Hillsborough

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We will obviously need to see what material will be required for the investigations, and what material might be used as evidence in any charges and prosecutions that are brought. I will certainly look at the issue that he has raised about continuing transparency, which I recognise has been important in relation to the documents that have been released so far. Perhaps I can come back to him on that point.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

May I return to the question of resourcing that was raised by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)? A number of agencies, including local government and the police, will be involved as a consequence of the inquest, and many other operations will need to be undertaken that will require substantial resourcing. Can we have an assurance that those costs will be met centrally, rather than in a way that could affect the operation of other services to people in the communities affected?

[Mrs May]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I understand his concern that other services should not suffer as a result of any requirements being placed on such organisations. I cannot give a commitment across the board at this stage. We are talking to the IPCC about the resources that it will need, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be looking at the implications for any health bodies that are involved. We want to ensure that the investigations are as thorough and exhaustive as possible, and we would not wish to put any barriers in the way of that happening, but a significant number of bodies will be involved, and we have to look at the matter very carefully. Specifically in regard to the IPCC, we are already having discussions about any requirements that it might have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

First, I want to reiterate what I said on 12 September, when the report was published, and commend the tenacity, drive and sheer breathtaking commitment of the families for what they have achieved with the support of politicians of differing parties and, in particular, my colleagues from Merseyside and my right hon. Friend—a friend outside, as well as inside, the House—the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I also commend the Bishop of Liverpool and the panel, who have shown that it is sometimes better not to have a judicially led inquiry. We might learn from that. I also want to reiterate what has been said about Ken Sutton and the secretariat, who were absolutely superb and had the most enormous job in getting to the kind of truth that was not seen and available elsewhere.

I, like my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), have been a lifelong supporter of Sheffield Wednesday. As such, I want to say that the hearts of the people of Sheffield are, as then, with the people of Merseyside and the families. On that terrible afternoon, kindness shone through the darkness: people took families and individuals into their homes around the ground, used telephones in a day when mobile telephones were not available, ran people back to Merseyside, where appropriate, and did their best to indicate a humanity that I hope we will also remember.

The debate has so far been of the highest order, and I want only to say one or two things that might add to it. I commenced representing Brightside in 1987. At the time, I did not hear from any thinking human being who genuinely believed that the deceased had anything to do with the events of that afternoon. How could they have anything to do with it, given that they were in the ground well in advance of 3 pm and so at the front of the dreadful pens that existed at the time? As I said two months ago, the tales that were made up and the way the so-called facts were reiterated demonstrated that we could only really rely on truth and justice being revealed when we had absolute transparency. Today, that is more possible, given mobile technology and the way everything is recorded—we have seen that in recent days—and that is a good thing, but it can only really work if there is a change of heart from the top down.

I want to refer to the three elements of the case—the events of the day, the cover-up and the inquest. I was not in the ground on the day, but I visited Northern General hospital the following morning and talked to those with minor injuries and to some of the parents. I was impressed by what the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said about Kevin’s mother, Anne, whom I heard on the radio a week last Friday, showing the most enormous dignity, having demonstrated the most enormous courage in pursuing this matter and having coped with what she has had to live with ever since. I do not know whether the inquest will bring any kind of peace, but it will certainly bring greater truth.

I understand that such an inquest has incredibly difficult barriers to overcome. The bar was set extremely high by those who took the civil case 12 years ago, and the Stuart-Smith inquiry set the bar at a height that makes it difficult, 23 years on, to achieve the kind of justice that those in the Gallery today rightly seek. What is absolutely sure, however, is that the cover-up must be revealed if we are to prevent such a thing from happening again. It is about culture and perception. The fact that on the day 116 officers wrote down what they believed had taken place but had their testimony altered is a testament to their efforts to tell the truth. The scandal was that senior management in South Yorkshire police and the West Midlands force—the latter has also been tellingly referred to this afternoon—overrode their decency and honesty. That is the lesson for us. The issue is about how senior management, not those at the bottom, should be pursued. I believe that 100 members of the 1989 force are still in place. I hope that their experiences in respect of senior management will be listened to and that they will not be made to feel that they are being pursued. Otherwise, we will get the wrong conclusion by pursuing the wrong people.

