Committee on Standards

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because, in effect, he is accusing me, having worked with me over years on achieving justice for this place, of being completely disingenuous. I find that very personally disappointing.

Today is a day for serious consideration by all colleagues across this House. We must address the grave concerns about the way in which we are held to account under our own Standing Orders. My amendment is not about whether the findings of the third report of the Committee on Standards are correct or incorrect. It is not about whether Mr Owen Paterson is innocent or guilty under that report. It is not about letting anyone off, stitching anything up, or any of the other accusations flying around the Chamber. Today’s amendment is about the process of investigations into Members and the question of whether this process must now be reviewed by a politically balanced Select Committee that will consider some exceedingly serious questions. First, there is the question of whether our investigatory process should more closely reflect the laws of natural justice, where an accused Member can expect to have their own evidence taken into account, to put forward witnesses in their defence, to be interviewed early in the process and provide their own explanation and, vitally, to access an independent appeal process.

Secondly, there is the serious question of whether Standing Orders Nos. 149, 149A and 150 are entirely fit for purpose. Those are the Standing Orders that govern the make-up of the Committee on Standards and the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

I worked with Kathryn Stone when I was Leader of the House, and I know she takes her role seriously and strives to take a balanced view. However, the PCS does not have a legal background and is not required to by orders. She works as both sole investigator and judge. The Committee on Standards can change her recommendations, should it choose, but there is no clarity on when or why that would happen. The Committee will perfectly understandably tend to prefer to uphold the system over the individual. The PCS can decide to establish an investigatory panel to help her, and the Committee can even require her to establish such a panel, but again there is no clarity in Standing Orders on when that should be done, and it has never been done to date.

As Leader of the House between 2017 and 2019, a cross-party team of Members worked flat-out under my chairmanship—I pay tribute to them again today—to establish an independent complaints and grievance scheme. I know well that the scheme has its detractors and is still disappointingly slow to dispense justice. However, that cross-party team made great efforts to ensure that it followed the laws of natural justice—specifically that, first, both alleged perpetrator and alleged victim are very clearly able to give their side of the story to an independent case manager; secondly, witnesses can be presented in support of either side; thirdly, legal support can be provided; fourthly, there is a clear hierarchy where the investigator is not also the prosecutor, and fifthly, there is a clear appeals process. Furthermore, until found guilty, the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent, and the investigation is confidential. Vitally, the whole scheme is reviewed on a regular and timetabled basis to ensure it continues to be fair and impartial.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady did important work on the independent complaints process, but she will recognise that, as Leader of the House, she had considerable time to propose reforms and amendments to the Committee on Standards process, should she have chosen to do so. Does she not recognise that proposing reforms now, in conjunction with this individual case—where an independent investigation and an independent cross-party Committee have come to very clear conclusions about paid advocacy—undermines the decisions and integrity of this House and any positive purpose to any reforms she might want for the future?

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the House of Commons Commission. He certainly worked very closely with the other Commission members to consider the options available. I can say to him specifically that, since the appalling terror incident two years ago, a security review has been carried out, and it was very clear that parliamentarians, particularly elected Members of Parliament, need to be within the secure perimeter of the Palace at all times during the day, so for reasons of security as well as cost-effectiveness, the decision was taken to go with the Richmond House development.

I would now like to make a bit of progress, and particularly to address the fact that there are some who want to see this place become a museum. That would not of itself absolve us of our responsibility for restoration and renewal. The Palace is part of the UNESCO Westminster world heritage site. It is our obligation to maintain it, and the health and safety concerns of this Palace will need to be addressed regardless. Even if we were to move to a new permanent location, these works would still need doing. We cannot simply wash our hands of it. It is also worth remembering that when the Palace was finished in 1870—with debating Chambers, Lobbies, Committee Rooms and offices—it was purpose-built to serve as the home of Parliament. It would obviously be incredibly expensive permanently to relocate Parliament elsewhere. It would mean uprooting the Government Departments and agencies based around Westminster, and the cost of doing that would, frankly, be eye-watering. That is why the Government are committed to making progress with R and R, and why we have supported Parliament in bringing forward this Bill.

