadow Justice Secretary; I beg his pardon—and the Attorney-General.

Abu Qatada

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

May I first say that I welcome the support the shadow Home Secretary has given to the resumption of deportation and to the work that has been done to receive assurances from the Jordanian Government? A number of the points she made in response to my statement were made in her press release yesterday, but I recognise that she received my statement late. Although I covered a number of her questions in my statement, I will respond to the points she has made.

The right hon. Lady asked whether the SIAC proceedings this afternoon were properly applied for. Of course they were, but I am sure she will understand that when we are moving to arrest an individual whom we intend to deport, there is a limit to the number of people we tell before we move.

The right hon. Lady seemed to suggest that the Government had done nothing about the Strasbourg ruling until the bail hearing a few weeks later, and quoted Mr Justice Mitting, the judge at the bail hearing. The quote she gave made clear that negotiations with the Jordanians had already begun at the time of the bail hearing. I know she is always keen to attack, but her arguments might have a little more strength if they did not contradict each other.

The right hon. Lady asked about my estimated timetable for Abu Qatada’s deportation. As I said in my statement, we have resumed deportation against him and he was arrested earlier today. He has the right to appeal to SIAC, and I understand that he or his lawyers have made it clear that he intends to appeal and to ask for revocation of the deportation, possibly beyond SIAC—there are rights of appeal beyond SIAC. Because any appeal will be based on narrow grounds and because of the quality of the assurances we have, I am confident of our eventual success, but the process could take a number of months. I have been clear about that and said it in my statement.

The right hon. Lady appears to misunderstand the process. She says that we are going back to the beginning. In fact, we are resuming the deportation, which was set to one side during the appeals that went through to the European Court. She asked why we were not referring the case to the Grand Chamber. Again, I covered that in my statement. I said absolutely clearly that referring to the Grand Chamber would open up the whole of the judgment set down by the court on 17 January, part of which was positive for us. We have looked at the issues involved and taken the decision that the appropriate and right course of action that will ensure we can deport Abu Qatada is to follow the action we have taken of gaining assurances from the Jordanian Government and resuming the deportation.

The right hon. Lady asked about the length of time it is taking to deport Abu Qatada. May I remind her that deportation proceedings began in 2001, nine years before the end of the Government of whom she was a member? The time it is taking to deport Abu Qatada is not down to political will, but down to the nature of our legal system. As I said in my statement, I am willing and keen to look at how other European countries deport dangerous foreign nationals quickly, which is something that the last Government never did. We are following what I believe to be the right course of action to ensure that we can deport Abu Qatada. I have been clear in my statement—and I am willing to repeat it—that I believe that Abu Qatada should be in custody. That is why we arrested him this morning, have taken him to SIAC and are asking for his detention. The work that we have done has resulted in assurances from the Jordanian Government that I believe will enable us to deport Abu Qatada. That is what the whole of this House should want: Abu Qatada deported from this country, back to Jordan.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having made a powerful statement in favour of the deportation of Abu Qatada, will the Home Secretary confirm that at the Brighton conference, which begins tomorrow, it will be made clear that, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, a British Bill of Rights will be determined by legislation passed in this House, and not based on the European convention on—but increasingly against—human rights?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Brighton conference, which starts tomorrow. It will be chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, who has been working with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe to do what I believe we all want, which is to ensure that the European Court operates appropriately and in a way that reflects its original intentions. The Prime Minister made a speech earlier this year in which he made it clear that there were a number of issues that we wanted to look at, such as subsidiarity and the efficiency of the European Court. It is those matters which the Brighton conference will be discussing.

Abu Qatada

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised several issues in his supplementary questions, some of which relate to the approach that Justice Mitting might take in certain circumstances, but obviously it is not for me to indicate what approach the judge would take. However, were assurances received from the Jordanian Government—we are working hard on that—obviously that would change the scenario and, by introducing a new factor, would enable the Government to take action that would, I think, change SIAC’s approach. If any case were to go before it again, though, it would be for it to determine.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the work being done on the ECHR. As he will be aware, because of our chairmanship of the Council of Europe, we are in a position for six months to take action on this matter, and we are working actively with other countries with a similar interest in ensuring that the European Court acts as originally intended, which is as a Court considering the most serious issues and key points of human rights law, rather than as a body to which people automatically appeal once they have gone through national courts. That work is being actively led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister has been to Strasbourg, spoken on these matters and explained our position.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned TPIMs and bail, but of course they are two separate matters—one should not conflate the two. The Home Office made vigorous representations to SIAC arguing that Abu Qatada should not be released on bail, but that were it to happen, the most stringent conditions should be applied. As I said, these are among the most stringent conditions applied to anybody we are currently unable to deport from the UK.

