Abu Qatada

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This is an extremely serious and worrying judgment that means that, from tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be back on Britain’s streets. People across this country will be horrified to learn that that is the case. It also completely contradicts the Home Secretary’s assurances to this House that she had the right legal strategy and evidence to get Abu Qatada deported to Jordan. The information from security experts, the Home Secretary and judges and the courts is that this is an extremely dangerous extremist who is a threat to national security. We all want him to be deported to stand fair trial abroad as soon as possible, and to be held in custody in the meantime to keep people safe.

The Home Secretary is right to appeal against this judgment as every avenue to secure Abu Qatada’s deportation must be pursued. However, there are some very serious questions that now need to be answered about the Home Secretary’s strategy to get this deportation in place and about the action she is now taking to keep the public safe.

The Home Secretary told us in April that the best way to deport Abu Qatada was not to appeal against the European Court judgment, but to rely on evidence from Jordan in the British immigration courts, and she gave very strong assurances to Parliament and the public that Abu Qatada would be quickly removed from this country. In April she told us that

“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way.”

She said:

“I am confident of our eventual success”

and

“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c.173-178.]

Far from being put on a plane, he is soon going to be out on our streets, and if the Home Secretary’s appeal fails, he will be a free man.

It is clear now that all the Home Secretary’s promises and assurances were overblown and her strategy has fallen apart as a result of this decision. Like her, I am concerned about the SIAC conclusion given the assurances Jordan has provided, to which she rightly referred. She also rightly referred to the SIAC view that Abu Qatada will not be subjected to “a flagrantly unfair retrial”, and that is why we believe he should be deported. However, the immigration court also makes it clear that it is bound by the European Court judgment:

“all that we can do is to return to the basic Strasbourg test: has the Secretary of State established that there is not a real risk that the impugned statements will be admitted probatively? To that question…the answer must be negative”.

It is clear that the court believes there is a new test established. The Home Secretary blames that European Court judgment and says she disagrees with it, so why on earth did she not appeal against it when she had the chance to do so, and as we urged at the time?

Secondly, what is the Home Secretary now doing to get that deportation back on track? We support the appeal. We hope she will be successful in arguing that the wrong legal test has been applied, but that is not enough. Has she started further discussions with Jordan? Has she put her junior Minister straight on a plane? The immigration court has said that what it needs now is a

“change to the Code of Criminal Procedure”.

What is she doing to pursue that, or other alternatives that might overturn that court decision?

Thirdly, what is the Home Secretary doing to keep the public safe in the meantime? Tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be released on bail. Is she preparing an application for a terrorism prevention and investigation measure? That would be weaker than the control orders she chose to abolish. If her appeal fails, she will need to take further action. Under her new system of TPIMs, he will still be able to meet contacts in London, use his mobile phone, have access to the internet and only have his movement restricted overnight. We have asked her about that repeatedly, but will she please now look again at her decision to water down counter-terror powers in the light of this case?

This judgment overturns the Home Secretary’s strategy to get Abu Qatada deported and to keep him in custody in the meantime. Her confidence and complacency have proved to be a mistake. There has been a catalogue of confusion and mistakes on Abu Qatada, including the Home Secretary getting basic dates wrong earlier this year. There is cross-party agreement on the importance of deporting Abu Qatada and protecting the public. We cannot afford further confusion and mistakes. The Home Secretary needs to take urgent action now to keep the public safe, and get this deportation back on track.

[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.

Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She is right that these are deeply disturbing allegations. Child abuse and sexual abuse of children and young people are among the most despicable of crimes. When adults who should be trusted to care for children abuse their power and position of trust by committing violent crimes, it can haunt those young people for the rest of their lives. That is made worse if society and the institutions charged with protecting children, including in the criminal justice system, fail to step in to provide greater protection or hold the perpetrators to account. The Home Secretary is therefore right to act on the latest concerns.

There are three major issues, each of which needs to be addressed. First, where crimes have been committed or suspected, we need a proper criminal investigation, led by the police in the pursuit of justice. Secondly, we need to know whether there has been an institutional failure to deal with the issue before, be it turning a blind eye, covering things up or simply failing to get to the bottom of what happened. Thirdly, we need to know what further changes are needed to our current framework for safeguarding children and investigating abuse. However, we cannot look at the allegations around north Wales in isolation. The same three questions—about criminal allegations, potential institutional failure and the lessons for today—are just as significant when it comes to the abuse by Jimmy Savile, as well as more current problems, such as the events in Rochdale or the work that the Children’s Commissioner is doing on child sexual exploitation. I am concerned that the Home Secretary’s response will not be wide enough to cover all those issues. Let me take each in turn.

I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made today about the new criminal investigation into the allegations in north Wales, and in particular the involvement of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which has considerable expertise. Clearly the investigation must go more widely than north Wales if that is where the evidence takes it. I hope that she can provide that assurance to the House. On the historic reviews, I welcome her decision to look again at the Waterhouse inquiry, which I assume will involve looking at whether child abuse that might have taken place outside the care system was sufficiently considered.

However, we have a whole series of inquiries under way into similar problems, in addition to important police and criminal investigations. As I understand it, there are three BBC inquiries into what happened with Jimmy Savile, a Department of Health inquiry—as well as several separate hospital inquiries—a Crown Prosecution Service inquiry, a new north Wales inquiry and an inquiry by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into other forces that may have received allegations about Jimmy Savile. The Home Secretary will know that we have already raised our concern that the Savile investigations should be brought under a single inquiry. We remain concerned that these multiple inquiries have no way to draw together the common themes, the problems or the lessons that need to be learned. Of course we need to get to the bottom of what is happening in each case, but at the moment the framework that the Government have set out risks being confused.

The reason this is important is that we have to have a proper way to learn the right lessons for the current framework for safeguarding children, because there are clearly current lessons to be learned. Obviously a series of child protection policies have been introduced since many of the events took place. Big changes include the Children’s Commissioners, strengthening the law repeatedly, new measures and policies on safeguarding in schools and social services, and the creation of CEOP. However, we all remain concerned that victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, are too often simply not believed or taken seriously enough—abuse that was ignored for too long against girls and young women in Rochdale very recently, as well as concerns that have been raised in Rotherham. We have also seen the forthcoming Children’s Commissioner’s report, which will raise concerns about wider child exploitation. We have raised concerns too about some of the policy changes that the Government have introduced, such as changes to vetting and barring arrangements and changes to the way in which CEOP will operate. Primary care trusts have also raised concerns about the way in which child safeguarding will be treated in the NHS as a result of the reforms.

There are wider concerns, and lessons for today that need to be learned alongside the detailed historic investigations that rightly must take place. I know that the Home Secretary is deeply concerned by these crimes, and that she takes them extremely seriously. I therefore urge her to look again at the framework for these inquiries and at the possibility of a single overarching inquiry or review that would draw all the evidence together and consider what needs to be done to protect children now.

It is extremely hard for the victims of child abuse and of sexual abuse against young people to speak out and to talk about crimes that are so intimate and so deeply disturbing, and they show great bravery when they do so. We need to show them that they will be listened to, that we will give them the support that they need and that everything possible will be done to protect children in the future as well.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the approach that she has taken to these serious issues. It is right that we should work together across the House to find the best solution, not only to get to the bottom of anything that we have failed to uncover so far, but to support the victims—which, as she and I have said, is so important.

In looking at these issues, it is right that we should first look into the police investigations to see whether any avenues that should have been followed were not pursued, and whether any issues have been uncovered as a result of the allegations that are now coming forward that should be dealt with. We must also pursue any criminality that comes forward, so that the victims can see that justice is being done.

That is why I have put an emphasis on the police investigation, and on the NCA working with the North Wales police to look into the historic allegations and ensure that everything necessary was done. If there are any avenues to be pursued in any criminal investigations, I am absolutely clear that the police should take them wherever they go. It is important that the NCA’s director general should bring in various assets, including, crucially, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and CEOP. CEOP is renowned for dealing with these issues, and it is right that it should be the single point of contact for any fresh allegations that come forward.

If, at the end of the processes that we have set in train, it appears necessary to move forward to a wider investigation, of course we will look at that. At this stage, we need to get the police investigations into any criminality under way, and to ensure that the Waterhouse inquiry did as it was intended to do, and did it properly. As I have said, however, if there is a case to be made for a wider inquiry at some stage in the future, we will of course look at the issue.