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

Has the Leader of the House actually done any assessment of the costs of relocating entire Government Departments out of London? Wanting to relocate civil service jobs to other parts of the country has always been the Government policy, and surely that would be a good thing to do. Frankly, this entire country ends up with all its politics being far too London-focused, when we should be having far more of those jobs in other parts of the country. We would certainly love a lot of them in Yorkshire. I am concerned that she seems to be dismissing the idea of moving Government Departments to other parts of the country without actually have done any proper assessment of that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am slightly disappointed to hear the right hon. Lady’s intervention. This Bill is about setting up a Sponsor Body and a Delivery Authority to restore the Palace of Westminster, which, as I have just said, we are obliged to do whether or not we stay here. There is always a considerable amount of work going on to assess and analyse the location of various different Government Departments and agencies right around the United Kingdom. Today, however, we are simply looking at the Second Reading of a Bill that enables us to undertake our legal duty to restore this Palace, whether or not we stay here. It is not for us to consider under this Bill the whole of government. I hope that all hon. Members will appreciate that we are seeking to facilitate Parliament’s decision that we must take very seriously our financial, fiduciary and cultural duties to this place.

The House was very clear in early 2018 that work needed to be taken forward to protect and preserve the heritage of the Palace. I want to pay tribute to the hard work of Members and staff who have got us to this place. In particular, I would like to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and her Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which recommended that we decant; my predecessors as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington); the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who eloquently made the case last year for a full decant; the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who agreed to support the Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who always speaks with such passion on this issue.

Business of the House

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a motion of this House is amendable. It is for the House to agree the timetable for tomorrow’s discussion.

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

Given that a meaningful vote has been defeated tonight, will the Leader of the House confirm that that means that the Government will table a motion under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act? When will that motion be tabled? Will she confirm that it will be tabled next week and before the European Council?

Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any new body across both Houses will need to be nimble, it will need to have an understanding of parliamentary procedures and it will need to offer good value for taxpayers’ money.

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

Would the Leader of the House accept that, in any debate on sexual harassment, there is too much victim blaming? People blame women for not speaking out about harassment, rather than asking why they did not. We have seen young women who did speak out being targeted with abuse on social media. If we are to get the right kind of reforms—independent reforms—of processes, or the right kind of culture change in not just this place but institutions right across the country, there has to be a much stronger voice in any reform debates for the young women and men and the junior staff who too often end up being the victims of unacceptable abuses of power. Their voices must be heard.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady makes a very good point—that it is vital that victims feel they have a safe place to bring forward allegations and that they are not the ones who end up being blamed for failing to come forward or for presumably making false allegations, which too often seems to be the case. I highlight the situation of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who tried to raise some allegations and suffered unbelievable abuse for it. It is an appalling cultural trend in this country, and it really has to stop.

Kellingley Colliery

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing this debate. I also recognise the long-standing efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) in representing the interests of the Kellingley mine, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), whose constituents have formed part of the Kellingley workforce for many years. On behalf of myself and the Government, I acknowledge the enormous contribution to UK energy security made over many decades by the UK Coal miners. At both Kellingley and Thoresby, which completed its mining operations in July this year, they have shown professionalism and commitment over many decades, as well as a determination to ensure the safe delivery of UK Coal’s managed closure plan.