As the right hon. Gentleman said at the end, it is absolutely right that in this country we do not have indefinite detention without trial. However, everyone on both sides of the House wants to ensure that we can deport those who represent a danger to the United Kingdom and whom we believe should be deported. That is why we are considering our options within the legal process, and why we are negotiating with Jordanians on further assurances in order to deport Abu Qatada. However, it is also why we are working to make the changes in the European Court to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and looking at the whole issue of assurances with other countries, to ensure that we strengthen our ability to deport people who are a danger to us.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has made a robust statement; the Prime Minister has made robust statements. Unfortunately, the declaration that she made some months ago—that we would repeal the Human Rights Act—is the remedy. I would like to know, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary would say, whether she intends to carry through our commitment—her own statement that she would repeal the Human Rights Act—return the remedy to this House and pass the legislation necessary to get this right; otherwise it will be all talk and no action.

[Mrs May]

I have been used, over time in my political life, to words that I have said being taken slightly out of context. I said that it was my personal view that the Human Rights Act should be repealed, not that I was about to repeal it—which my hon. Friend sort of implied in his question. I would simply remind him that even if we were to repeal the Human Rights Act, we would of course still be subject to the European convention and the European Court.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I think that is right. In many ways it is why the Government have taken the approach that we have. Ultimately, it would be for the House to decide whether the circumstances justified the introduction of the emergency legislation. That is an important protection, and represents the underlying distinction in the Government’s approach.

Hon. and right hon. Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee will recall that we had extensive debates in Committee on what the maximum period should be, in what circumstances the Government might seek to extend that period, and what kind of contingency mechanism they might employ to extend the maximum period. As I said then, the Government have prepared draft fast-track legislation, which at the time was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee undertaking that scrutiny reported in June, and I am grateful to Lord Armstrong of Illminster and the other members of the Committee for their careful consideration.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that habeas corpus itself is in any way affected by the proposals before the House in the new clause, and does habeas corpus not, as Lord Steyn has said repeatedly, supervene against any other jurisdiction, provided that its operation is not excluded by statute?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that that is a particular concern for my hon. Friend, but we do not think that it is engaged in that way. I know that he has introduced a Bill previously on this subject, but the clear advice I have received is that the answer is no.

Although the Government still believe that fast-track legislation is the most appropriate contingency mechanism for increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention, we recognise that, as the Committee pointed out, that approach would not be feasible during any period when Parliament was dissolved. No contingency mechanism will be perfect or able to meet all operational needs while at the same time satisfying every concern that Parliament and the public might have, but we recognised the point raised by the Committee about what would happen if Parliament were dissolved. New clause 13 has been introduced to address that specific concern.

I am aware that the Committee concluded that the Government’s intention to rely on fast-track legislation for other periods was not appropriate, citing potential problems with parliamentary debates and possible difficulties with recalling Parliament during a long recess. New clause 14, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), attempts to deal with that issue by introducing an order-making power to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention, which would be available when the Attorney-General certified that exceptional circumstances applied. The new clause also includes a number of proposed safeguards relating to that power, including retrospective parliamentary approval and a number of conditions that would have to be satisfied before a High Court judge could approve any individual applications for extended detention up to 28 days.

I very much welcome the continuation of the debates that the right hon. Gentleman and I have had over terrorism legislation, and many of the themes that come through in this debate were apparent in our debates on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, the enhanced regime and the provisions that it introduced. I think that it is right and proper that we have the debate on the issue in this Bill, particularly as the Joint Committee’s investigation related to the emergency draft legislation to which the Bill is in essence connected with regard to an increase from 14 to 28 days. However, we believe that the exceptional nature of these powers to extend the maximum period beyond 14 days means that, where feasible, the principle of 28- day detention should be debated and approved by Parliament.

In response to the Joint Committee’s report, the Home Secretary said:

“An order-making power of the type described in the Committee’s report”—

and in many ways reflected in the new clause that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has tabled—

“would…not be a clear expression that the ‘normal’ maximum period of pre-charge detention should be no longer than 14 days.”