I shall return to the point on which the right hon. Lady and I ended our statements today. She was right to say that other police investigations had taken place in which there were issues over whether the victims were believed. We need to be able to reassure victims that, when they come forward, they will be listened to and taken seriously. It is incumbent on all of us in the House, in the positions of authority and responsibility that we hold, to ensure that that is the case.

Hillsborough

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s opening speech, the personal attention that I know she has given to this extremely important issue, and the stance she has taken. I agree with her and join her in respect of the apology that is owed to the families for the 23 years they have waited and been denied both truth and justice, and also in recognising the deep distress caused by the disturbing facts found in the Hillsborough independent panel report, which shocked the country and this House.

What was set out in its pages was a shocking failure to keep people safe. They were failures that spanned nearly three decades: the failure to improve the safety of the ground in the years before Hillsborough; the failure to learn from previous crowd problems; the failure to organise crowd safety before the match; the failure to deliver crowd safety during the match; the failure to close the tunnel once the gate was opened; the failure to help fans in the crush speedily; the failure to be honest about what happened and to investigate what happened; a failure to get to the truth; and a failure to provide justice. That is a long list of failures, which have caused untold sorrow and anguish, and which underpin the tragic death of 96 people.

A long list, too, of untruths have now finally been exposed: the untruths about the fans, about late arrivals at the match, about drinking, and about the actions of the emergency services. There is also a story of injustice: an inquest that failed to give every family a truthful account of how and why their loved one died; a failure to hold anyone to account, either through the criminal courts or through disciplinary procedures; a systematic cover-up; and a campaign of misinformation that maligned innocent people.

As the Prime Minister said on the day the report was published, Hillsborough was

“one of the greatest peacetime tragedies of the last century”.—[Official Report, 12 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 283.]

Ninety-six people died but it could have avoided. That alone should have made it even more important to get to the truth and justice, and it makes it even more sobering and shocking that there has been a failure to do so for 23 years. All the institutions that are supposed to pursue truth and justice—that are supposed to provide checks and balances in a democracy—failed to do so over Hillsborough: the police; the courts; the police watchdogs; the justice system; the press; and democratic institutions. They all failed to deliver truth or justice for 23 years.

It is therefore with humility that we must all pay tribute to the families of the 96 victims, who fought for 23 years for the truth and are still fighting now for justice, because without the efforts of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope for Hillsborough the truth would have remained hidden. They kept fighting when others would have given up, they kept calling for the truth to come out when others turned their backs and they kept standing when others fell. We must pay tribute to all of them, and we must also pay tribute to the Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev. James Jones, and his team of experts for setting out in black and white what the evidence shows.

I pay tribute to the Liverpool Echo, which has kept the campaign going for so long, and may I pay tribute to the local MPs, who have fought so hard to support the families? I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), whose work in government led to the setting up of the Hillsborough panel and who has continued to pursue this issue from the Opposition Benches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), and to all the other Merseyside MPs who have been so determined in standing up for their constituents; I know that many from across the Back Benches and the Front Benches will be speaking in the debate, but some will not be able to speak from the Front Bench today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), whose constituents were also affected on that day.

I welcome the words from the Home Secretary today because I believe that there is agreement right across this House about the importance of both action and accountability. Although the Hillsborough panel was set up before the election, she and the Prime Minister have supported it since and they have supported its conclusions. We are keen to work with the Government on the next steps, because disclosure and truth are not enough—the families have made it clear that they need justice. The panel’s report refers to the following quote:

“The whole point of justice consists precisely in our providing for others through humanity what we provide for our own family through affection.”

That journey is not over. So today we have the opportunity to debate and reflect on the details of the panel’s report, and the Home Secretary set out powerfully this afternoon some of the most important conclusions it reached.

I also want to make some points about the next steps, and how we make sure that the system does not fail again and that truth and justice are delivered now. Today, the three next steps have been announced. We heard about the Attorney-General’s welcome decision that he will be applying for fresh inquests into the deaths of the 96; the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to review the evidence with a view to criminal prosecutions; and the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation into police conduct surrounding Hillsborough, which could cover both criminal and disciplinary issues. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has today told us that if the DPP decides that a criminal investigation will be pursued, a special investigative team will be established to take that forward.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady, a fellow West Yorkshire MP, shares my concerns that the chief constable of West Yorkshire is being investigated by the IPCC, not least for having tried to influence the police authority not to refer this matter on. Does she agree that in order for the public to have faith in this investigation, he should be suspended?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serous issue about the chief constable of West Yorkshire, who, as he rightly says, has been referred to the IPCC on a series of accounts—for things that happened at the time of Hillsborough, for things that happened subsequently and for the things that have happened most recently. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary and I are both limited in what we can say on an individual case when due legal process is under way, but it is extremely important that the case is properly investigated and, later on in my speech, I shall return to some of the issues it raises.

Given the failure of previous investigations to reach either the truth or justice, it is vital that action is now timely and effective and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement that every step must include detailed consultation with the families.

Let me make a few points about the inquest. Clearly, everyone is keen for a new inquest to be reopened as soon as possible although we recognise, of course, that the proper legal processes must be pursued and that the Attorney-General has 450,000 documents to consider. Given how long the families have already waited, I hope that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office can consider together whether any additional support must be provided for the Attorney-General’s Office so that it can complete that in as timely a manner as possible. Clearly, the process must start as soon as is practical. I hope, too, that the families will be listened to on the importance of holding the inquest not in Sheffield but in the north-west.

The panel’s report was clear that the coroner’s decision to implement a 3.15 pm cut-off was flawed and that some people survived for a significant period beyond that time. The report also found, tragically, that a swifter, better focused and properly equipped response would have had the potential to save more lives. The emergency response after 3.15pm has never been challenged and it must be now.

Other concerns about the inquest that have long been raised by the families emerge clearly from the panel’s report: the way it was structured; the continued credence given to the unfounded claims about drinking and alcohol levels; the reliance on altered police witness statements rather than on the original testimony of officers; and much more besides. Clearly, it is important that a reopened inquest is not confined to considering the events that took place after 3.15 and there must be a proper answer for every one of the 96 families about what happened to their loved ones. That means that the families will need legal representation, too, and I hope, given the exceptional circumstances, that the Home Secretary and the Ministry of Justice will ensure that that happens directly so that the families do not need to go through further hassle and uncertainty with the Legal Services Commission.

Let me turn to the criminal investigation. The IPCC has already identified two kinds of potential criminal or misconduct issues based on the disclosures in the report. The first concern what happened at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 and the events that led up to it, as well as the potential culpability of individuals and institutions for the deaths, which will mean reconsidering those unheeded warnings, the safety standards, the lack of an updated safety certificate, the planning, the operational decisions, the failure to close the tunnel, the failure to declare a major incident on the day and more. The second concern the cover-up, the potential perversion of the course of justice and misconduct events.

I want to dwell on the second group of issues for a moment. The purpose and role of the police are to protect people and to pursue truth without fear or favour, wherever it might take them, in the interests of justice. The panel’s report shows that at Hillsborough the police failed to keep people safe, that they distorted and buried the truth, and that justice was betrayed. The panel’s report was devastating in its exposure of what happened in South Yorkshire police, with 164 statements taken from the officers on the day identified for substantive amendment, of which 116 were changed. A series of statements that revealed the lack of leadership from senior officers as the crisis built were all deleted and so, too, were statements about normal practice on closing the tunnel once the gate was opened.

Pressure was applied to police officers to change their statements, too. PC Michael Walpole, in a letter to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s scrutiny report, said about the doctoring of police statements:

“I must say that I wished my final statement to be the exact copy of the original recollection…However, since I (like most others) was suffering from post traumatic stress and depression, I agreed to the deletions to my final statement under the conditions I was placed under. My personal view is that a police officer should be able to freely make an honest and truthful statement of facts and opinion and it was an injustice for statements to have been ‘doctored’ to suit the management of the South Yorkshire Police.”

That is an extremely serious statement.

People will have seen—the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) referred to them—the separate allegations that have emerged this morning about statements being changed in relation to Orgreave, where it appears that a separate investigation will be needed into what happened. It is important that the matter is fully pursued for the sake of justice over Hillsborough and also to ensure that these events do not cast a shadow over the important work that the police do each day and to ensure that wider public confidence in policing is maintained.