Let me outline the support that both this Government and the previous Government have provided to UK Coal. Due to geological and performance issues at Kellingley, and a deterioration in global coal prices, UK Coal approached the Government in January 2014, seeking financial support to help it to deliver a managed closure plan. That original plan envisaged Kellingley and Thoresby closing in autumn 2014 and autumn 2015 respectively.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has been critical of the Government, alleging that we prevented UK Coal from applying for state aid, but that simply is not true. On the contrary, we have been very supportive of the company throughout its difficulties. At the time of the original approach we were told that the company could last only “a matter of weeks” without an offer of support. The most pressing issue, therefore, was to provide financial support by the quickest means possible, and to deal with the immediate threat to the company and secure its short-term future. The state aid route was judged to be longer and riskier, which left a commercial solution as the best option. Structuring the solution in a commercial manner also had the benefit of not tying the company to a fixed closure date—something that a state aid solution would have done. Instead it would give the company flexibility and time to seek additional investment to extend the life of the mines.

[Yvette Cooper]

The fixed date that the Minister mentions under the EU state aid rules would have been 2018, which is in three years’ time. That was not a reason not to go down the EU state aid route. The deal she mentions that was supposedly the quickest route to go down took more than six months to resolve. The briefing that she has received from her civil servants does not seem to stack up.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The view was that it was a matter of only a few short weeks, and at that time it was considered that a state aid route would take too long and not work within the timeframe needed.

In April 2014, the Government agreed in principle to provide the company with financial support. In delivering on that commitment there were many twists along the way, including a failed sales process by the company and the withdrawal of an offer of support from a mining competitor. That process concluded with the Government providing a total of £6.5 million of loan funding in September 2014.

By supporting the company’s managed closure plan, we aimed to mitigate the worst impacts of closure on the workers, local communities and the supply chain. Without that support, UK Coal would have failed earlier in 2014 with the immediate loss of more than 1,900 jobs. UK Coal did subsequently present a state aid proposal in January 2015 to the Government. That sought state aid support of £338 million to prolong the working life of the mines by three years through to 2018. It is worth reminding the House that state aid approval represents the European Commission’s permission for the Government to spend UK taxpayers’ money, and consequently it has to be affordable and represent value for money. The state aid request did not pass the value-for-money hurdle, but we have continued to support the company.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I said, the Government sought to support the managed closure of the pit. Following weak coal sales last winter and a deterioration in world coal prices, UK Coal approached the Government again in February 2015 requesting additional funding to keep its closure plan on track. As a result, the Government committed in March 2015 to providing up to a further £10 million of financial support and the provision of concessionary coal entitlements for eligible miners, estimated at £18 million, subject to state aid approval.

The Government, as a further commitment to the miners, also agreed to the deferral of all repayments on the previous loans until after the miners had received their redundancy and other contractual entitlements at both Thoresby and Kellingley.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry, but the right hon. Lady will appreciate that I want to respond—

[Yvette Cooper]

What about enhanced redundancy terms?

[Andrea Leadsom]

There have not been enhanced redundancy terms since 2012, as she will be aware.

The funding requirement was £10 million, but we were aware of the riskiness of the mining industry, which could have seen this requirement increase. Ensuring the company had sufficient funding to pay the miners’ contractual rights was our key priority. We applied for and received permission to provide up to £20 million specifically for statutory redundancy and contractual notice pay, with £10 million to be available as a contingency in case of need.

Following state aid approval, £10 million was injected into UK Coal in August 2015. The right hon. Lady was concerned that the Kellingley miners were at risk of not receiving the same package as that received by the Thoresby miners. I would like to emphasise to her that, thanks to the excellent work of the miners and the £10 million cash injection, UK Coal has enough cash to pay the Kellingley miners being made redundant this month with the same severance package as the Thoresby miners received.

I would like to turn briefly to the non-financial support provided to the affected miners both at Thoresby and Kellingley. One of the many benefits of having a managed closure, rather than one which is sudden and unplanned, is that it gives the time to develop a joined-up approach between Government and UK Coal. Department for Work and Pensions representatives have been proactively working with Kellingley for several months to provide a fully joined-up service. Several drop-in support sessions have been hosted, most recently last week, enabling the DWP to bring together local employers with vacancies, local colleges offering training and qualifications, financial advisers and local district council business advice teams offering support on business start-ups. On the back of those sessions, more than 140 training applications have been received for vocational training, such as HGV training, occupational health and safety, fibre optics, forklift truck operations and copper cabling maintenance and installation.

