Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There will be a form of challenge available to an individual under judicial review. We will also have to notify the individual that action is being taken against them, so that they are aware that the measure is being put in place.

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

On a point that was made earlier, if an individual has the right to challenge how they are managed—I think the right hon. Lady said that it would be by means of judicial review—can we ensure that they have legal aid to do that?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have made a number of changes to legal aid, and we are looking at the position in relation to that particular issue on these new measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Obviously, carriers in most parts of the world are already required to carry out some security screening. From time to time, we say that if someone is going to fly into the United Kingdom we wish them to adopt additional methods of security screening. At the moment, this is done on a voluntary basis, but the Bill takes that and puts it into statute, which will enable us to stop someone from flying into the UK if they do not adopt the security procedures.

Part 5 addresses the issue of those at serious risk of succumbing to radicalisation and terrorism. We propose a new statutory duty on certain bodies, including local authorities, the police, prisons, probation services, schools, colleges and universities, including in the private sector, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. That will ensure that Prevent strategy activity is consistent across the country and in all those bodies whose staff work on the front line with those at risk from radicalisation. The detail of how the duty should be fulfilled will be set out in statutory guidance, which we will publish shortly.

I hope that the House will find it helpful if I take the opportunity to clarify one specific issue that the guidance will address, which is the need to create an appropriate and sensible balance between the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and the existing duty on universities to promote freedom of speech. I believe that our universities, with their commitment to free speech and the advancement of knowledge, represent one of our most important safeguards against extremist views and ideologies. There is no contradiction between promoting freedom of speech and taking account of the interests and well-being of students, staff and the wider community. That is already subject to guidance issued by both Universities UK and the National Union of Students. We must ensure that poisonous, divisive ideologies are not allowed to promulgate.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The right hon. Lady mentioned universities and other institutions being sent statutory guidelines on Prevent. Why do the guidelines have to be in statutory format? Why cannot they just be sent, knowing that any responsible institution will follow them without their having to have legal force behind them?

[Mrs May]

The purpose of putting Prevent on a statutory basis is twofold. First, the statutory duty will now relate to a number of front-line institutions, as I have said, such as local authorities and universities. There is already some guidance that Universities UK and the National Union of Students apply to universities, as I have indicated. However, I believe it is important to ensure that there is that statutory duty on bodies such as universities, and the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make a direction to one of the bodies covered by that power if they are failing to exercise their statutory duty.

Wanless Review

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attending the Chamber when matters relating to Home Affairs are being discussed. I made it clear then that I did not want to publish this report on the same day as the statement, and that I wanted to publish it later. I said that I would publish it this week, and I have kept that commitment to the House. Also, when I receive a report it is important that I read and consider it. As a result of having done so, I asked a number of questions of officials. That has resulted—this answers part of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—in my writing today to Peter Wanless to indicate that I would like him and Richard Whittam to give a reassurance about the extent to which they were able to reassure themselves that the police had dealt appropriately with matters that were handed over to them. The reason I have done that is simple: I do not want a situation where people simply say, “The Home Office can absolve itself of responsibility because it handed things to the police.” We want to make sure that those allegations were dealt with appropriately, and I think it is entirely right that I have written to them for reassurance on that.

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

This morning, our Committee heard from the victims groups, which expressed reservations about some members of the panel for the overarching inquiry and suggested three names for the chair. Two of them, Nelson Mandela and Theresa May are obviously not possibilities—[Interruption.] Sorry, I mean Madam Theresa—[Laughter.] Mother Teresa! But they did suggest one sensible name, Michael Mansfield. Will the Home Secretary assure me that she will give full consideration to what the victims groups are saying about who should be chairing the panel and that she will re-examine its members?

[Mrs May]

I had a sense of déjà vu then, because when I was a councillor in the London borough of Merton the then leader of the Labour group sometimes used to call me Mother Theresa. The hon. Lady did raise a serious point, because we need to ensure that the panel of inquiry and its chairman have the confidence of survivors and victims, so that they can have confidence in the outcome of the panel’s work. The name she mentioned has been raised by others, but so have a number of other names. Hon. Members are making proposals, as are survivors groups and individual survivors. The Home Office is collating all the names that are being suggested as a possible chairman and, appropriately, we will look into those individuals in due course. I hope that this will not take too long, but we will need to do the necessary work to bring a further name forward.

Passport Applications

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Exactly. We know there has been a substantial increase as a result of foreign residents applying for their British passports to be renewed, or applying for new passports for their children. Those who are living abroad are often the most complex cases, yet it is clear that the Home Secretary has not put in place the capacity to cope.