As with the organisation and supervision on that tragic afternoon and as with the cover-up, the inquest, which, of course, turned out to be a scandal, was based on presumption and a particular perception of the fans. I say that regardless of what Bert McGee, with whom I am glad to say my relations were nil, might have written in the programme that afternoon. As the MP covering the stadium, I never repeated any of the garbage told to the then MP for Sheffield, Hallam, Sir Irvine Patnick. I believe that the perception had arisen out of the previous years—out of what had happened at Ibrox, Heysel and Birmingham, where two people were killed, and the hysteria around the situation with fans. Action by the Taylor committee was taken on the back of that. Here is a thought: the Taylor committee, which got to part of the truth, came out with recommendations that were more about dealing with fans than they were about the outcome or the truth and justice of what happened at Hillsborough in April 1989. We have to ensure, in detection and investigation in future, that that never happens again—that we do not have a police force or inquiries that build on existing perception, but that we genuinely try to get to what happened.

We have a challenge before us, because the truth is virtually out. The families are near to getting some sort of peace and settlement, if that is possible. The Parliament that we stand in today is revealing and opening up what has been covered up for 23 years, but to go forward we need to be able to pick up some of the issues around future transparency and strong outside investigation. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to this issue. I was the one who set up the Independent Police Complaints Commission, because its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority, was totally and utterly inadequate. I would like us to strengthen the IPCC immediately, because waiting to legislate on something new would not be the answer. Therefore, we should by all means provide greater powers, but this is also about process, as well as culture and enforcement. The top-down examples that I have referred to are about changing the way we operate our police service. This is also about what happened with the other emergency services—not least the ambulance service—which led to the terrible tragedy of those who might have been saved being left on that afternoon.

We are, 23 years later, trying to put right a wrong that is part of our history. We are trying to do so without undermining the morale and the feeling of service of those in the police and emergency services in South Yorkshire, who I have to care about because they are the ones who are serving my constituency and those of my hon. Friends. They need to know that, while we are getting to the truth and providing justice and accountability for the past, we are also mindful of their lives and their work, and that is why—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has worked incredibly hard with the families over very many years, as have other hon. Members. He is quite right that that key finding of the report needs to be properly examined. It shows the difference between the Sheffield Wednesday ground, where the recommendation was not deployed, and other grounds where there could possibly have been problems.

[Mr Blunkett]

There is no doubt that culpability existed, as was acknowledged by the £1.5 million that was put into the fund by Sheffield Wednesday at the time, but we are now trying to distinguish between the terrible events that happened then and the changes that were made on the back of them, which have benefited footballers, fans and communities as a whole.

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend is of course right. This is about what can be done now to put the injustice right.

A different verdict would show that the victims died as a result of the failings of the police and would at last allow the families the official recognition of how and why their loved ones died. The Home Secretary has announced the potential appointment of an independent prosecutor so that any criminal prosecutions do not drag on any longer than necessary. This is the least that can be done after the 23-year wait by the families. The independent prosecutor will explore possible criminal charges—whether manslaughter relating to the original tragedy or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice following the exposé of the cover-up. Consideration by a new coroner of all the evidence will at last allow for examination to take place of what did and did not happen after 3.15 pm. It appears that the CPS and the DPP did not consider the evidence of what happened after 3.15 pm when they decided not to prosecute. That evidence needs to be considered by the prosecutor and will be relevant to the cover-up that started on the day and continued over the months and years that followed.

The lack of impartiality, the cover-up, and the discrediting of witnesses—all this will be addressed and overcome by new inquests with proper involvement and support for the families. I reiterate my earlier request to the Home Secretary that the families are given full financial support at new inquests, because that is only right in making sure that justice is done this time round. An independent prosecutor will, I hope, achieve the same level of justice when it comes to holding those responsible to account. Again, it is welcome that the families will have all the involvement that is needed in any inquiries of a criminal nature.

All MPs who represent the families have pledged to continue to fight alongside them until new coroners’ verdicts are delivered and until all those responsible for the deaths of the 96 and the cover-up that followed are held to account for what they have done. That is the least we should do, and I am sure that it is what we will do.

Extradition

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks on a number of my announcements today. I fully recognise the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere about the perception that there is a difference. Sir Scott Baker considered the issue very carefully and came to the conclusion that there was no significant difference between the requirements on either side of the Atlantic and that in effect there was no practical difference between the two. I recognise, however, the opinion expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend today.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Given the politically and emotionally charged atmosphere around this case, I think that we all understand why the Home Secretary has taken the decision she has. There have been efforts—of which she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), her predecessor, are aware—to try to find a way around the situation so that it does not create a precedent for the future, particularly in relation to the cybercrime issues raised by the shadow Home Secretary. That has involved trying to organise video-conferencing and for sentences to be served in the United Kingdom. Without that, surely we will create a rod for our backs in that individual cases will be judged on the support they get from the public rather than on the logic and legal requirements that must be applied in any extradition case.