In conclusion, the successful delivery of the closure plan at Kellingley has been made possible because of the hard work of the men, Government support and the favourable fixed-price contract UK Coal has had with the power companies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty pointed out. That has enabled the company to be cash generative and have sufficient money to pay all employee entitlements. I acknowledge, however, that the closure of the Kellingley mine, being the last deep operational coalmine in the UK, represents the end of a long and proud era for the UK’s coalmining industry.

I would like to finish as I started by reiterating my gratitude and that of the Government to all those who have served at Kellingley and elsewhere in the mining industry over the years. It has been a difficult job in a hostile and trying environment, and they can be proud of the part they played in heating and lighting our homes and powering our businesses and economy. Their professionalism and good humour in carrying out their job should be acknowledged by this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Today’s debate is one that the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary did not want to have. They have been forced into it by the three Select Committees because time and again they have tried to avoid coming to Parliament, avoid providing information to Parliament and avoid having a vote. The Select Committee on Home Affairs told them:

“we have been disappointed with the extent and timeliness of the Government’s involvement of Parliament”.

The European Scrutiny Committee described the Government’s approach as

“a serious omission as well as a missed opportunity to inform the debate in Parliament and beyond.”

The Select Committee on Justice summed up its report by saying

“we criticise the ‘cavalier fashion’ in which Parliament has been treated.”

The Home Secretary was in cavalier mode again today, because although she announced the opt-out in July last year and the Select Committees reports came out in October—we can presume that she has been negotiating since then—we had today no update on the progress of the negotiations, no sense of the timetable and no sense of when the vote will be called. We have to wonder what the Home Secretary has to hide. The truth is that she is hiding because this whole opt-out, opt-in is a massive con. She has done a U-turn again on the main measures, and is opting out and opting back in to them again. The only measures she is staying out of are ones that were largely redundant in any case, and what she is doing is a complex negotiation with our European partners, which is playing games with European security co-operation: “We’ll pull the arrest warrant out; we’ll put the arrest warrant back in. We’ll in out, in out, shake it all about. Play the opt-out hokey cokey, and you turn around. That’s what it’s all about.”

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, who is a member of the Fresh Start group and who, I am sure, must have been very disappointed with the Home Secretary’s conclusions.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does the right hon. Lady regret the fact that the previous Government did not give the British people a say before they signed up to the Lisbon treaty, which created the muddle this Government have had to try to deal with?

[Yvette Cooper]

I must say to the hon. Lady that we do not think that it is a muddle to have co-operation with European police forces to bring criminals to justice and to provide victims with justice. I know that the Fresh Start group, of which she is a leading member, thought that we should replace all of this with a new international treaty. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and many Government Back Benchers wanted to opt out and stay out of everything. The last time we debated the subject, a queue of Members stood up to say how much they wanted us to opt out and stay out of not just the European arrest warrant but all the major measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman points to a series of areas where the Government have proposed opting out or where it is not clear why they want to opt out and what the benefits are of doing so. We gather, too, that the Austrians, the Germans, the Spanish and the French have all called for the UK to opt into other measures as part of the negotiations. In addition to the list of 35 measures that the Home Secretary wants to opt back into, they list a further 13. The Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary should tell us whether they support those 13 measures or whether they will make them a red-line issue and call a halt to the negotiations if other countries insist on them so that a deal can be negotiated by 1 December.

The British head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, is worried about Britain opting out of some of the Europol regulations, because the new ones that the Home Secretary is prepared to support are not ready yet. He told the Select Committee on Home Affairs:

“I don’t think it is likely the new regulation will enter into force before December 2014 so there is likely to be a gap and, if there are not sufficient transitional measures in the meantime, then those accompanying eight measures would leave a gap, frankly, in terms of UK capability to carry out its work against international organised crime and terrorism.”