The Home Secretary rightly referred to the approach taken by the current South Yorkshire chief constable, both in full disclosure to the panel and in accepting the conclusions of the panel’s report. It is important for the sake of policing today that we take seriously what happened 23 years ago.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does the shadow Home Secretary agree that to restore public trust in the police, whatever the IPCC says, there should be criminal prosecutions where there is enough evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt? We are all subject to the same law, whether Members of Parliament or police officers, both serving and retired. Would she share my concern if the IPCC, having found something, allowed police forces to conduct their own internal disciplinary inquiries, which so often rely on the balance of probabilities—of course, the threshold is lower—and so often see police officers go into a well-remunerated and happy retirement while the victims still do not have justice?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree that if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, there must be prosecutions. It is right that those decisions about prosecutions are made independently, not by Parliament obviously, but by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is right that there should be criminal accountability for what happened. The hon. Gentleman is right, too, that we must ensure that the disciplinary procedures are subject to a proper process because there may also be cases where, even if there may not be criminal misconduct, disciplinary proceedings should be pursued. I take the opportunity to welcome his support for the idea of replacing the IPCC with a strengthened police standards authority. Such reforms are important for police confidence in the future.

The panel’s report shows clearly the misleading, false and deeply hurtful information that was disseminated by members of South Yorkshire police—false claims that were propagated by members of the police that fans had broken into the stadium, a claim that was reported in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, and further allegations of drunkenness, ticketless fans and fans arriving late, which were promoted by unnamed officers and were shown to be false by the work of the panel.

The question now is how disciplinary and criminal investigations should be pursued into what happened on the day and afterwards. It is essential that everything possible is done to remove further obstacles in the way of justice and to ensure that the families are consulted. It is vital that they have confidence in this process.

It is clear that the investigation cannot be carried out solely by the IPCC, which has neither the powers nor the resources to do so. Although I agree with the Home Secretary that the new chair is doing a very good job and has a strong background, this investigation is far beyond the scale of anything that the IPCC has done before. It will also require powers that the IPCC does not have. For example, evidence will need to be taken from large numbers of serving and retired police officers, and also from police staff, former police legal advisers, former civil servants, even MPs and maybe even journalists. However, the IPCC does not have the powers to do that. Although it can pursue officers where it has good reason to believe that they have committed a criminal offence, if it is seeking witness statements or pursuing disciplinary offences, its powers are much more limited. The IPCC itself has told the Home Affairs Committee that

“where police officers refuse to attend for interview, IPCC investigators can only seek the information they need through the submission of written questions to officers via their solicitors or other representatives. Not only can this seriously undermine public confidence in IPCC investigations, it can also impact on the overall effectiveness and timeliness of investigations.”

In many cases the IPCC cannot compel civilians at all.

My view is that we will need a new framework in future. I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to look further at the issue and bring it back to this House. The IPCC was a huge step forward from the old Police Complaints Authority, and it has done some important work on individual cases, but it is simply not strong enough to provide the safeguards and standards for good policing that we need. That is why I have asked Lord Stevens’ commission to consider drawing up a new police standards authority to replace it.

In the meantime, however, we need answers on Hillsborough. The Home Secretary said that a range of possibilities is being discussed in the mix on how this could be taken forward and that she is discussing it with the families. Clearly, that is important.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary have both made eloquent speeches. It is heartening to see Parliament at one on this very important issue.

When the families came to give evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, they talked about the need for co-ordination. My right hon. Friend has pointed to the problems with some of the powers of the IPCC. There may be a case for a special prosecutor—an individual who can draw all the strands together. It has been suggested that it should be the DPP, but I think that he will be too busy to do something of this kind. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will lose the initiative if we do not have a single point of co-ordination? The Home Secretary has the powers to do this; let us use them.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of co-ordination and the value of having a special prosecutor in these circumstances. It might be helpful if Ministers said a bit more about whether there is any concern about how long it will take for the DPP to decide whether further criminal prosecutions will be pursued given that a special prosecutor and a special investigative team may not be established until after that decision has been taken. In other words, what resources does the DPP need in the meantime in order to take the decision about criminal prosecutions? The IPCC is beginning investigations now, and there is a question about how long these will take to get going.

[Mr Anderson]

In many years of representing people, particularly in the public services, in some very serious internal disciplinary procedures, it was always the norm that when someone was accused of potential serious misconduct they were suspended. Has anyone been suspended from the police service? If not, who has the power to do that if it is seen to be the right thing to do?

[Yvette Cooper]

There are legal processes in place that allow police authorities to take decisions about the suspensions of police officers. As my hon. Friend will recognise, in taking these decisions it is clearly important that legal processes are followed. In the past, there have been suspensions in a series of such cases.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Let me clarify this point. If the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that he lacked resources in order to carry out his co-ordinating function, he could come and raise it with me as the superintending Minister. The position at the moment is that no such approach has been made, but if it were required, of course he could do that.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome that clarification. The interest of the families and the public in this lies in having a properly co-ordinated investigation. We do not want to have a separate IPCC investigation and a parallel criminal investigation but a single, co-ordinated investigation.

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I can clarify the situation. There is the IPCC investigation and there is also the investigation by the DPP that is taking place. If the DPP believes that a wider investigation is necessary, the Home Office will make resources available under the ambit of the incoming National Crime Agency for an investigator who is completely separate and has no connection whatever with these issues. We would expect to put the co-ordination role in place fairly soon, because this is also about making sure that things get done. For example, we must ensure that if it looks as though there is a delay in any part of the investigation, then somebody, or a group of people, can press the body concerned, whether it be the IPCC, the DPP or individuals, to get on with the job. An investigation must be done fully and properly to uncover the truth and bring about justice, but we also need to make sure that it is not going to drag on and on, because the families do not deserve that.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s clarification. First, the co-ordination is very welcome. Secondly, however, should the Director of Public Prosecutions decide that prosecutions should be pursued—there seems to be strong support in the House for him to do so, although it is clearly an independent decision for him—would that result in a single investigative team involving the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, or would there continue to be, in effect, two parallel investigations by the IPCC and criminal investigators? That would raise concerns, given the fact that the IPCC can pursue both criminal and disciplinary investigations.

I urge the Home Secretary to consider, as part of her role in the co-ordination process, having a single team, with full police investigative powers and led by a special prosecutor, for the criminal investigation, and for it to consist of police officers from a range of different forces, perhaps under the auspices of the National Crime Agency. The role played by the West Midlands police in the original investigation was clearly a problem and the panel’s report raised considerable concerns. Drawing police officers from a series of different forces would give the investigation greater authority.

We are keen to explore with the Home Secretary whether additional powers could be granted to the IPCC —perhaps through emergency legislation—so that it can pursue disciplinary action as well as criminal investigations. I welcome the contact that her office made this morning to ensure that we can speedily take those discussions forward. We are interested in supporting emergency legislation to enable the IPCC to compel witnesses and access third-party data.

Thirdly, although a special prosecutor is welcome, the Government will be aware that there have also been failings over Hillsborough at the Crown Prosecution Service in the past, so some additional oversight may be needed.

Fourthly, I welcome the points that Government Front-Bench representatives have made about resources. The IPCC has said that a substantial amount of work is required initially to scope the investigation, including identifying the resources required. It is, therefore, likely to be many months before officers are contacted by the investigation team. Any further delay would be of considerable concern. I hope that the Home Secretary and others can provide reassurance about the availability of those resources.

My final point on the disciplinary investigations is that the IPCC has noted that retired police officers are not liable for any misconduct sanction. That is obviously very troubling for the public in many cases, because it makes it possible for police officers who have committed serious misconduct, or who have breached the great trust put in the office of constable, to retire on full pension without any further investigation or sanction. Given that 23 years have passed since Hillsborough, this is a particularly sensitive concern. Many officers have already retired and many more may do so before these investigations are concluded. Will the Home Secretary consider the issue carefully?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The right hon. Lady may not know the answer, but will she try to clarify something about retiring police officers for me? The current chief constable of West Yorkshire police had retired from the police and taken his full pension, which was suspended when he came back as chief constable of West Yorkshire police. Is he classed as retired or as serving? This is an important point for the investigation.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s important point. The wider issue applies to a whole series of cases. If officers have taken early retirement or retired at the normal age, further investigations or sanctions should be considered if there was serious misconduct while they were in office. The issue is complex, but I will happily discuss it further with the Home Secretary to make sure that justice is not denied in the case of Hillsborough as a result of long-standing arrangements for disciplinary and misconduct procedures, and to make sure that people can, even after 23 years, still be held to account.