London Metropolitan University

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

That is precisely why we have set up the taskforce immediately with two main tasks, one of which is to find new courses and institutions that are willing to take London Met’s students. It will then move on to individual cases and ensure that those who are genuine students can obtain the appropriate visas and leave to remain to attend the courses that they wish to attend. The taskforce is up and running already, and happily several institutions are looking to take on former London Metropolitan students.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I have a general declaration on the register.

I put it to the Minister that nobody could possibly be against rigour in this area, but the sector as a whole has been bedevilled by bellicose statements, by constant changes in the rules and, in this case, by the timing. Above all, is not the message being sent to the global education community that this country is not welcoming those students who previously would have seen Britain as their first choice for university education?

[Damian Green]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has connections with an institution that is itself closely connected with London Metropolitan—I am not aware of any problems with that other institution. The message being sent out is quite clear: as I have said, Britain absolutely welcomes the brightest and the best; we want the best students from around the world coming to our universities, some of which are themselves among the best universities in the world. However, the message also has to go out to the university sector and individual students that they have to be genuine students, be able to speak English and be properly qualified to benefit from a university education in this country, and that they cannot use a student visa as a loophole in our immigration system to come here and work. That went on for far too long; now it is stopping.

Olympics (Security)

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very appropriate reference to the reserves, who are indeed being used. We welcome the work done by people who willingly give up their time to the Territorial Army, and they will be part of the troop deployment that will be taking place for the security of the Olympics. On Sunday, the contingency arrangements for the Olympics period will kick in at Heathrow, with the extra numbers of staff over and above any who have already gone in, and there will be a policy of ensuring that all desks are manned at peak times. That will deal with the issue he raised.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I share the view that has been expressed about the military. In February 2003, when there was a very serious security threat to Heathrow, we discovered that the deployment and demeanour of the military was crucial in avoiding turning security into a feeling of insecurity. Given the deployment of missiles on residential property and the numbers of military now being deployed, will the Home Secretary talk to LOCOG to ensure that we do not have a repeat of a situation where visitors to this country feel genuinely worried?

[Mrs May]

I think that the opposite is the case. Obviously, we want people who are coming to the Olympics to feel that they are coming to an event that is about sport and not to think that the prime issue that they are facing is security. All the evidence so far is that the troops who are already at Olympic venues are welcomed, that their demeanour is entirely appropriate, and that they provide a degree of reassurance that is welcome to the public.

Home Affairs and Justice

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

I have a soft spot for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a bit rich of the Liberal Democrats to accuse the Labour party of opportunism. When the country is faced with an unprecedentedly difficult situation—now, of all times—coming forward with a piece of constitutional reform is a step too far, as far as most people are concerned. As Aneurin Bevan said, politics is all about priorities—that is the religion of politics. For the House at this time to spend what will inevitably be a long time debating this issue will send out a negative message. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of this country will take a dim view of the political priorities of the Government.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that those who like fish eat fish when the fish they are presented with is properly cooked and is attractive? Nobody in their right mind would say, “I like fish. Therefore, I am going to eat this piece of rotten fish.” Nothing could be more rotten and ill-thought-through than the legislation that the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill had to address.

Abu Qatada

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

What I agree with is that we should make every effort to reform the European Court, which is precisely what is being done today at the Brighton conference, and what will be done over the next two days, by my right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General and the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I am having a greater struggle today to be magnanimous than I had on Tuesday. Although the Home Secretary might accept that it is no surprise that Abu Qatada will take any measure to make a monkey out of the Home Secretary and the Home Office, was it a surprise to her to learn that a question of ambiguity about the date was raised with the Home Office on Monday? Specifically, was she told and what did she do about it?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear that the deadline was on Monday 16 April. That is the view that we have put to the European Court. As I have also said in my earlier responses, of course the Government were talking to the European Court throughout the three months, and we were doing so on the basis that the deadline was 16 April.