She went on to say:

“28 day detention is so exceptional that I continue to believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the issue first, and that the most appropriate and effective way to do this is by using emergency primary legislation.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I am sure the Minister appreciates that he is treading a rather wobbly line, because clause 57 talks about a permanent reduction in the maximum detention period to 14 days, yet, during the rather special circumstances when Parliament is not sitting or has been dissolved, he is prepared to countenance the idea of an emergency arrangement that would produce 28 days. I happen to be in favour of more than 14 days, but is it not the case that, ultimately, the test should be what is in the interests of the security of the nation, and that, if it is good enough to extend 14 days to 28 in such circumstances, it should apply or could apply generally?

[James Brokenshire]

We come back to what I spoke about—the exceptional nature of the powers sought and the point that 14 days should be the norm. Through the new clause, we seek to address the very limited circumstances in which Parliament is not functioning, and we recognise and take on board the Joint Committee’s comments on that. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary and the Government need to be able to act in the national interest to ensure security. For that reason, the emergency order-making power in new clause 13 is limited to periods when the introduction of primary legislation would not be possible—that is, when Parliament is dissolved or before the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament.

As we set out in the Government’s response, published last week, to the Joint Committee’s report, we welcome two of the Committee’s further recommendations for increased safeguards, and we have included them in new clause 13. First, applications for any warrant of further detention that would see an individual detained for longer than 14 days may be made only with the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the equivalent post holder in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Secondly, whenever an individual is detained for longer than 14 days, their case will be reviewed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, or someone on their behalf, and a report of that review will be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

Both those changes will also be incorporated in the draft fast-track legislation to increase the maximum length of pre-charge detention to 28 days. New clause 13 and consequential amendments 79 and 80 ensure that there is an effective contingency mechanism for increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention in the limited period during which Parliament is dissolved. It is right that we should continue to rely on fast-track primary legislation in all other circumstances. On that basis, I commend new clause 13 to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

New clause 14 makes clear some of the specifics involved. If the Government have things they think should be additional, that debate needs to be had. I suspect that this will not be the end of the matter in this House and that their lordships will want to look very closely at whether there is a better route to achieve the same end.

Nobody is trying to end up in a different place in this regard, but the process of emergency legislation that the Government are using is a mistake. In essence, they have already accepted the principle that there should, in exceptional circumstances, be an additional power. They have accepted that in relation to Dissolution and effectively said that it should be present at other times. The issue is simply about how we make sure that the Secretary of State, if he or she were to have that power, would then be circumscribed by Parliament and by other bodies. Undoubtedly, High Court judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions make decisions that do not allow the Secretary of State to act gratuitously. However, we prefer the route that new clause 14 lays out, and I hope that the Government will think again. I do not expect that we will want to divide the House on this matter, but I hope that their lordships will look at it again.

[Mr Cash]

I will speak briefly because I have already gone through this issue on a number of occasions.

I believe very strongly that if there is a case for extending the period from 14 to 28 days, the Government, by referring to the period in question as merely 14 days and describing it as a permanent reduction in clause 57, and then talking about certain circumstances of an emergency nature that extend it to 28 days, effectively sell the argument down the river. I am trying to look at the principle. In my opinion, 28 days is justified. We have been through the arguments, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said, about whether it should be 42 days or 90 days. Fourteen days can be a very short period, so if there is a case for it being 28 days in certain circumstances, for heaven’s sake let us just accept that 28 days will be used very rarely and only in special circumstances.

Furthermore, to go back to a point that the Minister made, there is the distinct, continuing right of habeas corpus. If a judge thought that somebody was being ill-treated during a period of detention, which is really what this is all about, and he was satisfied by evidence from other sources and an application for habeas corpus, he would go straight down—in Belmarsh, for example, there is a tunnel—and ask to have the person who was being detained produced for him. He would rapidly work out whether that person was being subjected to unfair or unreasonable treatment—we are talking here about the realities of life—and whether he should be given the full benefit of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus means, “You shall have the body,” or, “You shall produce the person.” That, in my judgment, is ultimately what this is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

It was the Committee’s unanimous view that the Secretary of State should be given an executive order-making power to extend the permitted period of detention beyond 14 days up to 28 days. However, it suggested a number of important safeguards, some of which the Minister mentioned. First, the Attorney-General would have to certify that exceptional circumstances applied. We know that making that judgment can be difficult, but it would not just be the Home Secretary who had to make it; the Attorney-General would have to make a similar judgment for the order-making power to be available.