Finally, this journey is not over. We owe it to the families to ensure that they can now get truth and justice. We must reflect on how this could have happened; why the attempts to reach the truth and justice failed so many times; why the Liverpool fans and their families were not taken seriously by the justice system for so long; and why the systems that were designed to help people and to provide safeguards against injustice—the courts, the coroners, the police, the police watchdogs, the free press and our democratic institutions—did not get to the truth for 23 years. What do we need to do now to strengthen those checks and balances and to remove the obstacles to justice? Most importantly, how can we ensure that this cannot happen again? No one should have to wait 23 years to find out the truth about what happened to a loved one. No one should have to fight this hard to get justice for a child, a husband or a relative they have lost.

The Hillsborough panel report is so powerful because it has exposed the truth and brought it out from the shadows and into the light of day. The Bishop of Liverpool has said that

“if the truth of any situation is unearthed and laid bare then the truth will shed light and show the direction forward. And it will have the power of pressure.”

The truth has shed light on Hillsborough and the direction is clear, but the journey is not over. Now we must ensure that the pressure of truth leads to justice.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Extradition

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This was clearly not an easy decision for the Home Secretary to make. I know that she has asked for additional legal advice, medical advice and other evidence over the two and a half years in which she has had to consider this matter. That is testimony to the difficulties she has faced and to the challenges of the case. I have not seen any of the papers—the legal advice, the criminal evidence or the medical evidence—and it is for the Home Secretary alone to make a judgment that people will respect. She will know that it is not for me to second-guess her decision on this matter today. I do, however, want to ask her about the wider reforms that she has proposed, and also about the consequences of this judgment for other cases.

Let me first ask the right hon. Lady about the forum bar that she has proposed. As she will know, the last Government legislated for a forum bar, but the legislation has not been implemented. I think that that is because of concerns raised not only by Scott Baker but by the present and the last Government about some of the practical implications. Clearly delays, and the risk of delays, are important issues, but we shall be happy to work on the detail with the Home Secretary, through Parliament, and to discuss how the problems could be solved. However, I think that there is a wider issue that may not yet have been considered in the legal debate about forum bars. I refer to internet crimes, which constitute a growing proportion of overall crime. Conceivably such crimes could be committed in several jurisdictions at once. Wider discussions are needed about where they should be dealt with, and about ways in which our traditional extradition arrangements may not have caught up with a different kind of crime that is going to increase.

There will clearly need to be international co-operation and consideration of how the problem should be addressed. I urge the Home Secretary to set up a high-level group with the United States, the European Union and other main countries with which we have arrangements specifically to consider internet crimes. However, I should like to know whether she feels able to do that, given her diplomatic relations with other countries.

We need a fair framework for justice in relation to cross-border crimes. We need to be able to bring people back to Britain to face justice, and we need a fair framework for extraditions from the UK. However, that fair framework will be possible only if it is drawn up through negotiation and co-operation with other countries. As the Home Secretary will know, there is already considerable concern about whether her approach to the EU, the opting out and opting in and the current relationship between the Government and the EU will make it harder to secure the sensible reforms of the European arrest warrant that we need.

Obviously our historic relationship with the United States gives us an opportunity to work together, whether on the bilateral protocol to which the right hon. Lady referred or on other arrangements. May I ask her whether there is a positive relationship between the Home Office and the US Government to ensure that such arrangements and reforms can be agreed to?

May I also ask whether today’s judgment has implications for other cases? Other people who are subject to extradition or immigration proceedings cite medical conditions as a reason for them not to be extradited. It would be useful for Parliament and the courts to understand the test that the right hon. Lady has applied, and to know whether it will set precedents for other cases.

Have the right hon. Lady’s medical advisers proposed any threshold for these decisions? She said that she had sought her own medical advice. Did that constitute a separate medical assessment of Gary McKinnon, which I understand she had sought, or a review of the assessment made by his doctors? Does the test have any implications or set any precedent for other extradition cases, such as the case of Haroon Rashid Aswat? The US Government have sought his extradition alongside that of Abu Hamza and others which the Home Secretary has supported. He is in Broadmoor at present, having, I understand, been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Has the Home Secretary changed her position on his case, or does it remain the same? Clearly there were issues involving his medical condition that she had to consider. Finally, let me ask her about the case of Richard O’Dwyer, whose extradition she has confirmed and who has not raised any medical issues. Will his case be affected by any of the changes that she has announced today?

I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is sensible to remove the role of the Home Secretary from decisions such as this. It has taken a very long time for this decision to be made. I think we would all agree that such cases take too long, and that it is in the interests of justice, the families involved and the victims of crimes for them to be dealt with far more speedily.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her approach in response to my statement. She raised three key issues. The first was about the forum bar and our ability to work together to consider these issues across the House and I welcome her suggestion of cross-party work. We all want to ensure that the measure can be introduced in a way that does not introduce delays to extradition proceedings and does not permit significant satellite litigation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will have noted her offer.

The right hon. Lady then raised the question of cyber and internet crime, which is a key issue. We are conscious of the growth of cybercrime. That is why there will be a cybercrime unit in the National Crime Agency and why, when the Government took office, we set aside a significant sum of money over the four years of the comprehensive spending review to deal with both cyber-security and cybercrime. It is important to work internationally and I have already been party to a number of discussions with other member states in the European Union and with the United States; those discussions are ongoing. We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that we address cybercrime.

Finally, she asked a number of questions about my decision on Mr McKinnon. I have given the most careful consideration to all the material, medical and otherwise, in this difficult and exceptional case and I have concluded that the ordering of his extradition and his subsequent removal would give rise to such risk to his health and, in particular, to a high risk of his ending his life that a decision to that effect would be incompatible with his human rights under article 3. My decision is based on Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have met the Conservative PCC candidate for Essex, Nick Alston. He is an excellent candidate, and I know that he will be out there taking that message through the streets of the towns and villages of Essex. My hon. Friend is right that these are important elections that will enable people to elect directly somebody who will be their voice in local policing. I urge everybody to exercise their vote on 15 November.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I support the Home Secretary’s statement on Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, and the statements that she made at the time of their death. It was a brutal act. She and I are united, and I think the whole House and the whole country are united, in our tributes to those brave police officers.

I turn to a separate issue. The Home Secretary told the Police Federation last year:

“It’s easy to sit around with friends or, dare I say it, in the House of Commons, and criticise the police. But those people aren’t the ones confronting violent thugs”.

She has also told it:

“You put up with abuse and worse, but you do so to keep us free…You do an amazing job—and it’s time we gave you all the respect you deserve.”

I agree with her, so will she join me in condemning the Chief Whip in the House for swearing at police officers?

[Mrs May]

I have already answered on that particular issue. I am happy to stand here and reiterate what I and others have said on a number of occasions. I believe that we have the best police officers in the world, and the Government are giving them our support. We are ensuring that we give them the tools that they need to do the job that they and the public want them to do.

[Yvette Cooper]

But the Home Secretary still has not condemned the Chief Whip for what he did and for the swearing—something for which people across the country are arrested. The reason why it matters that there has been no investigation and that he has not come clean is that people think it goes to the heart of the Government’s attitude towards the police and public servants. Once again, they are not listening to the police on the European arrest warrant, CCTV, DNA or the cutting of police numbers by 15,000. If the Home Secretary really wants to put an end to that and show respect for the police, why does she not change the Chief Whip and change her policies on policing too?

[Mrs May]

I was asked about the Chief Whip earlier and I answered the question. The right hon. Lady really should listen to the answers that are given to questions.

European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I understand that there was something of a breakdown in the usual arrangement whereby statements are made available to Opposition Front Benchers some time in advance of their delivery. I should emphasise that that is a convention and not something that engages the responsibilities of the Chair, but we do attach some importance to these conventions and the principle of courtesy that underlies them.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Exceptionally, I will take a brief point of order from the right hon. Lady.