The Home Secretary should tell the House what she is doing about that, because it sounds serious and concerning. Has she put those measures back on her list to opt back into, and has she drawn up transitional measures?

We need to know, too, how much time and diplomatic resources the negotiation has taken up. For the remainder of the negotiating period, Italy will hold the presidency of the Council, and we understand that the Home Secretary is trying to persuade the Italian Government to make this a major priority and allow time for the European Council to negotiate. She should tell us if she really sees that as the top priority for the Council, and how many of her officials have to work on the issue, as opposed to the more substantial matters on which we should argue for reforms, such as changing the rules so that we do not have to pay child benefit and child tax credit for children abroad; or changing the rules on free movement for new accession states; or revisiting the posting of workers directive to strengthen protection for workers; or other things that would be worthwhile reforms in Europe. Instead, they are working on the power to opt out of a guidance document that we already follow. This is one of the most incredible examples of the gap between rhetoric and reality that the Government have come up with.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I shall give way one last time.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will the right hon. Lady clarify for the benefit of the House whether the Opposition would invoke the opt-out or not?

[Yvette Cooper]

We debated this last year when we had the vote. We do not object to the opt-out in principle. We negotiated it so that Britain would have more time to look closely at the measures. We said last year that the most important thing was to be in the European arrest warrant. We said then that we would not exercise the opt-out without guarantees that we could opt back into the European arrest warrant and other measures.

In the end, this is about serious measures. Crime does not stop at the border, and criminals do not stop at the channel. Fighting crime and getting justice for victims depend on co-operation across our borders. Most people in Britain want our police and intelligence services to work with other forces abroad to share information, to track down dangerous offenders, to rescue abducted children and to stop online child abuse.

I want the House to hear the words of Beatrice Jones, who was the mother of Moira Jones, of whom I have spoken before in the House. She said:

“I have been appalled to read that a group of Tory MPs is putting pressure on the Prime Minister to use his right to pull out of EU crime and policing, including the EU arrest warrant. You may remember that my beloved daughter Moira Jones was assaulted, abducted, and savagely raped and murdered by an EU national who was allowed to come here . . . He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police, along with the cooperation of the Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country. . . there is more cooperation and information between a much greater number of EU states . . . We want it to go much further so that another murder like Moira’s cannot occur . . . EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all.”

That, in the end, is what this debate should be all about. The Home Secretary should be proud of that co-operation. The hard work of police forces across Europe and the commitment of victims groups working across Europe—that is what we should be celebrating and applauding today.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is really aware of the detailed implications of what he has said. He is arguing for a huge number of different bureaucratic arrangements with every country, whether on extradition or on legal frameworks. Let me give him an example of how the current framework operates. James Hurley, who was convicted of killing a police officer and escaped from custody, was returned two years ago under a European arrest warrant, and is now back in a British prison.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way, but then I must make a bit of progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady keeps talking about these awful situations as though the only possibility were some Europe-wide collective agreement under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Does she not accept that it is perfectly possible for there to be extradition agreements between different countries that do not become subject to the European Court?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is indeed possible for there to be a huge number of extradition agreements that take long periods to negotiate. Let me give the hon. Lady one example. Before we had the European arrest warrant—when we simply had separately negotiated extradition arrangements—it took 10 years to extradite a suspected terrorist from Britain to France. That is the consequence of the kind of haphazard framework that the hon. Lady wants us to adopt. Meanwhile, we have a European arrest warrant that allows decisions to be made swiftly, and to be made in the interests of the victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not yet told us whether she actually has a workable way to do that, and we wait to see whether she has a workable way to deliver that at all. She has said that she wants a blanket opt-out, but most of her Back Benchers want to opt out of the lot and not opt back into anything. Our clear view is that we should not have a blanket opt-out that puts at risk the European arrest warrant and the crucial things needed for the fight against crime.