Abu Qatada

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

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

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary who originally certificated Abu Qatada, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Home Secretary on making at least some progress on the back of the change in Jordan’s constitution and on getting agreement. However, does she agree that much of the delay has been caused by the operation of the European Court, and that the proposals originally put forward by the Prime Minister for deliberation by the Council of Europe in Brighton this week have now been watered down? Is it not a contradiction to come here and be quite belligerent about believing that something can be achieved by words, when actually, in deliberation in Brighton this week, we will go in exactly the opposite direction?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the comments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary who, as he said, first initiated proceedings for the deportation of Abu Qatada. What I would say to him about the Brighton conference is that the Prime Minister was quite clear earlier this year about those areas where we would be working to get some change in the operation of the European Court. Of course, all Members of this House will have to wait until the proceedings of the Brighton conference are complete to see the package that comes out of it, but I have every confidence that the work that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary has done will indeed enable us to achieve the changes we want.

Abu Qatada

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The specific reason for the European Court finding against deportation was the question of whether the evidence that would be used against Abu Qatada in his retrial—he had been tried in absentia—had been obtained as a result of torture. That is the issue that was raised by the European Court, and that is the issue that we are addressing.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

In 2002, when Abu Qatada was eventually apprehended, he was in a flat about 400 yards away from MI5 headquarters, using what was then the most sophisticated electronic equipment to communicate his message. Given that the Home Secretary has said time and again this afternoon that the bail conditions are tough and would restrict him from being able to do that again, how can she possibly justify allowing a situation to arise at the end of April, with the Olympic games and the Queen’s jubilee taking place, in which terrorism prevention and investigation measures would come into effect that would do away with all the restrictions that she has set out in the bail conditions?

Parliamentary Representation

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister and to the House if I am not able to be here at the conclusion of the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), not only on securing the debate but on the work she did under your patronage, Mr Speaker, leading the Speaker’s Conference. Some of us in the House today spent well over a year of our lives—not full-time, but it seemed a lot—on the Speaker’s Conference and I hope that the recommendations can be followed through and that it will be possible to make progress.

In order to avoid repetition, I say at the beginning that the issues surrounding the next general election, not only the lower number of Members of Parliament, but the dramatic boundary changes, present a challenge for all political parties. We need to appeal to them to take the matter very seriously if we are not to take a step backwards on gender, on sexuality, on ethnicity and on disability. I am genuinely deeply worried. I hope that the access to public life fund and the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on internships will assist.

On a lighter note, I think that we have made progress in the 25 years since I came to the House. I was asked when I first came in with my dog whether there would be a problem with animal noises, and I gave an assurance that the dog would not be disturbed at all by the kind of thing that he was likely to hear in Prime Minister’s questions at that time. I did, however, face the enormous problem of persuading people that additional resources would make it possible to work on equal terms. It was a fiasco. We had a working party between the two Houses under the chairmanship of Lord Jenkins, as he became. The recommendations had to be voted on on the Floor of the House. We have come a long way since that terrible embarrassment. One Member, who is still in the House, said to me, “You’re very lucky to get these extra resources.” I said, “I’ll swap you any time.”

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend may be interested to hear that when I was helping to organise the memorial service for John Smith at Westminster abbey and I said that we would need a bowl of water put out for my right hon. Friend’s dog, the usher said, “I’m not putting a bowl out for any bloody socialist’s dog.”

[Mr Blunkett]

All I can say is that I wish he had not discriminated on political grounds.

There are major challenges facing us. The nature of the Palace of Westminster has changed to some degree, but not enough. It is not quite the old boys’ club that it was when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and I joined in 1987, but people still have in their minds a major psychological barrier about what they will experience here. There are also practical barriers, which have been referred to, in the procedures of the House. I hope that we can be more radical in the next three and a half years than we have been in the 25 that I have been here. Unless we change the way we vote, the knowledge about votes, the way in which the day is organised and the support for families, we will not have the diversity and the reflection of society that all of us in this House want.

I congratulate those who have broken through even bigger barriers than I have been able to challenge in my life. To win a by-election as a member of an ethnic minority is a real step forward. Reflecting on the years gone by, I think that it has been shown that the way in which society gradually changes is reflected here, but we have a role in accelerating that change by the way we behave.

The thing that I have probably done best in my public life and am most proud of is not something from my eight years as a Cabinet Minister or from my time as leader of a council. It is having changed attitudes outside— the way that people perceive not only others but, sometimes, themselves. That is a comfort when things go badly wrong.