[Mr Cash]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Attorney-General’s views on this question of 14 days, seven days and all the rest of it? Does the right hon. Gentleman have much confidence that it would ever be extended?

[Paul Goggins]

I have enough confidence in the current holder of that position to know that he would set aside his personal opinion and deal with the legislation as he saw fit. It is interesting. I am asked about the Attorney-General and I am often asked about the Home Secretary. It sometimes appears that Opposition Members have more confidence in the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary than some of their own colleagues, because we want them to have these powers to use when they are absolutely necessary. It is important to have that confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the British public safe and free. That means protecting them from crime, terrorism and other threats, but it also means defending our democratic institutions, our liberties and our way of life. This Government are determined to cut crime and reduce the risk of terrorism, at the same time as we restore the freedoms and liberties that define British society.

[Mr Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give way?

[Mrs May]

I can never resist my hon. Friend, although I give way always with a certain degree of trepidation and a suspicion that one word will always come into his question.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary—and may I congratulate her on her staunch statement at the party conference on the repeal of the Human Rights Act? As she has not yet an opportunity to do so, would she like to reaffirm on the Floor of the House that she would like to see it repealed?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. At the general election, Conservative Members, of course, stood on a manifesto that promised to do just that. As I have said, we will also bring forward some changes to the immigration rules to ensure what we consider to be the correct balance in the operation of article 8 of the human rights convention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was trying to tempt me to go down a road that I know I should not go down any further on Third Reading of this Bill. Let me return to the point I was making about the balance between keeping the public safe and defending our liberties.

For 13 years the previous Administration chipped away at those freedoms and liberties, and in doing so, they did not protect the public. They chipped away at the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Not only did they fail to take the DNA profiles of all of those guilty of a crime; they also provided for the indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of more than 1 million innocent people. They treated more than a quarter of the whole work force—some 11 million people—as potential abusers of children and vulnerable adults, by requiring them to be monitored as part of an overbearing vetting and barring system.

The previous Government chipped away at the right to liberty by seeking to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 and even 90 days—until forced by the will of this Parliament to settle for 28 days. They then made 28 days the norm rather than the exception. They chipped away at the historic right of trial by jury; they chipped away at the notion that people should be able to live in safety and security in their own homes by creating hundreds of new powers of entry; and they chipped away at our right to privacy by creating a number of enormous Government databases—the national identity register and ContactPoint being but the worst examples.

The Bill continues the work of this Government in repairing the damage done to our traditional freedoms and historic civil liberties, while at the same time taking a careful and proportionate approach to protecting the public. In adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the national DNA database, it strikes the right balance between protecting our communities and protecting the rights of the innocent. When people are convicted or cautioned for a recordable offence, their DNA and fingerprints will be retained indefinitely, exactly as happens now. In all cases in which DNA and fingerprints are taken on arrest, they will be subject to a speculative search so that past offenders cannot evade justice, exactly as happens now. Under this Government, criminals who leave their DNA at a crime scene will not be able to escape justice if they are arrested again.

Moreover, we are now taking the DNA of all convicted prisoners, including hundreds who were convicted for the most serious offences such as murder and rape. That is something that the last Government failed to do. In June last year, we started a programme to identify individuals in the community who have previously been convicted of either a sexual offence or homicide, and whom the last Government failed to place on the DNA database. That process has so far identified more than 13,000 people whose identities have been passed to local police forces, and we are now working with the police to find the individuals and obtain samples. When someone is not convicted of an offence, however, there will be strict limits on the period during which that person’s DNA and fingerprints can be retained. That is exactly as it should be: justice is not served, and our communities are not made safer, by the stockpiling of the DNA and fingerprints of hundreds of thousands of innocent people for year after year.

The Bill includes sensible measures to help to maintain public confidence in the use of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition systems. CCTV is a valuable crime-fighting tool, which also helps to reduce the fear of crime—we saw that most recently after the summer’s riots—but it will not be able to continue to deliver such benefits if cameras are perceived to be spying on communities, or if they simply do not work as they should. We saw that most recently in the west midlands, where the installation of CCTV systems without the support of the local community meant that public confidence was lost and the cause of community safety was set back. By providing for a code of practice overseen by a new surveillance camera commissioner, the Bill will help to ensure that CCTV retains public support and therefore continues to be an effective tool in fighting crime.