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

My right hon. Friend might be aware that yesterday the Home Affairs Committee spoke to the gentleman representing the union. He said that the unions and the people working in the Passport Office had told the management there were a lot of applications and that the cuts in numbers were not helping. This matter was raised with the management on many occasions.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. I know she raised that point in the Committee’s evidence session yesterday. People have made it very clear, including the very nice lady who spoke to a constituent at the Liverpool office, that it is having an impact, because they are having to process so many more foreign applications. That was a decision taken by the Government, by Ministers, and yet they failed to put the additional capacity they needed in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have been generous in granting interventions, but I am barely into the start of my speech. I will continue to be generous with interventions, but Opposition Members need to understand that at this stage I would like to make a little progress with my speech.

I have explained that HMPO is dealing with an unprecedented surge in demand for passports. HMPO has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] That is an additional 350,000 applications for passports and renewals in comparison with last year. Ever since this increase in applications became apparent back in January, HMPO has been putting in place measures to meet the demand. Some 250 additional staff have been transferred from back-office roles to front-line operations, while 650 additional staff have been provided to work on HMPO’s customer helpline. HMPO has been operating seven days a week since March and couriers are delivering passports within 24 hours of them being produced. On Monday, new office space was opened in Liverpool to provide the Passport Office with additional capacity. As I said to the House last week, however, even with those additional resources, HMPO is still not able to process every application it receives within the three-week waiting time for straightforward cases.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Home Secretary has set out some things that the Passport Office is doing to resolve the issue, but it could all have been avoided. We heard at yesterday’s Home Affairs Select Committee meeting that Mr Jones, who represents the Public and Commercial Services Union, that for a number of months—not just two months, but for the last year or two—the union has been explaining to the management that they simply do not have enough staff to deal with the number of applications. That message was repeated to management time and again, but the management wilfully refused to engage with their staff on that issue. Had they done so, this would not have happened.

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady will be a little patient, she will hear me address the issue of staffing later in my speech. Let me now repeat what I have just said. Since January, Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been increasing the resources that will enable it to deal with passport applications in response to an increase in demand from the public, and the overwhelming majority of passports are being issued within service standards.

Immigration Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth outlining again at the outset the purpose of the Government’s amendments, which is to close a gap that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court, to guard our national security and to deal with a very small number of individuals who put this country’s security at risk. It is only to deal with those very serious cases of people whose conduct meets the requirement of being

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.”

It is important to understand the context and how the Home Secretary, in exercising the power based on the amendments, must have reasonable grounds to believe that under the laws of a country or territory an individual is able to become a national of that country or territory. We have listened to the points that have been made about statelessness, and the amendments address and significantly close the issues that have been highlighted in the other place.

On scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, the matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as in the other place, so it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to careful consideration in the other place and by Members of this House, or considered in detail. That was incorrectly suggested by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke for the Opposition. He has made various assertions that in some way the provisions are not compliant with our conventions and obligations to the United Nations. I reject that. We do not accept that in some way the provisions that are contemplated in the amendments do not comply with our conventions. Indeed, we believe that they adhere more closely to our obligations.

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

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.

We have reflected on the need for oversight and have provided for periodic independent reviews. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked whether David Anderson is an appropriate person. He is certainly someone we are examining and we want to have discussions, if the amendments are accepted, to consider his role in that context.

We take our obligations on statelessness extraordinarily seriously and in terms of common law the House has considered these matters in the recent past. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has consistently made that point. There are challenges for the Government in what we are able to do to ensure that evidence can be provided appropriately in guarding our national security, and that gisting of facts and information remains available. It is important that the right of challenge exists, but it is also important that we guard our national security, which is why I commend the amendments to the House.

Stop-and-Search

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that this is an important power and that it is its abuse that causes the problem. It is the abuse of the power that brings it into disrepute. The revised code will emphasise that when officers do not use their powers properly, they will be subject to formal performance or disciplinary proceedings. The individual officer has to ensure that they are using the powers properly. If they are not, action will be taken against them.

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

The Home Secretary will be aware that the main reason for the Brixton riots was the notorious sus laws. Lord Scarman’s inquiry confirmed that and led to the PACE legislation. I am pleased to hear the announcement this afternoon, although I would have preferred further legislation. Given that young people in particular have been affected by stop-and-search, will she reassure me that there will be continuous monitoring of the use of this power? Will she confirm, as has been said by other Members, that people who abuse the power should be held accountable?

[Mrs May]

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

Hillsborough

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. As I said earlier, it is my understanding that every effort is being made to ensure that the facilities are appropriate for the families, and that it will be as easy as possible for them to attend. She will have noted that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is in his place. He will have heard her comments, and I am sure that he will take them away to the Ministry of Justice.