I agree that we need to revisit the way in which we encourage diversity in supporting Members. I have to pay tribute—I know that it is not fashionable—to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in relation to disability issues. It has been extremely understanding and helpful in a way that I hope will be reflected in further revisions to support family life, particularly in terms of gender challenges. I look forward to IPSA responding to that challenge.

It is important that the Government are able to respond too. I think that Departments have improved. I hope that the Office for Disability Issues will continue and will be able to make progress, along with the access to public life fund. However, there are still ingrained challenges in terms of covert discrimination. There is no question but that people are sometimes grumpy about being expected to go the extra mile to help those facing a challenge that is perfectly manageable and can be overcome with a bit of thought. People do not like to talk about it; they do not even like to think about it; but, believe me, they do behave in quite extraordinary ways.

What I want to emphasise this afternoon is that we must go right back to the way we develop an understanding of citizenship in schools and persuade the Secretary of State for Education, even at this late stage, not to downgrade the programme we put in place 10 years ago and instead to build upon it. It would be an irony indeed if newcomers to this country who were becoming naturalised were more savvy about politics and better able to get to this House than the population as a whole because they had experienced the necessity of passing the dreaded test. Once we have done that and we have continued to change the nature of our politics and the way we speak to each another, we might get even more progress within political parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has kindly indicated—I have no buzzer—that I have only a few seconds left, so I will bring my comments to an end. Political parties have made progress, as has been mentioned this afternoon, but, my goodness, there are still major blockages. Unless the political parties take a lead, how can we expect the nation as a whole to do so?

UK Extradition Arrangements

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on obtaining the debate. I shall try to respond briefly in the spirit of accord that we have created over the past few days, including on the broadcast media.

I had the unenviable task of agreeing the framework agreement on the European arrest warrant and the renewed treaty with the United States. When someone has Baroness Helena Kennedy and the Daily Mail on their back, they really do need to be on the ball, so I have re-read a lot of material, including Justice Scott Baker’s review, and it is worth those who follow parliamentary debates getting on the website and taking a good look at it.

The review may have flaws, but it is an extraordinarily good examination of precisely what was agreed, what has happened and, therefore, the reality of decisions taken and how they compare, for instance, with the Extradition Act 1989 and European convention rights, which are currently being tested by Babar Ahmad, because his case has gone to Strasbourg. In the case of Gary McKinnon, a review of the medical evidence is taking place for a report back to the Home Secretary, so high-profile cases are being dealt with almost outside, and in addition to, the procedure that we are debating tonight. In other words, the process is being exhausted and carried further, as it should be in cases of controversy and in extenuating circumstances.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Gary McKinnon, my constituent, and makes a new point, because I understand that he made representations for Mr McKinnon to stand trial via a TV link from this country and, if convicted, to serve his sentence here. Does that not make the case for a forum bar, which would enable such considerations to be transparent, rather than conducted perhaps privately, as the previous Home Secretary did?

[Mr Blunkett]

The forum bar carries forward convention rights and changes the balance, as Scott Baker’s review indicates. Although I do not disagree with a great deal of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I note that elements of it would not only prolong the process—it has been mentioned already that some people have been awaiting extradition for a very long time—but alter the balance that we are trying to achieve.

If I were negotiating the 2003 treaty and the accompanying Extradition Act 2003 again, I would want a codicil, detailing alongside the treaty the nature of the process in order to assure people that there was a clear balance between the processes adopted in the United States and here.

In 2009 and 2010, I had the opportunity, which I took up privately, to visit the US Department of Justice. I kept it private for two years, because, in reporting back to the Home and Justice Secretaries under the previous and current Governments, I felt that there was some progress to be made by stating the views of the Department of Justice, as indicated to me, on the possibility of taking decisions about any trial, the nature of any sentence and whether, if applied, it might be served in this country.

Those are difficult issues, because we should not presume that somebody would be found guilty. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is close to Mr McKinnon’s case, so he will be familiar with Lord Justice Stanley Burnton’s commentary on it, and there is undoubtedly the major issue of medical evidence, which is under examination.

Let me deal briefly with where we should be going. We should return to the issues relating to the European arrest warrant, because, as we have just heard spelt out, extradition arrangements have been distorted in cases from eastern Europe to Greece, partly because there has not been a de minimis rule on sentences and, therefore, whether it applies; because people have been returned to—rather than dealt with originally—years after the case arose; and because EAWs have been presented to people outside the United Kingdom when no attempt has been made to serve a warrant inside. All those matters need reviewing for the sake of the sensible application of justice, because once people feel that justice is not being applied, as we have seen from campaigns and in tonight’s debate, justice is questioned.