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the seriousness of this issue of European co-operation, and given that the Home Secretary’s statement has literally only just been handed to me, would it be possible for the statement to be deferred for an hour, or even three quarters of an hour, so that the official Opposition can do our duty of scrutinising it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am afraid that I just do not think that there is a facility for that to happen. There is a third statement to come, which will follow in due course. The timing of the statement has been announced and the Home Secretary is here to deliver it. I think that what I have said indicates my own feeling—[Interruption.] Order. It indicates my own feeling that this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I sincerely hope that there is no recurrence of it. I think that, in the circumstances, we should proceed. I invite the Home Secretary, who I trust will have heard what has been said, now to make the statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely right that there are criminal offences where we want to be able to extradite people—to bring people back from other countries to face trial and justice here in the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the arrangements that enable us to do that are the best possible and are proportionate. Proportionality is one of the issues that have been raised as regards relations with Europe. As I say, we will look at every individual measure separately when choosing whether to request to opt in.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have never been in this situation before whereby I have not had a copy of the statement from the Minister until I arrived in the Chamber. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for taking my point of order about this earlier. It shows the complete confusion in the Government and on the part of the Home Secretary about what the Government’s policy is. They have not told us anything at all today; they are completely confused.

We all know that with more international travel and growing cross-border crime, international co-operation is an extremely serious matter, yet the Government seem to have an utterly chaotic position. The Prime Minister told us that the Government would be opting out of all the justice and home affairs provisions; the Deputy Prime Minister said, “No, no—we are only minded to do so.” The Home Secretary said that she was simply setting out “the Government’s current thinking”. However, as she also said that “discussions are ongoing”, presumably the current thinking could change tomorrow and then it will be something else entirely. She said that she wants to opt out of some things but then might opt back into everything all over again. It is just like the Education Secretary saying that he wants out of Europe and the Prime Minister wanting in. With all this out and in, in and out, it is as though the Government are playing a giant game of hokey cokey—and yet the fight against crime is at stake.

The Home Secretary will know that former Metropolitan police commissioners and former heads of MI5 and MI6 have said that British law enforcement bodies are now constantly communicating, co-operating and collaborating with the EU in pursuing serious organised criminal and terrorist networks. The framework of co-operation that they have is crucial in order to stop criminals and prevent crime.

We have read much in the papers about the European arrest warrant, but the Home Secretary did not say whether she wants to opt out of it or plans to opt back in. This warrant made it possible to arrest Jeremy Forrest and bring him back to face British justice for the alleged kidnapping of Megan Stammers and to bring back Hussain Osman for trying to bomb the London underground, and it closed down the “Costa del Crime” when British criminals fled to Spain.

We have a right to be able to bring those criminals back to face British justice, and we owe it to their victims —and, yes, that does mean sending people back from Britain to other countries, because of the 4,000 people returned from Britain in the past eight years under the European arrest warrant, 95% were foreign citizens, who often had committed crimes in their home countries and fled here to escape the long arm of the law. I am sorry, but I think that people should be sent back to their home countries to face justice, rather than have too many people who are suspected of serious crimes in Europe wandering around Britain, unable to be sent back to face justice without years of legal wrangles. From what the Home Secretary has said today, she may well be opting out of the European arrest warrant, which prevents that from happening.

Another area is the sharing of criminal and DNA records. If a known sex offender travels to Britain from France or Spain, does the Home Secretary think that we need full access to their DNA and their criminal records or not?

What about minimum standards of counter-terror co-operation, participating in Europol and exchanging information to stop passport fraud and Europe-wide money laundering, and to trace and freeze criminal assets? The Home Secretary has not told us her position on any of those important measures. She has not said whether she thinks we should opt out, opt out and then opt back in again, whether she thinks that we should renegotiate the provisions, or what will be put in their place in the meantime.

The Home Secretary knows that there is no guarantee that the European Commission and other European countries will support our opting back in again. For example, Denmark, which has opted out from the justice and home affairs provisions, has had about 50% of its requests turned down. One of the Home Secretary’s junior Ministers has admitted that there will be a financial penalty for opting out and then opting back in. Does she have any idea what that financial penalty will be and whether it is worth the price?

I say to the Home Secretary that this is an utterly confused position. Her defence is that she wants to consult Parliament and the public but, considering she has utterly failed to consult Parliament and provide the Opposition with proper information, that is ridiculous. She is taking big risks without even working out what her views are or what the Government think. Next time they want to make a statement on important European policy, perhaps they should work out what they actually think it should be before they come to the House and make it.

[Mrs May]

Let us remember that it was the Labour party that wanted to sign up to the European constitution and that planned to scrap the pound and join the euro. It has no credibility on European issues in this House. Indeed, it has no credibility with the British people.

Let me address the right hon. Lady’s points. On the list of measures that we might want to opt back into, I have made it clear that we need to engage with the European Commission and other member states in order to opt back into measures where we believe it is in the national interest to do so. That negotiation can now start. We will do that in earnest and talk to them about the terms on which particular opt-ins might be possible.

The right hon. Lady seems to be concerned about where the opt-out decision might leave us with regard to public protection. I remind her that it was the previous Government who negotiated the opt-out. If they thought it was such a problem, why did they negotiate it in the first place? On costs, I remind the right hon. Lady that the financial penalty was part of that negotiation of the opt-out, so it was the Labour Government who signed up to it.

The right hon. Lady made a number of comments on the European arrest warrant. She will be aware that a number of Members have raised concerns about British nationals, some of whom are their constituents, spending a long time languishing in foreign jails before reaching trial. A number of issues have been raised in this House and elsewhere about the proportionality issue in relation to the European arrest warrant. I therefore ask the right hon. Lady: is she happy with all of that, or does she think that the situation can be changed? If she does not think that there is an issue with the European arrest warrant, why did she not force a Division and vote against last December’s motion on extradition, which included a proposal to reform and amend the European arrest warrant? She did not. She accepted the motion, which this House passed and which stated that amendments should be made to the European arrest warrant.

The right hon. Lady’s only position on the issue seems to be to disagree with what we say and what we do. The Labour party negotiated an opt-out, but now it is against enacting it. It said that we needed to reform the European arrest warrant, but now it wants to pass up on the chance of doing just that. I have set out the Government’s position this afternoon. We will give Parliament a voice on the issue. The right hon. Lady cannot spend her time saying one thing one day and another thing the next and expect to be taken credibly by this House or anybody else.

Olympics (Security)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on Olympic security.

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

Since I updated the House on Olympic security last week, there have been several allegations in the media, and I want to deal with each of them.

First, it was reported that Ministers knew there would be a shortfall in security staff last year. This is untrue. Last September, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported, at my request, on the security preparations by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, and it recommended several measures. HMIC reported again in February and concluded that LOCOG had plans in place to deliver the required number of security personnel. Neither HMIC report identified specific problems with G4S scheduling.

Secondly, it was reported that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is the Minister for crime and security, had attended meetings in which he was told there was a security staff shortage. In fact, G4S repeatedly assured us that it would overshoot its targets. As I told the House on Thursday, G4S told the Government that it would be unable to meet its contractual obligations only last Wednesday, and we took immediate action.

Thirdly, it was reported that we must have known about the shortfall because the military was put on standby in April. This is also not the case. In fact, 7,500 troops have been part of the security plans since December, a further 1,000 were on standby in the event of flooding or other such civil emergencies, and we placed a further 2,000 on standby as a precaution in case the threat level increased. The 3,500 troops whose deployment I announced last Thursday are a direct response to the failure of G4S to meet its contractual obligations. A further contingency will remain.

The Government have strengthened the oversight of the security planning operation since we came into office. I will go through briefly what has happened since the bid for the games in 2005. From the beginning, the organisers planned to use private sector personnel for venue security. LOCOG confirmed that it would be using private sector security personnel well before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It started the procurement process for security personnel in April 2010.

When we entered government in May 2010, we instigated a comprehensive review of Olympics safety and security planning, overseen by the then Security Minister, Baroness Neville-Jones. That audit and review identified a shortfall in LOCOG’s venue security budget, which we addressed in the comprehensive spending review.

We recognised that, with a project of this size and scale, even that additional funding might not ensure the level of security that we needed, so I asked for outside assurance of LOCOG’s venue security planning. In September 2011, I commissioned HMIC to carry out an inspection of LOCOG’s venue security plans. As I have said, that led to several recommendations that were acted on by the Home Office, the police and LOCOG.