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

I am sure the Home Secretary is aware that the families have asked for one person to be put in charge of the entire investigation so that they can co-ordinate all the various investigations that are going on. Will she consider doing that?

[Mrs May]

I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the families about this matter and what the most appropriate structure is to have in place. I believe that we do have the right structure at the moment, because the two investigations are looking at different aspects of this tragedy. It is of course important that there is co-ordination between them, and as I said earlier, the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation. What I have seen from visiting Warrington is that both investigations are conscious of not only those areas where it is necessary for them to co-ordinate, but those areas where it is necessary for them to recognise the difference in their investigation.

Immigration Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will explain exactly what the new clause does. It extends the Secretary of State’s powers to deprive someone of citizenship. It is in response to a particular case—not the one that he has quoted—which I will describe in order to set the background in a way that I hope will be helpful for the whole House. The right hon. Gentleman has a knowledge and understanding of these issues, but it would be helpful to set out the whole background.

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

I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate. The Home Secretary referred to her powers where someone has obtained citizenship by fraudulent means. There may have been strong mitigating circumstances when someone made such an application. For example, we know that some years ago many people came to the country on false documents because they had been persecuted. They may have applied on a false basis, but there were strong mitigating circumstances—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I know that this is complicated and many Members want to speak. May I clearly ask for your assistance. Will any Member making an intervention try to make it brief?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have indeed taken a strong line on trafficking, but the exclusion of certain other articles of the convention in the new clause is one of the aspects that makes it incompatible with that convention and raises the issue of how it would operate. I have already indicated that I think the new clause is incompatible with the European convention, and I am raising some of the other practical issues that I think would be its impact. I think we will find it harder to deport people because of some aspects of the new clause, and that more cases will go to the European Court as that would become the first decision maker in a number of cases. There would be considerable litigation in the domestic courts if we found ourselves seeking to remove someone contrary to a rule 39 indication. Those are practical issues about whether we can deport individuals.

I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, and others, about our ability to deport foreign criminals, and in relation to the European convention on human rights. I have said on many occasions that it is necessary for the Government to determine and sort out our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, and as far as I am concerned, nothing should be off the table in doing that. Today we are considering a Bill that will deal with the deportation of foreign criminals.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Again, will the Secretary of State’s party support new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab)?

[Mrs May]

I am sorry, but I answered that question earlier. I said that I will respond to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton makes, and see whether he moves the new clause. I will make the Government’s position clear to the House. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Lady believes that debate in the House is important. I am therefore sure she agrees that listening to hon. Members is also important.

As I have said, the Bill puts in place stronger practical arrangements that will enable us to deport more foreign criminals, which all hon. Members want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful clarification. The problem is that deportation is part of the punishment. The logic of the argument of the Member for Brent Central is that if someone’s punishment had an effect on their children that led not to “manifest and overwhelming harm” but to either manifest harm or overwhelming harm, it would be fundamentally and in principle unfair on the children, so that part of the punishment should not be carried out. Surely, however, it might equally be said that someone’s imprisonment would have an effect of manifest but not “manifest and overwhelming” harm on the children. If such an argument was accepted, the whole criminal justice concept of punishing people who have committed offences would become extremely difficult. Deportation is therefore simply a reasonable part of the overall punishment for someone who commits a serious offence.

I listened with great interest to the debate about the status of new clause 15 in European and UK law. A principle that we should always state and restate in this House is that, by its very nature, Parliament cannot pass a law that is illegal. We can pass laws that contravene international obligations or that we may decide our diplomatic relations require us to remove or repeal, but Parliament cannot pass an illegal law.

That point is important to remember, because there is a tyranny of lawyers. They give people advice stating that they think x or y, but until it has been judged by a court, that is no more than advice, which may be right or wrong. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been advised by the Home Office lawyer that the new clause does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights, that does not question the right of this House to pass it into law: it is our right to do so, and then to consider the judgment that may or may not be made by the European Court of Human Rights. That of course leaves open the question of whether the Home Secretary can sign the declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I am delighted that she is returning to her place as I say that.

My right hon. Friend has the right to go to another lawyer. When given legal advice that they do not like, many people see whether they can find one who gives different advice. Amazingly enough, when they pay a better lawyer, they sometimes get better advice. I hope that even in an era of austerity Her Majesty’s Government may seek out some better lawyers who can give improved advice that is more in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said.