On the American issue, however, I shall talk about not just balance, but the rule of law, because we must have sensible arrangements that do not rest on whether we think an individual’s case is a good one. The Americans quite rightly put to me, “What about Abu Hamza? Whose hands are going up for a type 1 diabetic who is a double amputee, and for his associate, who is alleged to be bipolar? Who feels they ought to run such campaigns on their behalf to stop extradition?” How do the United States see the issue when they are trying to ensure that principles are applied and a precedent not set which would then create complete havoc in the justice system? The rule of law has to apply equally and sensitively, but it has to include rules to which we can all adhere.

The NatWest three, or the Enron three as the Americans prefer to call them, were totally innocent according to their campaigns, and even I began to be convinced that they were, until of course they reached the United States and pleaded guilty.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The Enron three told me that if they pleaded not guilty in America and were found guilty they would get 35 years, but that if they pleaded guilty they would get five years. They were concerned about being forced into pleading guilty in America.

[Mr Blunkett]

That is often undertaken—albeit not to the degree that has just been described—in our court system to ensure that people can enter a plea bargain, so it is not unfamiliar to any of us.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunkett]

I will not give way any more, because I will lose time.

On the American treaty, there is therefore room for negotiation on the side to take account of my central point: we live in an entirely different world with cyber- attacks. Cyber-attacks from our country on installations in our country can easily be dealt with, but cyber-attacks from a country on the installations or businesses of another country, such as the Pentagon, raise all sorts of issues about how we go forward.

There are rogue and emerging states in terms of cyber-attack and cyber-terrorism to which we would certainly not want to say, “Please would you try the individual in the state from which the attack took place,” and, as such attacks are trans-border and affect installations throughout the world, we need to sit down and work out how we deal with that entirely new eventuality, which affects people across the globe. If we do not, we will rue the day.

With an agreement between prosecuting authorities, it would be perfectly feasible to use video conferencing so that the accused could not only take part in the trial and be questioned, but view the trial and, if found guilty, serve their sentence in a friendly state, where everyone agreed that conditions were acceptable. Let us have the further review on the back of Scott Baker. We have had the review that people wanted, and they do not like it. By all means let us keep reviewing it, but let us do so with a degree of common sense and balance, in the spirit of this debate.

I am aware that there will not be a vote this evening. I know that the Government will take this seriously, but I also know that they will have to govern and they will have to do business with a friendly state where the judicial system is free, open and based on rights, and we should respect it as such.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I entirely agree. That is very much the thrust of what I will say in the next few minutes.

Let me come back to the thought process behind this—the intent behind what the then Home Secretary was trying to achieve, with which, as I said, I sympathise. The EAW, the extradition treaty and the 2003 Act were all aimed at dealing with terrorism. What has been the consequence of that? A parliamentary answer told us that between 2003 and 2009 there were 63 extraditions to the USA, of which precisely one involved a terrorist. A number of the others involved serious crimes—although I have to wonder about the two people who were extradited for “satellite signal theft”; Rupert Murdoch’s reach is obviously longer than I thought—but there was only one terrorist extradition. When I looked at it the other way around—extraditions from the Americans to us—I was unable to find any record of terrorists being extradited here. I asked people in the Library to look at it for me. They searched through all the available records and could not find any examples. We should keep in mind that the rather draconian process that we have, which was put in place to defend us against terrorism, does not appear to have had much impact in that respect. In practice, the outcome is much more mundane. The truth of the matter is that we will have far more Gary McKinnons extradited than Osama bin Ladens.

Because of the terrorist problem, the international crime problem, and the pressure for a fast agreement, we have left out some proper protections in the agreements that we have made, particularly with America. Debating this when he was in opposition, the current Attorney-General said that

“we chose in the 2003 Act, bizarrely, to get rid of the protection that existed in article 7(1) of the 1957 convention on extradition, which allowed an extradition to be prevented if the person was being sent to an inappropriate forum for the trial…Every other country has that safeguard. The Irish, who regard themselves as close partners and friends of the United States, and who have an extradition arrangement, have a forum clause in their treaty, which enables the question of the appropriate forum to be considered.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1419.]