LOCOG and the Home Office monitored delivery throughout the following months. G4S assured LOCOG and the Government continually that it would be able to deliver its contractual obligations. However, on Wednesday 11 July, following the difficulties with scheduling that the company has acknowledged, G4S notified LOCOG and the Government that it would not be able to provide the numbers of security personnel specified in its contract. I want to be clear that that was the first time that G4S admitted to any Minister that it would not be able to deliver the numbers of security personnel that it had promised.

We acted immediately to make further contingency arrangements by agreeing the deployment of 3,500 further troops. That brings the total military contribution to the games to 17,000, including personnel from all three services.

G4S has failed to deliver its contractual obligations, but we have the finest military personnel in the world—troops who are willing, ready and able to step in when their country calls—and we can be sure of their professionalism in helping to deliver a secure and safe Olympic games.

[Yvette Cooper]

Everyone wants the games to be an outstanding success. After the G4S shambles, we need things to be back on track and the Home Secretary needs to show that she is sorting it out.

First, will the Home Secretary tell us precisely how many people she now expects G4S to provide? It was contracted to provide 17,000, it now says that it will be 13,000, but it has admitted that the vast majority of those are still in process. Today, we learned that only a third of the expected G4S staff turned up to lock down a venue in Manchester and that the police had to do it instead. The monitoring has failed once spectacularly and the Home Secretary has failed to assess the numbers once before. Will she now tell us how many staff she believes G4S will provide?

Secondly, the Home Secretary told us on Thursday that 3,500 extra troops would be sufficient to fill the gap. If G4S fails to deliver the full 13,000 people it now promises, will those troops be enough? If more troops and police will be needed, she should say so now and not let this drift. The troops and the police will do an excellent job, but they need to be able to prepare.

Thirdly, the London Mayor said this morning:

“Everybody that was organising the Olympics knew this was coming up…ages ago.”

The deputy mayor said:

“This issue was flagged up repeatedly by both the Metropolitan Police Authority and subsequently the Mayor’s Office…for more than a year to G4S directly, the Olympic Security Board, and the Home Office.”

Even G4S says that it has been discussing the detailed shortfall for “eight or nine days”. And yet, last Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she was

“confident that our partners will deliver”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]

It is incomprehensible that the monitoring was that poor that no one told her until Wednesday. How on earth could the Minister responsible for delivering Olympics security be the only person who did not know? When was she first told that there was a problem with G4S?

We need to know why the Home Secretary has failed on this, because we need to have the confidence that she understands what went wrong and is competent to sort the problem out now, so that everyone can get on and make the Olympics a great success.

[Mrs May]

I will respond to the various points that the shadow Home Secretary has raised. She asked what the numbers look like. The revised solution of more than 23,000 personnel that was decided on at the end of last year was made up of 10,400 G4S guards, 7,500 military at peak, up to 3,000 Bridging the Gap, up to 3,000 volunteers and up to 2,000 incumbents that—

[Yvette Cooper]

What about G4S?

[Mrs May]

The very first figures that I gave were 10,400 G4S guards, 7,500 military, 3,000 Bridging the Gap, up to 3,000 volunteers and up to 2,000 incumbent security suppliers at existing venues. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asks, “Bridging what gap?” Bridging the Gap is the name of a programme under which students and others can get employment.

The shadow Home Secretary says that we need to get a grip, but that is precisely what we have been doing. When we came to office, we made an immediate security audit, increased the budget and revised the plans. I have commissioned several reports on Olympic preparedness, each of which has led to a refinement of the plans. When G4S told us last Wednesday that it would be unable to deliver its contractual obligations, we decided to deploy extra military personnel to fill the gap.

The right hon. Lady asked why the situation was not known about earlier. I have explained that we commissioned reports on G4S’s preparedness, which contained recommendations on which LOCOG, the Home Office and the police acted, but those reports all made it clear that subject to acting on those recommendations, LOCOG was on track to deliver the necessary security personnel. Last Wednesday, G4S told us that it would be unable to deliver its obligations.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about timing. On Friday 6 July the managing director of G4S Global Events told Reuters:

“We are delivering a London Olympics now. If there was a similar event going on in Australia, I would be bullish that we could deliver that at the same time.”

I suggest that the right hon. Lady listens to the comments of some of her colleagues. Lord West has said:

“I don’t think it will affect the security of the games. That’s been taken care of. The Government have sorted that out, because the military are in there.”

The shadow Olympics spokesman has said:

“The important thing now is to focus on the solutions.”

I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary listens to her colleagues.

Olympics (Security)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. On his earlier point about generosity to the armed forces, I should say that the Secretary of State for Defence has taken that very seriously. He has been ensuring that we will be generous to those who are taking on the responsibility. As I outlined in my remarks, a number of arrangements are being made to cover that, particularly if members of the armed forces have personal arrangements, to make sure that they are not out of pocket and that they will get the leave to which they are entitled.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Everyone wants us to have a safe and successful Olympics, and we support the Home Secretary’s decision to bring in extra military support in the circumstances. We also recognise that, given the scale of the Olympic challenge, no one can guarantee that everything will go smoothly.

However, I have to say to the Home Secretary that this really looks like another huge Home Office shambles. On Monday, she was asked specifically about recruitment at G4S. She said:

“The Home Office has put in place a number of assurance processes to ensure that we have effective and robust scrutiny of venue security planning. We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners will deliver a safe and secure games”—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]

She was so confident that two days later she called in the troops. What does it say about the Home Secretary’s assurance process that it took until two weeks before the games to realise that 3,500 military additional personnel would be needed? G4S is not just a few volunteers short—we are talking about 3,500 people from a contract to provide 10,000 staff and 6,000 volunteers. That is a breach of contract of about 25%. Why did it take until lock-down to realise what was going on?

The Minister responsible for security, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), told the “Today” programme this morning:

“We’ve obviously been monitoring the progress and been challenging them, asking the questions, really going down, kicking the tyres and doing all those sorts of things.”

Well, it was not very effective—was it?—if, with just 15 days to go, we could be in this situation. Can the Home Secretary tell us again what will happen to the G4S contract? Has she even asked those questions to make sure that the security budget is not affected and that the taxpayer does not end up out of pocket?

Of course we pay tribute to our military, who I am sure will do an excellent job, but what does it say about the Home Office that there are still two-hour queues at Heathrow, that borders staff sacked last year are being re-recruited, that the borders force is becoming a borders farce, and that the dynamic duo of the security Minister and the Minister for Immigration were tripping up this morning in the “Today” programme studios to defend themselves on different aspects of Home Office incompetence?

Everyone is working really hard to make the games a success and show the world the best of British. The Home Office is making that harder, not easier. I say to the Home Secretary: please get the security and border problems sorted out and stop letting everybody else down.

[Mrs May]

I think that I can deal swiftly with the right hon. Lady’s response. First, I thank her for her support for the decision. Secondly, I should say that it is not a shambles when the Government take the action necessary to ensure that we are providing the venue security. Troops have always been part of the provision of venue security and we are taking the action that ensures that we have the confidence that the numbers will be there. She should have listened to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about the timetable in relation to the G4S contract. It is a LOCOG contract, and it is for LOCOG to exercise the penalties within it.

As for the right hon. Lady’s reference to my hon. Friends the security Minister and the Minister for Immigration, I am sure that if neither of them had been speaking publicly about these issues today she would have complained about that as well. I am slightly sorry that she has not taken the approach of her noble Friend, Lord West, who has said, “I’m not trying to indulge in a blame game regarding Governments.” It is a pity that she could not, like him, be a bit more statesmanlike.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the shift patterns issue, and I welcome the work that a number of police forces across the country, including Leicestershire, have taken forward, so that they can use their resources rather better to ensure they can prioritise front-line services to the public while making the necessary savings. I would expect my hon. Friend’s force to be prioritising front-line services in exactly that way in his constituency.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has to make sure that there is proper border security without long queues. In April, Ministers promised that all immigration desks at Heathrow would be fully staffed during peak periods over the summer. Instead, June BAA data show that in the early-morning peak at terminal 3, there were only seven staff and at least half the desks were closed, and queues reached almost two hours long as a result. There are only 18 days to go until the Olympics; why is it still such a mess?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady should have listened to the response that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration gave to the shadow Immigration Minister just now. Over recent months we have been increasing the number of staff who are available at Heathrow and elsewhere, including the number of contingency staff, in response to what were, when we looked at them in April, unacceptably long queues. The right hon. Lady refers specifically to the Olympics. Extra arrangements will be in place for the Olympics. That was always what was planned. They will come into play before the Olympics opening ceremony, and therefore before significant numbers of tourists arrive for the Olympics.