The question is therefore only one of incompatibility, not of legality. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench team will also think about that. Whether the new clause is accepted and passed into law is not fundamentally a legal decision, because the legal position is as yet unproved—it has not been tested in the courts—so it is a political decision or a political statement about what hon. Members on both sides of the House think is the right way to treat people from foreign countries who have committed serious crimes. I would take the political decision that it is right to expel them from this country, and that it would be wrong to do so only if extraordinary factors meant that they ought to have the right to stay.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

It is on exactly that point that some Opposition Members have concerns about new clause 15. As the hon. Gentleman says, there may be exceptional circumstances that mean a decision should be made not to deport somebody, but the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) would take away exactly such discretion, because it says, “If you get one year’s imprisonment, you’re out.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As always, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point, but it is a question about which bit of discretion would be taken away. The courts would retain discretion if there was a threat of harm or a threat to life and limb, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton pointed out. Discretion would be circumscribed only in very specific cases relating to article 8, and that would be done because the courts appear to have made some quite eccentric decisions. What has really brought this to the attention of the British public is the huge backlog of deportations—4,000 people are apparently waiting to be deported—and the fact that a very high number of challenges are brought purely on the basis of article 8 rights, which cannot therefore involve people in fear of torture or of harm to life and limb. I do not think that anybody in the House wants to deport people at risk to life and limb. As a nation, we believe in offering refugee status to people genuinely at threat, but we are not in favour of the exaggeration of spurious rights.

As I have said, the decision is a political decision, not a legal one. It is for this House to make a political choice about how our criminal justice system works, what rights belong to people who have committed very serious crimes and how far such rights should go. If it became a legal decision—if it were taken to the courts—we would find out at a later stage whether the European Court of Human Rights thought it was compatible with the convention. The House would then make a second choice, which would be whether to maintain today’s political decision or reverse it to be compatible with the convention. That is not the choice before us today. This is a routine exercise of parliamentary sovereignty in adding to a Bill a provision that may become law and be justiciable at a later stage.

I know that a lot of other Members want to speak, so I will be brief on new clause 18. I have some concerns about it. I am perhaps rather romantic in my view of what it means to be a British subject. I always thought that Palmerston got it right on the Don Pacifico affair—the “Civis Romanus sum” principle. Once any one of us has a passport that says we are British, we are as British as anybody else, whether they were born here or got their passport five minutes ago. It is incredibly important that there is equality before the law for all Her Majesty’s subjects who are living in this country and have right of residence here.

I worry that if we give the Government the ability to take passports away from a certain category of British subject but not from others, it will create a potential unfairness and a second category of citizen. There are Members of the House who were born abroad and have been naturalised and, on occasion, they may vote against the Government, which I hope the Whips will not consider serious enough reason to remove their passport. The fundamental underlying principle of equality of all Her Majesty’s subjects is important. I am always nervous about giving the Executive relatively arbitrary powers, because they are the ones that can be most misused. Once a passport is in somebody’s hands, they ought to be no different from anybody else in any legal respect.

Crucially, there may well already be laws that could deal with the problem in another way. If people have committed an offence so serious, important and threatening to the life of the nation that their passport should be confiscated, surely they have committed some other crime for which they could be charged, dragged through the courts, perhaps found guilty by a jury and then sentenced accordingly, with the penalty handed down in the right and proper way and their rights and liberties as subjects being maintained. They may have committed treason if they have done something so serious that they are to have their passport removed from them.

I will not oppose the new clause, but I wished to raise those concerns. I understand that the approach has been agreed because it will not affect many people. That is fine—I am glad it will not have widespread application—but what message does it send to the nation at large?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is angling for a visit to St Helena.

My point to the Home Secretary is this: hon. Members know that there is an issue to be addressed and a legitimate question to ask, but this is not the way to advance legislation. The Government are introducing a significant change to the law on British citizenship at this late stage—on Report—and tabled the measure the day before the debate. If anybody wants to amend it, they must table manuscript amendments. If we are going down this route, it is important at least to have the safeguards the Opposition have tabled, but I wish we were doing this in a different way.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On sending people away, if we take someone’s citizenship away and they are taken to the airport, where do we send them? They need travel documents. If they do not have them, no country will take them. The Government’s measures are completely impractical.

[Chris Bryant]

That is my problem. Sometimes legislation seems like a good idea but ends up being completely and utterly impracticable and making little difference. I suspect that that is the problem we will face with the Bill.

I know the Government are not seeking to do this, but my memory of countries that regularly took people’s citizenship off them in the 20th century is not a good one. It is a list of fascist countries. That is why I get very nervous about such moves. I am not saying that the Home Secretary is engaging in that, but when we give an arbitrary power and significant discretion to a Home Secretary to exercise it, there is a danger.