On criminal records, is the Home Secretary in or out? Again we have no answer from her. Sharing alerts on suspected criminals, or trafficking or kidnapping victims, crossing borders—in or out? Minimum standards for tackling online child exploitation—in or out? Information sharing on football hooligans—in or out? Co-operating on seizing criminals’ assets—in or out? Taking account of foreign convictions in court cases—in or out? Working with other countries on dealing with international genocide and war crimes—in or out?

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me about any of those. I understand that her view is to opt out of all of them and then simply on each measure to negotiate individually a separate agreement with every single country. That is her position. Perhaps she can tell me whether she has had any success persuading the Home Secretary of her position or whether the Home Secretary simply does not have a view on any of these matters.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Lady can always intervene on me when it is my debate and my motion, but this is her motion, so I am asking her something. Presumably she is aware that the only alternative is to opt out en bloc—that was the negotiation that her Government agreed when they were in power. So does she intend to opt out en bloc and then opt back into certain measures—if so, which ones? Or does she not intend to opt out at all? She is speaking as though we have the alternative of simply picking and choosing, but she knows, or should know, that that is not the case.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that the hon. Lady in not in fact clear about what the position is, because she does not know what she is actually going to be able to opt back into. When Denmark tried to opt out and then opt back into a series of measures half its requests to opt back into measures were refused. That is why we do not believe that anything should be done to jeopardise the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and many of the other measures that I have set out today.

Two different positions are coming from Government Members at the moment. We have a simple position from the Back Benchers, which is that they just want to opt out of everything, and we have a blank sheet of paper from the Front Benchers, whereby they seem to hint that they might opt back into a few things but they will not tell us which. I can tell the House very clearly that, on the European arrest warrant, we should be in. We think that we should be in when it comes to proposals to take account of foreign convictions in our court cases, and when it comes to working with other countries on international genocide, yet we have heard nothing from Government Members on which of these vital measures they support, and on whether they have any workable way of opting back into the proposals.

The House of Lords European Union Committee looked at all this in some detail, and it says:

“The European Arrest Warrant is the single most important of the measures which are subject to the opt-out decision…opting out would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the UK and the administration of criminal justice in the UK”,

so why are the Government doing this? The truth is that none of these questions is about crime or justice. All the points that Government Members are raising are about Europe, and the anxiety and hysteria about Europe among Back Benchers. Those Back Benchers want to ditch all European crime and security co-operation, which the police say is vital, and the work that children’s charities say helps victims.

The Government’s amendment to the motion says that they are looking at the issue, but that we should not worry because there will be a vote before any opt-out is exercised. It would be helpful if they could clarify whether there will be any vote on opting back in again, or whether they are simply planning to have a vote on opting out. They should also tell us today whether they know if they will be able to opt back into any of the measures, and which ones they think are so important that they should not be put at risk.

The truth is that this is not about crime; this is about politics. This is not about helping victims; it is about division on Europe. For the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to give in to their Back Benchers, who simply want to oppose all things European, would be shameful. It would be ignoring the evidence and expert advice. It would be helping criminals and betraying victims. That is why we are holding this debate and this vote today.

I want to remind the House what this is really all about. I have an e-mail from Beatrice Jones—the mother of Moira Jones—who set up the Moira Fund to help families. She first got in contact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, who passed on her concerns to me, and I have spoken to her. She says:

“I have been appalled to read that a group of Tory MPs is putting pressure on the Prime Minister to use his right to pull out of EU crime and policing, including the EU arrest warrant. You may remember that my beloved daughter Moira Jones was assaulted, abducted, and savagely raped and murdered by an EU national who was allowed to come here in spite of a long criminal record of violence. He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of the Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country. We know that because of much work at the Home Office, with the Border Agency, and with the implementation of the ECRIS”—

the European criminal records information system—

“there is more cooperation and information between a much greater number of EU states….We want it to go much further so that another murder like Moira’s cannot occur and we did think that things were moving slowly in the right direction.