He is right. Not only the Irish, but Norway, Switzerland, Holland, France and Germany all have such provision. In fact, the Germans’ law will not allow the extradition of any of their citizens outside their country. Similarly, two Commonwealth countries—Australia and New Zealand, two of America’s closest allies in the war on terror—have total discretion over who among their own nationals they allow to be extradited. The idea that we are somehow at odds with the accepted—and, indeed, acceptable—approach among the western nations in their battle with terrorism is nonsense.

[Mr Blunkett]

On 16 December 2004, the idea of treating one’s nationals, as opposed to overseas citizens, differently in this country was ruled out by the House of Lords. I should know, because section 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was at stake.

[Mr Davis]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right. My point is that we are dealing with the situation as it is now and what is acceptable among the anti-terrorist community, if I might put it in those terms, and I am afraid that what is acceptable is something far tougher than we have been claiming.

Let me look at the other side—American reciprocity. Much of this is about reciprocity, so how have the Americans behaved? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who is the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, asked how many cases have been refused. I have worked in the murky world of international relations in the Foreign Office, and I know that the number of requests refused is zero—but of course it does not work like that. If one wants to turn something down, one rings up one’s ally and says, “Would you mind withdrawing it?” The US subsequently withdrew 5% of its applications, whereas we withdrew 20% of ours. I wonder why. I do not think that the Americans can claim a very great moral high ground in terms of reciprocity. Indeed, the attitude taken to that by many countries, including Canada, Spain, France, Germany and Italy, has traditionally been much more robust than ours.

So what should we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has made this point in some detail, so I will be quick. We should change the forum arrangements. They should pay proper attention to not accidentally punishing the innocent or over-punishing those guilty of minor crimes. I do not know why the Americans should think it better for Gary McKinnon to spend two years in an American prison than for two American witnesses to spend two weeks in a hotel in Britain while the case is tried. We should have prima facie evidence requirements so that we do not repeat the Symeou experience of somebody spending a year in a foreign prison before eventually being proven innocent. Finally, we should introduce a filter for cases that are acceptable using dual criminality, seriousness and timeliness, so that justice does not become so heavy handed that it tips over into being injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I can feel a fascinating and wholly irrelevant debate coming upon us, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Blunkett]

rose—

[Damian Green]

This will be the last intervention on mediaeval history.

[Mr Blunkett]

I just want to make the obvious point that what matters is not when habeas corpus was agreed in principle but whether people can implement it.

[Damian Green]

In his known wisdom, the right hon. Gentleman brings me back to the modern era.

When we entered office last year, we recognised that there were long-standing and deeply held concerns about the UK’s extradition arrangements with other EU member states and about our extradition treaty with the United States. That is why in the coalition’s programme for government we made a clear commitment to review the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 and the US-UK extradition treaty to ensure that they were even- handed. That was why the Home Secretary announced an independent review to be chaired by Sir Scott Baker and assisted by two lawyers—an important point given some of the criticisms of the Baker commission—who between them had extensive experience of extradition from prosecution and defence perspectives.

As I made clear during the debate in Westminster Hall, that panel undertook an extensive examination of the issues and carefully examined evidence from a range of parties representing all shades of opinion. Contrary to suggestions by some, the panel assessed representations from those who had experienced extradition first hand and the evidence of their families. It has also been suggested that the panel did not take evidence from solicitors representing the subjects of extradition requests. In fact, one of the panel members was himself an experienced legal representative of those subject to extradition proceedings and brought first-hand insight into the realities of extradition from the UK.

As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said, the review has evidently reached controversial conclusions, but I hope that we would all acknowledge that it is a serious piece of work, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). I have been interested to hear the further points made this evening, and I am happy to assure the House that these opinions will be given the most careful scrutiny before we publish what action we propose to take in response to the review. There is a significant body of opinion from all sides that we need to assess seriously before reaching a decision.

Members on both sides of the House asked that we deal with individual cases of particular concern to them. I am, of course, happy to do that. Let me first summarise what I said about Babar Ahmad’s case. He was arrested for extradition purposes in August 2004, and in June 2007 he exhausted all the available domestic avenues for contesting the request for his extradition. He then applied to the European Court of Human Rights. On 12 June 2007, the Court imposed a stay on his extradition and on 8 July 2010 declared his case partially admissible. His case remains under consideration by the Court. The allegations against him in the United States relate to alleged conduct that took place while he was in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, an e-petition on behalf of Mr Ahmad calling for him to be put on trial in the UK has attracted more than 140,000 signatures.

Of course, the Government recognise the concern of those petitioners but it is not for the Government to decide if and when someone should be prosecuted in the United Kingdom.