--- Later in debate ---

This debate goes to the heart of two theoretical questions, one of which we have spent quite a bit of time on, the other of which we have not touched on at all. The first concerns the relationship between this House and the British courts—all the way up previously to the House of Lords, but now to the Supreme Court—and the European Court of Human Rights. The second concerns judicial activism.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On the point about removing people’s citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was born in England, but I was born in Pakistan. We are both British nationals, but if she was to commit murder, which I am sure she is not going to, she could not be deported, whereas if I did, I could be. Is that fair?

[Mr Brazier]

That question runs across several different issues. I was making the same point that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, made, which was about people who take up arms abroad. Whether they were born in this country or not, there is a long tradition of stripping citizenship from people who commit such offences. On the issue of murder, if somebody holds British citizenship, I would not allow the Executive a specific power in that area. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

I strongly support new clause 15. We have heard about the various cases, including one from the right hon. Member for Blackburn, and we have gone around the buoy of these three centres of power—the British Parliament, the British courts and the ECHR. I strongly support the view of Lord Judge, the outstanding retiring Lord Chief Justice, that Parliament needs to make it clear which, ultimately, is the supreme court for British law. Is it the UK Supreme Court, as he suggests it should be, or are we going to concede that the final word lies in Strasbourg? I firmly believe that the final word should stay in this country.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton made, which was repeated by a number of other people—including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—is that while his proposal is almost certainly incompatible with recent rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, that cannot mean that it is illegal. This is a sovereign Parliament. We can pass the measure and the courts can try cases under it. If we make it clear, as I believe we should, that the Supreme Court in this country should be the supreme court, we do not have a problem. It is by pursuing cases such as this that we can finally sort out whether or not, as some Members on both sides claim, it is possible to sort out these issues and still accept the ultimate sovereignty of Strasbourg. We believe that we have to sort it out by, as Lord Judge argued, stating that Parliament is ultimately a sovereign body and that the Supreme Court in this country is indeed the British supreme court. Only by having a measure like this can we sort that out.

Home Affairs

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I am not alone in being disappointed with the Queen’s Speech as it failed to deal with any of the real issues and challenges facing our country, such as 1 million young unemployed, the rise in the cost of living, especially for those on low wages, no investment in the growth of our economy, and no real reform of the banking system. The Chancellor said that his austerity measures would bring the budget deficit down by 2015. He has already accepted that that will not happen, and the triple A rating which he considered a holy grail has also gone. In real terms he is borrowing even more to balance the budget. The GDP to national debt ratio is heading towards 80%.

When Labour came to power in 1997, the GDP ratio to the national debt was 42%. By early 2008, it was down to 35%, just before the global recession started. The Government then had to act to save the banks and avoid a worsening financial crisis. As a result, they had to borrow additional money, and the national debt went up, but figures show that by 2010, the GDP ratio to the national debt began to fall again. However, with the austerity measures of the current Chancellor, without a growth plan for the economy, the GDP ratio to the national debt is now some 80%.

These figures are important because it is often said that the Labour Government left the country in an economic mess, but the Opposition know that that is not the case, because the facts and figures from the Treasury and other Departments show that we were financially prudent. It is not just me who says that; that famous left-wing body, the International Monetary Fund, has said the same. It has stated clearly that the actions taken by the previous Prime Minister and the Chancellor were the right ones in light of the situation that we faced and—these words are important—the global recession. Much as the Labour Government would have liked to control the whole world, we certainly did not run the USA or Japan, or any of the other advanced nations, but they experienced a similar global crisis. That is important: it was a global crisis and had nothing to do with the suggestion that somehow the Labour Government were financially mismanaging the economy. If anyone is mismanaging the economy, it is the current Government, who are borrowing £164 billion extra to cover the budget deficit.

It makes sense that, if one is not going to invest in the economy, if there are to be no jobs in the economy, and if people are not paying their taxes, the revenue that a Government receive will obviously be less. In order to continue to meet the budget deficit, they will have to borrow more, which is exactly what the Chancellor has done. As a result we now have a higher national debt, the economy is not moving, and again the famous left-wing socialist institution, the IMF, has said that the Government need to change their course. The Chancellor needs to change his course. He must bring in programmes and investment to stimulate growth in the economy. Austerity alone will not be enough. Those who have suffered the most from the austerity and cuts have been the disabled, the elderly, those on low wages, and often women with small children. Their economic situation has been made worse, and their cost of living has risen the most.