[Yvette Cooper]

But BAA has said the queues over the last few days have been unacceptably long. Targets have been breached throughout June. There has been chaos again this morning. Olympics visitors are already starting to arrive. The rest of the country is working hard to show the world the best of British. All the right hon. Lady is doing is showing visitors how to queue. She has had years to plan this, but now she has got only two weeks to sort it out and make sure the Home Office does not embarrass everybody else.

[Mrs May]

I repeat to the right hon. Lady that, under the plans for the contingency numbers during the Olympics, there will be an increase in the number of staff at the borders. We will be manning all desks at peak times during the Olympics. The numbers will be there to do that. It is important that we ensure that we are providing security and a good experience for people arriving at Heathrow, and I was very pleased when I was at Heathrow a couple of weeks ago to be able to welcome five members of the Chinese team and ensure that they were put through the games family member lane.

European Convention on Human Rights

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Government have raised concerns about how article 8 of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 are interpreted in cases involving foreign criminals convicted in the UK and then put up for deportation. I agree with the Home Secretary that the Government should be able to deport foreign citizens who have come to Britain and then broken British laws. People who come here from abroad need to abide by our laws and our values.

As the House will know, in 2007 the Labour Government introduced provisions for the automatic deportation of foreign criminals in the UK Borders Act 2007, and the number of foreign criminals deported each year trebled from 1,673 in 2005 to 5,528 in 2009. The Home Secretary has raised what the Home Office says are 185 cases that have gone to appeal each year on grounds of family life. We agree that there is a problem, with people finding it hard to understand the justice of the decision by the courts in some cases where foreign criminals have not been deported.

Article 8 is a qualified right. It says:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life.”

However, it also says that that needs to be balanced with

“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.”

It is not like article 3 on the prevention of torture, which is properly an absolute right, and which is not affected by this motion.

It stands to reason that article 8 should be a qualified right. People can be imprisoned if they break the law even if it affects their family life. The courts decide the balance of rights in individual cases, but it is part of our legal framework that Parliament can set out how qualified rights should be balanced in different areas; indeed, Parliament does so all the time through legislation. That relationship between Parliament and the courts is made even more explicit in the Human Rights Act, where Parliament is actively encouraged to debate how the rights should be balanced, and the judiciary are expected to take that into account.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

That being the case, why has our system apparently been so unbalanced over the past decade?

[Yvette Cooper]

It was the Labour Government who introduced the UK Borders Act 2007, which provided for the automatic deportation of foreign criminals. The number of deportations of foreign criminals increased substantially from 2005 until the election in 2010, after which the number fell significantly. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that his Government bear some responsibility for the action that is being taken. More needs to be done in practice to deport foreign criminals, as opposed simply to discussions of the motion today.

[Mr Clappison]

If the right hon. Lady is proceeding down that track, perhaps she will remind the House how many prisoners were found not to have been considered for deportation in 2006, let alone have their article 8 rights taken into account. Will she confirm that the figure was just over 1,000?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the figure of 1,000. The number of foreign criminals being deported each year trebled between 2005 and 2009 to more than 5,000. In the most recent financial year, the number of foreign criminals being deported from this country fell by 1,000 compared with the previous year. The UK Border Agency has raised a series of concerns about how individual cases are being dealt with and the problems with travel documentation. Those are effectively administrative concerns. Some 1,000 cases are not being dealt with, not as a result of article 8, but because of serious problems with administration at the UK Border Agency. I think that that is serious, and I hope that he does too.

[Mr Clappison]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.

[Mr Clappison]

Is the right hon. Lady telling us that the Home Secretary of the day, Charles Clarke, who was an honourable man, resigned because he presided over such a glorious success?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, as a result of the problems over foreign criminals, a series of actions and measures were taken that increased the number of foreign criminals being deported. The problem for the Government is that the actions that they have taken seem to have reduced the number of foreign criminals being deported by more than 1,000 a year—a drop of nearly 20% in 12 months. That means that foreign criminals who should be deported are staying in this country and in the community. The UK Border Agency is not deporting them because of the chaos and fiasco within it.

[Alok Sharma]

Will the right hon. Lady be supporting the motion this evening? Everything that she is saying suggests that she supports what the Home Secretary has set out.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that we need action to deport more foreign criminals. That includes more practical action through the UK Border Agency. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration need to explain what they think the motion means. I will come on to that now, because it is an important issue.

The relationship between Parliament and the courts is made explicit in the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliament is actively encouraged to debate the way in which rights should be balanced, and the judiciary is expected to take that into account. Similarly, the British courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament or primary legislation on immigration, even if they think that it does not comply with the Human Rights Act. Parliament has to decide how to respond if that is the case. That is the legal and democratic framework within which we operate. As part of that, it is reasonable for Parliament to express its view on the balance of different rights, and in particular the balance of different qualified rights. Indeed, we do so all the time through our legislation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend will have heard the intervention of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Does she not think that it would have been better if this proposal had been laid on the Table today to enable his Committee to examine it and its implications for our participation in the European convention on human rights?

[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.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was accusing me or the Home Secretary of “generalised waffle”. Given his record, I fear that it could have been either of us. It was probably both.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have read considerably more of the judicial pronouncements on this subject than I have, but the House is being challenged to send a clear signal to the courts, and we are not being clear about what we are doing in the motion. The status of the motion remains unclear because it is neither primary nor secondary legislation.

[Mr Straw]

Although the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is quite right to refer to the important observations of the Lord Chief Justice, does my right hon. Friend accept that even if the Human Rights Act had never have been passed, we would still have been faced with this conundrum about the balance between the articles in the European convention on human rights so long as we remained committed to the convention? That is a key part of the Conservative party’s policy as well as ours.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right. The convention provides an important framework, and like him I understand that the Conservative party remains committed to it. A strength of the Human Rights Act—I know he was a key pioneer in bringing it into British law—is that it provides Parliament with the ability to debate article 8. It is legitimate for us to do so as part of our debate on immigration rules and all kinds of other legislation.

[Mr Burrowes]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I have given way many times, but I will do so one last time.

[Mr Burrowes]

I will help the right hon. Lady not to take any further interventions by asking her to be clear about the Opposition’s position. They cannot have it both ways. I understand that they accept the observation of the House of Lords in the Huang case in 2007 that immigration lacked a clear framework, but do they also accept the observation that that was because the immigration rules

“are not the product of active debate in Parliament”?

We are having that debate today, so surely she should welcome that and accept the motion. Let us not just talk about it, let us have some action.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need a proper debate in Parliament and proper scrutiny. However, there are concerns about how the Home Secretary has set the matter out today. For example, the motion represents neither primary nor secondary legislation, so it is not clear whether the Home Secretary wants it to trump case law. She spent some time reading individual cases on to the record, so we can only assume that she wants the motion and today’s debate to trump case law and individual decisions. However, it is only a motion of the House. We have told her that we are happy to work with her on primary legislation to ensure that there is a proper legal framework.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way one last time, to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who I know intervened on the Home Secretary.

[Pete Wishart]

Is it the right hon. Lady’s understanding that what the motion asks us to do—she is absolutely right that it is neither primary nor secondary legislation—is sign up to the Home Secretary’s immigration rules applying in their totality unless the shadow Home Secretary and her colleagues introduce another motion to challenge them?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is not what the motion says. It deals simply with an issue of principle about whether Parliament should be able to set out how article 8 is interpreted. Various lawyers have said that the motion is little more than a statement of fact and is effectively the equivalent of the Home Secretary regarding the immigration rules as compliant with article 8.