The Bill also applies much-needed common sense to the criminal records regime and the vetting and barring scheme. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: the protection of children and vulnerable adults is of paramount importance to this Government, and robust systems for employment vetting play a vital part in ensuring that it is provided, but tying up employers and voluntary organisations in red tape and bureaucracy does no one any good. I do not think it is sensible to force some 11 million people to register with a Government agency, and I do not really think—and I doubt that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) really thinks—that 11 million people should be continually monitored.

There was a real danger that the very scale of the vetting and barring scheme designed by the previous Administration would create a culture of irresponsibility in which employers felt that it was not up to them to protect children or vulnerable adults in their care. Employers must take their responsibilities seriously, and when innocent people are treated like suspects, it is society that suffers.

The Bill has been much improved by the process of scrutiny undertaken by this House. I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their detailed and forensic examination of it, and I thank all Members who contributed to the debates on Report.

Public Disorder

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I pay tribute to the way in which the right hon. Lady has entered into the debate generally. Her constituency was particularly badly affected and is a particular example of criminal gangs operating on the streets in order to test and press the police. I will give the same answer to her in relation to police budgets as I gave earlier and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a number of Members who raised the issue. At the end of the spending review period, the police will have the numbers to enable them to deploy in the way they have during the last few days. It is possible to make cuts in police budgets by taking money out of matters such as better procurement to ensure that we can achieve the cuts that we need to make while still leaving police able to do the job that we want them to do and that they want to do.

In January 2011, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Peter Fahy, told the Home Affairs Committee:

“we have large numbers of officers still in roles that do not require the skills, the powers and expertise of a police officer. It is through that route over the next four years where we will achieve quite a bit of savings.”

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the emphasis that she is putting on the gang culture, which the Prime Minister himself referred to when he said that it was a culture that glorifies violence and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities. Does she agree that the legal restraints that are placed upon, for example, the police, social services, teachers and parents, in imposing discipline in the home, in school or elsewhere, directly derive from a number of legal constraints that come from, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, which needs to be repealed? We cannot deal with the culture and with the question of rights and responsibilities unless we deal with one of the root causes, which is this idea that people can do anything and get away with it.

[Mrs May]

We are taking steps to deal with the culture, and one example is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is taking steps to ensure that we restore discipline in our schools. My hon. Friend refers to the Human Rights Act, which was referred to during questions to the Prime Minister, and my hon. Friend is well aware that we are looking at the issue both through the Bill of Rights commission that has been set up by the Ministry of Justice and my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and work that we are doing with the ECHR.

Metropolitan Police Service

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman started his remarks with the words “Is it not a fact that”, to which my answer is no.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Home Secretary referred to the interaction between the inquiries she has set up and the Leveson inquiry, and her references to the relationship between the police and the media are the right approach. Does she agree that, in the interests of clarity and accountability, to refer merely to the press in the Leveson inquiry would be unsatisfactory and that 17 Select Committee Chairmen, the chairman of the 1922 committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the leaders of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that the Leveson inquiry should be extended to the media as a whole?

[Mrs May]

The terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week were agreed not only by the Government but in consultation with the Opposition and, as I understand it, with the Leader of the Opposition, and of course with Lord Justice Leveson himself.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

There is no greater task for any Government than to protect their citizens, to uphold their values and to defend their way of life, but when we face such a significant threat from terrorism over so great a period it becomes even more important that the Government ensure that the protection of our citizens does not overshadow the freedoms of us all. That is why we reviewed counter-terrorism legislation and it is why we need this Bill. Let me be clear: I will do nothing that risks our national security or the safety of our citizens, but this Bill is necessary precisely because public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.

There is in this country a small number of people who pose a real threat to our citizens, but whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport. Prosecution, conviction and prison will always be our priority because the right place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities. Since becoming Home Secretary, I have made use of the control order powers available to me to stop terrorist activity and to place restrictions on such individuals on a number of occasions.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I think that my right hon. Friend may have anticipated that I would have something to say. She refers to terrorists and I am sure she realises that what she is talking about in this context is suspected terrorists. Does she recognise that it is the fault of the Government and Parliament if judges are given too much scope in human rights matters? Why produce a Bill here at Westminster that fails to provide for due process and a fair trial according to the basic principles of British justice? The coalition is simply giving in to Lib-Dem pressure for this Bill to comply with the Human Rights Act and the European convention; and it has not even provided for a derogation from article 5.