But the Government are not satisfied just with taking away people’s economic rights and financially hitting them; they are also taking away some basic civil rights. The cuts to civil legal aid for bodies such as the employment, health and disability tribunals, and in family cases, has meant that many people are now unrepresented. There have been cuts to funding for the citizens advice bureaux, which last year in Bolton South East saw 14,000 people who were suffering, including the vulnerable, disadvantaged and poor, and those on low incomes, and now they will suffer even more. If they have a problem, they will not be able to go to a tribunal. They will have no legal representation and there will be no one to explain their rights to them.

There are further proposals to cut criminal legal aid, which again affects ordinary people most. We hear about the famous few rich defendants, the big criminals, but the majority of those who face criminal charges are not the rich, but ordinary people. The myth that all criminal lawyers earn millions and millions of pounds is another complete lie. Yes, there is the odd Queen’s counsel or barrister who will earn that sort of money from legal aid, but more than 95% of the members of the Bar and people practising criminal law earn nowhere near that. In fact, their earnings are often very average, compared with those in other sectors. The idea that the majority of barristers somehow get £1 million a year from legal aid is a complete distortion of the truth. In fact, it is a complete lie.

The Ministry of Justice now wants to introduce something called price-competitive tendering, which will undermine access to justice and damage our judicial system. People should be able to choose a lawyer on the basis of quality, rather than being given the one with the lowest price. Price-competitive tendering will force bidders to tender at least 17.5% below the current magistrates’ rates, and if they get the contract they will also be able to continue working in the Crown courts. With cuts of 35% on criminal advocates’ fees already coming in, all we will see is the really experienced and talented lawyers simply not practising criminal law and inexperienced newcomers taking up cases instead.

There might not be much sympathy for people charged with criminal offences, but I believe that in this country we still have the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Being able to defend oneself from incarceration in the criminal justice system is a fundamental part of a democratic society. That is something we should be proud of, not something we should try to hide or do away with by making it harder for people to access criminal legal aid. Price-competitive tendering will have a great impact on our criminal justice system.

A sad thing in politics in this country is that for a number of years now there has been constant criticism of our judges when they take decisions that the Executive are not happy with. I practised law for more than 20 years, in different courts, and there were times when I did not agree with the judge’s decision, but I did not start bad-mouthing the judge. Instead, we had a system of appeal that allowed us to take the matter further so that someone more senior could consider it, because errors can occur and it can be useful to have another pair of eyes to look at decisions that have been taken. Surely that is the only proper way for politicians to behave in cases involving judges.

Our judges are of a very high calibre. They are not ignorant people who do not know about the real world. They know what the real world is like and they know the law. I think it is about time politicians across all political parties started giving the judiciary the respect it deserves. Ultimately, an independent judiciary is very much a hallmark of a civilized democratic society. That is something we should be proud of in this country. We should not constantly be denigrating judges.

Things that we now take as being accepted were not accepted 20 years ago, and that is because our judges have effectively been applying the law in a way that has benefited many people. For example, it is now perfectly acceptable to take on a public authority or a Department for any wrongdoing. That was not the case until a number of years ago. It is only because our judges have said that public authorities and bodies should be accountable and scrutinised that that is now accepted as normal business in this country. That was very much down to judges.

Many years ago, Lord Denning brought in the equitable principle in the famous High Trees House case. I know that ex-lawyers sometimes tend to go on about the law, but I mention that case because it was the first time people in common law partnerships, especially women, were given some rights over the properties in which they lived and were looking after the children but where they were not the income winners and had no rights at all. That case allowed them to have some rights. We have a lot to be grateful to our judges for, so denigrating them is just not right. If a Government are not happy with a judge’s decision, they have a mechanism of appeal, and the final appeal is to the Supreme Court, which is full of very eminent and high-calibre people who make the decisions.

I am disappointed that the Gracious Speech did not deal with some of the health issues that are big challenges for our society, such as drinking and smoking. Everyone accepts that cigarettes cause cancer and many other illnesses. This was an opportunity for the Government, who said themselves that they want to deal with this, but it seems that because of powerful lobbyists and other groups plain packaging is now off the agenda and alcohol is not being tackled. Members have already talked about the impact of alcohol and cigarettes on people’s lives and the illnesses they cause. It is therefore sad and regrettable that this action has not taken place.