To read of this backward step is simply awful. As long as EU nationals are allowed to freely enter the UK and vice versa, then EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all. The current system needs further development not to be disbanded.

Clearly there are those around who have no conception of what it is to lose a daughter in truly horrific circumstances. We continue to struggle and I have persisted in trying to bring about change…But there are things that with the best will in the world, we cannot do….If there is anyway you can do anything to highlight our concerns, I implore you in Moira’s name to do what you can.”

That is why we are holding this debate today.

Home Affairs

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is targeting net migration, which she knows is affected by British people leaving the country—by people leaving as well as people arriving. I state the figures again: a 72,000 drop, 27,000 more Brits leaving the country and 20,000 fewer coming home. People obviously do not want to come back to Britain under her Government. That is the problem that she has to face.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that it is utterly astonishing that she is not apologising to the British people for creating such an enormous amount of heartache and grief for them? Rather than encouraging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in her attempts to put right the failings of the right hon. Lady’s Government, she is standing there and criticising. Should she not be apologising?

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try from the hon. Lady, but the facts show that there is a series of problems in this Government’s measures on immigration. I agree that we should have had transitional controls on migration from eastern Europe. There are things that the Labour Government should have done but which did not happen. They should have happened.

We should have people working together. There are many areas on which we agree with the Government and will support the measures that they are taking, but look at what has happened, particularly on illegal immigration. The number of people refused entry dropped by 50%. The number of people absconding through Heathrow passport control trebled. The number caught afterwards halved. The backlog in finding failed asylum seekers has gone up. The number of illegal immigrants deported has gone down. This is not a catalogue of success on immigration from the right hon. Lady’s Government.

Home Affairs and Justice

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Yesterday, it was clear that this Queen’s Speech will do nothing to tackle jobs and growth, nothing to get Britain out of a double-dip recession, and nothing to help family finances. Now, sadly, it is clear that there is not much to help tackle crime or improve policing, border security and justice, either.

As we gather to debate the Queen’s Speech, 16,000 police officers from across the country—officers in black hats, and many more thousands beside them—are gathering and marching through London. Constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents, even chief constables, are protesting against the 20% criminal cuts the Home Secretary is making. There are many more whom they represent who could not make it today because they are at work or out on the beat. There are officers such as Tony MacDonald, whom I met last month, who used to be a beat officer in Retford. He loved his job. He has been forced to retire years early, and police support for the town has been cut back. There are the officers in the midlands who told me that their response units have been cut back, so when a 999 call came in about a hit-and-run involving a child, it took the nearest officer 45 minutes to get to the scene of the crime.

This morning, I spoke to officers from Yorkshire who told me that they are spending more time on bureaucracy, not less, because the back office has been so heavily cut—officers such as Chief Constable Tony Melville, who warned that his force was at a cliff edge because of the cuts, and who has tendered his resignation because of his opposition to Government reforms.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

The officers who risk life and limb to keep us safe are deeply angry at the cuts and the chaos they face. They are worried about whether, in the light of the Winsor review, they will be able to keep up with their mortgage payments. Morale is at rock bottom and they are overstretched, especially with the Olympics coming up. They are angry at a Home Secretary and a Prime Minister who do not recognise or sufficiently value the work they do.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she will say whether she supports the officers from her constituency who are marching in protest today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Will she give the House an idea of what her party thinks the outcome of the police review should be?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said many times that we think the police could sustain cuts to their budgets of some £1 billion over the course of a Parliament, but instead, the Government have gone for £2 billion—going far further and too fast. That is why 16,000 officers are being lost, including thousands from the hon. Lady’s region. These are deeply destructive decisions that, in the end, are putting communities at risk. Of course, 16,000 officers is the number we needed on the streets of London to take back control after rioters burned Tottenham and Croydon, and looters ransacked Clapham, Hackney and Ealing; and 16,000 is the number of police officers that this Home Secretary has decided to cut.