[Mrs May]

I did indeed expect that, as my hon. Friend was in the Chamber, he might wish to raise certain matters. I am aware of his private Member’s Bill on the same issue. I have to tell him that I was not entirely clear from what he said whether he was in favour of more human rights or against more human rights. I see him leaping to his feet.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for walking into that one. I am very much in favour of human rights, but I am in favour of human rights according to principles of British justice, not those devised through the European convention and applied through the Human Rights Act, which has led to so many contradictions and inconsistencies and has raised so much concern among the public at large.

Passenger Name Records

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the Government’s decision, although I am slightly puzzled by her suggestion that there has been some enormous change since my party was in opposition, given that from 2005 onwards the Opposition spokesman on this subject was me. There has been no change at all, either in the person of the spokesman or in the attitude I have taken to PNR and the collection of data. What we are doing is putting into practice what we said in opposition.

The hon. Lady asked a number of specific questions. Negotiations are continuing now that we have decided to opt into the directive. She asked whether the directive will be useful if it ends up not containing the intra-EU provisions that we regard as so important. First, I should emphasise that we have already ensured that a majority of member states are now in favour, so we are extremely hopeful of getting this in place. Secondly, it will be useful, but not as useful as it will be if the intra-EU travel provisions are allowed.

The hon. Lady asked about targeting and whether we can keep pace. It is an important point that some routes are much more high risk than others, so concentrating our resources on them is likely to make us more effective than just having a blanket collection. We and other countries will need to flex to meet the circumstances. The hon. Lady is right that criminals and terrorists will change their patterns of activity. One of the advantages of collecting PNR is that it enables us to see patterns emerging and changing, and to meet that by being fleeter of foot in changing the routes we cover.

The hon. Lady mentioned our exchange in Committee on terrorism offences. She read out part of my letter to her, but neglected to continue. The answer to her question is in the next couple of lines:

“As the negotiations progress…we will need to keep this point under review and, if necessary, seek any changes during the passage of the Directive.”

That is, of course, what we are going to do.

I am happy to be able to assure the hon. Lady that this will not diminish our e-Borders programme. I should point out to her that the most effective immigration part of the e-Borders programme is the API collection, not the PNR collection. I am sorry to be talking in jargon to the House. The API data are essentially the basic information that comes off the passport of any traveller. The collection of that is what will enable us, under e-Borders, to count people out as well as in, and that is what is crucial for immigration.

The hon. Lady talked about the period of time for which data will be held. That will be at the core of the negotiations, and it is extremely important. Under the current British e-Borders system, we hold the data for, essentially, 10 years, and we think that is too long. The Commission is proposing 30 days, and for it then to be anonymised for a few years. The Canadians have a different system again, under which it is held for three and a half years. This issue will be at the heart of the negotiations.

As for the hon. Lady’s idea that there is any inconsistency between our approach on this and our approach on domestic data collection, that is absolutely dead wrong. As I emphasised in my statement, we believe in the necessary and proportionate use of data to combat crime and terrorism, while preserving the civil liberties of the British people. That is what we apply in our domestic field, and that is what we will apply in the international field as well.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In wishing the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday, I call Mr William Cash.

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker; thank you very much for that.

As the Minister knows, the European Scrutiny Committee is somewhat concerned, to say the least, about the blizzard of opt-ins and the fact that the negotiations on a number of very important matters are still going on. There is therefore some concern about the possibility of our opting in on the hoof, and we will keep these negotiations under close scrutiny, in particular the negotiation on the length of time for the retention of data, but also that on the definition of a serious crime and the question of proportionality in using these data for offences such as racism, xenophobia and sabotage. There is also the whole issue of sensitive personal data in itself. I know the Minister is apprised of these issues, but will he understand that we are extremely concerned and that as there are these important continuing negotiations it is not good enough simply to say, “We will accept it in principle and then discuss it all afterwards”?

[Damian Green]

First, may I add my good wishes to my hon. Friend on reaching his 39th birthday? I assure him that the Government are keenly aware not only of the key issues he has raised but that he and his Committee will be scrutinising what the Government do. Indeed, as the negotiations are likely to go on for at least a year, if not longer, there will undoubtedly be opportunities for the Committee to return to its perfectly proper scrutiny arrangements during that time.