Another disappointing aspect of the Queen’s Speech relates to immigration. It is right that there should be a debate about immigration, and nobody is running away from that. People who have come to this country should be able to claim benefit if they have paid taxes to the Treasury. If they have not made those contributions, it is right that they should not be able to benefit from welfare provision. No one is arguing that that is wrong. However, the Government, who are trying to deal with UKIP in a knee-jerk reaction to what happened recently, have brought in policies requiring landlords and doctors to act as policemen. Instead, they should be making sure that the border is being patrolled properly so that people are not coming into the country illegally. They should also be making sure that the UK Border Agency becomes more effective in dealing with people who should not be in this country and should be sent back. That is the way to deal with it; it is the state’s responsibility. Making individual citizens act as spies is wrong; it is like George Orwell’s society coming to fruition. Yes, some big landlords with thousands of homes in their property portfolios might be able to carry out the searches suggested by the Government, but in my constituency a lot of people who have a small home and may be renting one room will now be criminalised if they do not carry out certain checks. That is plain wrong, as is asking doctors to spy on people. The Government and the law enforcement agencies should be patrolling these things, not creating a snooping society. That is completely the wrong approach.

The Queen’s Speech did nothing at all to try to stimulate our economy. We would have liked a jobs Bill that meant a paid job for every adult who had been out of work for more than two years; guaranteed six months’ pay for young people; a requirement—this is very important bearing in mind the wholesale privatisation that is taking place under this Government—that large firms should agree to apprenticeship schemes whenever they are given a Government contract; a Finance Bill that reversed the VAT rise and the 10p tax rate; and a consumer Bill that dealt with rising energy costs, which now average £300, and rail fares, which are going up by 9%. The rail companies should be offering people the cheapest available fare, not expecting them to search around for hours on end trying to find a good deal. We should ensure that energy companies are regulated properly and are not exploiting the consumer. Despite everything that has been said, banks are still not lending enough to small businesses, which are the backbone of our country. A specialised British investment bank should have been set up, with regional banks to support businesses. We should force banks to lend to small companies so that they can grow and create employment.

The content of the Gracious Speech is a real damp squib. It was an opportunity for this Government to be visionary, but they have been nothing of the kind.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

What I am saying is that the new provision was accepted in the other place, with wide acclaim—the Opposition thought that it was a major move forward—and an agreement about the way forward was established, so it is perhaps wrong for this House simply to say, “Oh well. Let’s nudge it another inch.” If Parliament is prepared to say that there will be a legal duty on those officer holders to take those steps, that seems to me to be a step forward. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in that great role, would have taken it lightly if Parliament had told him that he must take such steps as he considered appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity.

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

I do not want to sound repetitious, because I know that this point has been made, but why is what is good for Northern Ireland not also good for the United Kingdom?

[The Solicitor-General]

Of course, there are unique circumstances in Northern Ireland, as we know, and indeed as we have discussed today in other contexts. The point I am making is that an agreement was reached in the other place on the way forward and I think that we should give it a chance. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that there has been a disappointing performance since 2005, and I am happy to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that I share his concerns about that. We have tried to do a good deal about it in the Bill. The other point I will make—I do not know how far I can take this—is that we are about to see appointments to the Court of Appeal and to very high positions in the judiciary, and there are some very good candidates who are women, but we will have to see what the outcome will be.

Turning to bailiff regulation, new clause 7 echoes an amendment that was agreed in the other place but later removed from the Bill in Committee. New clause 17 proposes a role for the court in relation to every warrant and provides for the judiciary to compile an annual report on bailiff complaints for the Lord Chancellor to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made a compelling argument on the need for a firm response to the misbehaviour of rogue bailiffs and suggested that one way of doing so would be through the court and its procedures. The Government’s approach, which I will come to shortly, is set out in the response to the “Transforming Bailiff Action” consultation, which was published on 25 January. It sets out the reforms that will tackle what we consider to be the root problems of the complaints about bailiffs. It introduces safeguards for debtors and, equally, allows creditors to collect money they are owed, which I think all parties agree is necessary.

It remains our belief that the package of reforms offers the most effective and proportionate response to the problem of aggressive bailiffs and that it will render unnecessary some of the cost and bureaucracy inherent in the proposals of the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and the Opposition. It will be a new world, if I may put it that way.

The Government’s reforms centre on part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007—the background is one of all-party consensus—and they do six things. They remove antiquated, confusing laws and clarify what the powers of bailiffs are, so those powers will be known. Regulations that we will publish this summer and aim to implement in April 2014 will set out what goods can and cannot be seized. There will also be a clear and fair charging regime. It is iniquitous for a bailiff to turn up at a door to collect three debts and then demand three fees when he has made only one visit.

Police

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Before I begin my contribution to this important debate, I pay tribute to a WPC Fiona Bone and WPC Nicola Hughes, both of whom were officers in the Greater Manchester police force, which is my local police force. They went to attend a routine burglary call at short notice, and they were both shot. It is a perfect example of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said about police officers who, perhaps unlike any other professionals, do not know what they are going to face when they leave home. We therefore owe them a great duty of responsibility to ensure that their best interests are looked after.