That is what the motion does, but it is not clear whether the Home Secretary expects us to endorse the detailed content of individual immigration rules, only some of which she discussed in her speech—many were not discussed. She referred, for example, to foreign criminals. The Opposition believe that the Government’s broad approach to foreign criminals is the right one—we think it is right to take stronger action, including through the immigration rules and the Border Agency—but this process is not appropriate as a general rule for the scrutiny of the content of immigration rules. For Parliament to attempt such scrutiny just two sitting days after the rules were published would be inappropriate, and it would be unlikely to reassure the courts that the detail had been properly scrutinised and debated.

In particular, today’s debate cannot be about the detail of the wider family immigration rules, which were published only last week. Further scrutiny will be needed, because there are concerns about whether the rules are the most effective way of protecting the taxpayer, and whether they are fair and just. Those concerns should be debated properly, but that cannot happen in a debate on a general motion.

The motion refers simply to the broad immigration rules and cannot suffice as proper scrutiny or endorsement of the changes to individual rules. The Opposition are happy to support the Government’s approach to tackling foreign criminals, because we believe that more action needs to be taken, including through the immigration rules. We also believe the Government are right to consider how to ensure that article 8 is interpreted. In that way, they can provide a framework of guidance when it comes to dealing with foreign criminals through the immigration rules.

There is a wider challenge. The Home Secretary’s reason for introducing the motion was that she is concerned that more foreign criminals should be deported. She will know that the number of foreign criminals deported in 2011-12 fell by nearly 18%. If all those in the cases to which she referred—the 185 cases that the Home Office said were granted appeal on article 8 grounds—were instead deported, the number deported in the most recent financial year would still have fallen by around 15% on the previous year. Whatever the Home Secretary’s intention, the motion still deals with only a small minority of cases involving foreign criminals.

The border inspector has made it clear that one of the main reasons why people are not being deported is difficulty in obtaining travel documentation. Everyone recognises that that can be difficult and untimely in some cases, but those practical operations have clearly become significantly worse since the election, which is a deep concern. The Home Secretary has said nothing today to answer those concerns or to address the growing concern that the Border Agency’s performance is deteriorating substantially on the Government’s watch.

The Opposition want to be able to support the Government’s approach to tackling foreign criminals, but we need more answers from the Home Secretary about what she hopes the motion will do.

[Mrs May]

There is a very simple question for the shadow Home Secretary. Does she believe it is right that, as the courts have said, Parliament should give a clear view on what the public interest is in relation to the operation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, on the right to a private and family life? If she believes that that is the case, and that fewer foreign criminals should be allowed to stay in this country on the basis of article 8, she should support the motion and give a clear message to the courts. I am beginning to think that she is trying to confuse the courts and to prevent them from taking that interpretation of the motion. Does she support a clear message to the courts or not?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary talks about clear messages, but she is not giving a clear message to the House, never mind to the courts. She has been confused at every step about what the motion is supposed to do. Time and again, she has been asked whether it is supposed to trump case law or endorse the details of individual immigration rules, on which no opportunity for proper scrutiny has been given, and which have not even gone through the normal processes in the House. It is not clear whether this is supposed to be an endorsement of the existing immigration rules or the future immigration rules. She has not made her position clear.

We would like to be able to support the Home Secretary in her principled statement that article 8 should be discussed by the House and is a matter for legitimate debate. We also want to support her in taking action to deport more foreign criminals, but we urge her to do something about the real problem, which she is still ignoring. She also needs to provide answers to the House about how the detail on other aspects of the immigration rules, particularly on family and other parts of her proposed immigration changes, will be scrutinised, and whether she is trying to bypass the normal scrutiny processes.

The Home Secretary has not chosen a normal approach today. She needs to do more to deport more foreign criminals, but she should not try to subvert normal processes and should be straight with the House about what she is asking it to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In her speech, the Home Secretary referred extensively to rules laid before the House but not prayed against and therefore not debated. Is it in order for us to discuss the contents of those proposed rules, because that is exactly what she did throughout her opening speech?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, unlike him, I speak to constituents all the time, and I know that my constituents have exactly the same view as citizens throughout the United Kingdom. They want to welcome asylum seekers, they want to welcome immigrant communities, but they want a sense of fair play that applies equally across the border. Scots are no more or less tolerant of foreign-born criminals remaining in the UK than are our fellow citizens unfortunate enough to live south of the border.

Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to calm down and get his breath back, I would like to ask him whether, if Scots throughout the country are some sort of homogenous entity, all thinking the same thing, he can explain why the only local authority in Scotland that applied to welcome asylum seekers was Labour-controlled Glasgow—not Perth, not Edinburgh, not another local authority anywhere in Scotland, just Glasgow?

As has already been highlighted, the deportation of foreign criminals is more often frustrated by bureaucratic process than by appeals under article 8 of the Human Rights Act. My concern today is that some Members of the House and many members of the media—yes, the right-wing media—are using the relatively small number of appeals under this part of the Act to make the case for the Act’s repeal. That would be unacceptable. It is important that the debate focuses on the reasons behind the failure of the Government—and, yes, the failure of previous Governments—rather than on the straw man of the Human Rights Act.

Nevertheless, it is a concern to all our constituents when someone who has enjoyed British hospitality, and who has chosen to repay that hospitality with contempt for our law is allowed to remain in the UK. My understanding—perhaps the Immigration Minister will be able to clarify this in his summing up—is that the interpretation of article 8 as representing an absolute right to a family life is a peculiarly British interpretation. My understanding is that other judiciaries operating elsewhere in the EU under the European convention on human rights attach a significantly different interpretation to article 8—one that more frequently allows the deportation of foreign criminals.

The Government’s own policy on the circumstances in which deportation would not be appropriate—for example, if the person had lived here under valid terms for at least 15 years—deserves some attention.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has already referred to the shocking case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who in 2003 was responsible for the death of 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit-and-run incident in Lancashire. Mr Ibrahim is variously described as an asylum seeker, a failed asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant. In fact, only the last term is correct. He arrived in the UK in 2001 and was refused refugee status, so he was never—not for one second—a refugee, and his appeal rights were exhausted by the end of 2002.

It is not the Human Rights Act that is to blame for the fact that too many criminals are allowed to remain here; it is the failure of the UK Border Agency to remove illegal immigrants in far greater numbers, and that should concern the House. Of course I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, who is a former Home Secretary, which is that on many occasions we simply cannot return people to their country of origin because it would not be safe to do so.

However, I have come across many constituents who have been in the country for eight or 10 years, applied for asylum and had the application refused, but who regard the refusal simply as an indication that no decision on their case has yet been made. They are wrong. They have been given the decision on their case: they have been told that they are in the country illegally and so should remove themselves. Far too often we allow time to march on and they do not make arrangements to remove themselves, but the UK Border Agency should remove them forcibly—I know that that process costs a lot—if they are not prepared to remove themselves voluntarily. I should point out that, although this debate has been billed as being about the scandal of permitting criminals to remain in the UK, the motion rightly refers only to migrants, not criminals.

I welcome the Government’s statement that one of the exceptions to the presumption that an individual will be deported is where an individual has been resident in the UK legally for 15 years. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, can confirm that the many thousands of individuals who have remained here illegally, ignoring decisions to refuse them refugee status, will not qualify under that exception as they have not been in the country legally. That issue is as pertinent to the cases of law-abiding immigrants as it is to criminals, and article 8 has been used to confirm the residency in the UK of many who have no criminal past and who are of less interest to the right-wing tabloids.

Countries across the whole UK are relocating, but our hospitality is sorely tested when people who come here either to seek refuge or to build a better life for themselves repay it by exhibiting contempt for our rules and, by implication, contempt for our citizens. Whether they have broken the law through an appallingly violent and callous act, as in the case of young Amy Houston, or by ignoring an appeal ruling that they have no right to remain here, the right to a family life cannot be absolute. The Government are right to say so. However, they are merely reflecting what the whole country already believes.

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary did not properly clarify earlier whether this motion is separate from the normal and proper debates on the different immigration rules. The Clerk of the Journals has now provided some clarification and reassurance that these are in fact separate. He has advised:

“The effectiveness of the statutory disapproval procedure for any particular Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament is a matter of law, which cannot be altered or over-ridden by any Resolution of the House of Commons.”

Will you confirm that that is indeed the case, because I think that would provide the House with important clarification and allow it to deliver a clearer message?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. The legal effect of the resolution is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the courts. But I can confirm that, as a matter of procedure, agreeing the motion would not prevent the tabling of any motion to disapprove a Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules as provided by statute.