The Minister says that crime is falling. We agree: it is falling at this moment in time. If I understood him correctly, he is, in effect, trying to take credit for that, but crime began to fall just before 1997, when a Labour Government came to office. When we did so, the morale of the police force was at an all-time low. The Labour policy of increasing the number of front-line police officers; introducing thousands of bobbies on the beat, police community support officers and neighbourhood policing units; the record investment in rehabilitation centres for people addicted to drugs and alcohol; the fact that we funded various youth services and increased the number of drug rehabilitation centres; the policies of diverting young people from the criminal justice system: collectively, all those things led to a significant fall in crime. While crime was falling, no Opposition politician at the time, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, who appeared on television or radio or in the print media, ever acknowledged that crime was going down. In fact, every time they appeared on radio and television when Labour was in power, they argued that crime was rising. I am glad that finally that mindset has changed and that they recognise the true state of affairs.

We have been told that a 20% cut in the police budget will save money and decrease the budget deficit. However, figures show that that is not working. The deficit is £7 billion higher than it was in the same period in the previous financial year, which shows that austerity measures, which have been criticised by the International Monetary Fund, a conservative institute, are not working. Let me help the Minister: we should make cuts if, in the long run, we save money—to use a modern phrase, we should make smart cuts. What often prevents people from committing crime is the sight of a police officer, and what reassures people is the sight of a police officer. Many Members while knocking on doors in their constituency have heard their constituents say that they want to see more visible policing, as they are reassured when they do so.

Government cuts have already led to cuts in the number of police officers. For example, in the north-west region, in March 2010, police numbers were 19,649. In September 2012, they were 17,708, with a reduction of 1,986 police officers. Those cuts will continue for the next year, so by 2015 there will be 2,951 fewer police officers. I am sorry, but no one can convince me that that will not have an impact on policing and crime.

[Dr Huppert]

May I put to the hon. Lady a question that I put to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)? Let us say that next year crime is still coming down, and the year after that, it is still coming down. At which point will she accept that crime is, in fact, continuing to come down and looks like it will keep going for a while?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Let us see what happens in the next few years, because many austerity measures are under way. The cuts have only just begun to hit, and, in the next few years, they will really hit people. Everyone knows that because of economic difficulties certain crimes will rise, including lesser crimes such as breaking into vehicles, stealing small items and selling them for quick money.

Although crime is falling, fewer crimes are being resolved. This aspect has not been touched on. In the north-west, at least 2,296 fewer offences of violence against the person have been solved. Previously, a much higher number of such offences were resolved. In the coming years, once the cuts in police numbers are implemented and the full impact is felt, a rising number of crimes will be left unresolved.

The Minister boasted that recruitment was not a problem and that the Government were doing everything they could to encourage recruitment and create a better police force, but that is not the impression that I get from police officers on the front line. Let me tell the House about Police Constable Turnbull, who came to see me in my constituency office. He said that he had joined the police force many years ago, full of hope and with a high level of dedication to duty. I know that he will continue in that way, but he said that morale in the force, especially among younger police officers, was at an all-time low. Officers are unhappy with all the cuts that are taking place.

In particular, the constable talked about the police pension, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East referred. New recruits know the terms and conditions on which they are coming in, and can decide whether to join the police force on that basis, but to take away people’s pension rights retrospectively, when they have spent 10, 15 or 20 years contributing towards their pension, is plainly unfair and will not help police morale. Morale affects performance—if people are happy, they perform better; if they are demoralised, their performance may be affected. I hope that will not happen, because we have an incredibly good police force, one of the best in the world. Sometimes we do not give the police enough credit for all the good work that they do.

I conclude by quoting two senior police officers. Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester, said that 2012-13 was

“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.

Things will only get worse, not better, so imagine what it will be like next year and the year after. Steve Finnigan, chief constable of Lancashire constabulary, has already been quoted, but it is worth reminding Ministers of what he said. As the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on police performance management, he was asked whether he would be reducing front-line policing in order to meet the Government’s budget cuts. He replied, “I absolutely am.” He has also said:

“Let me be really clear. With the scale of the cuts that we are experiencing . . .we can do an awful lot of work around the back office . . .but we cannot leave the front line untouched.”

Finally, I ask the Minister to consider this. Labour’s plan for cuts of 12% over the Parliament is a proportionate response to deal with the deficit. This is confirmed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, who said that this, as well as the work of the previous Government, would deliver front-line services without a great deal of impact on them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), I ask the Government to re-examine their proposed course of action and to consider the Labour proposal.