Immigration Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have already been very generous in taking interventions.

Part 2 is about appeals. The appeals system is complex and costly. Seventeen different immigration decisions attract rights of appeal, and when a case finally comes to a close some applicants put in fresh applications and start all over again. That is not fair to the public, who expect swift enforcement of immigration decisions. The Bill sorts out the mess. In future, the 17 rights of appeal will be reduced to four. Foreign criminals will not be able to prevent deportation simply by dragging out the appeals process, as many such appeals will be heard only once the criminal is back in their home country. It cannot be right that criminals who should be deported can remain here and build up a further claim to a settled life in the United Kingdom.

As well as reducing the number of appeals, we propose to simplify the process. An appeal to an immigration judge is a very costly and time-consuming way of correcting simple casework errors that could be resolved by a request to the Home Office to review the decision. This is what we already do overseas for millions of visa applicants. Applicants will be able to contact the Home Office and ask for a simple administrative review to remedy such errors. That can resolve errors in decisions cheaply and quickly, within 28 days, and it is substantially quicker than the average 12 weeks that it currently takes to appeal via the tribunal with all the costs that that incurs. The Bill creates an effective and efficient appeals system that will ensure that the process cannot be abused or manipulated to delay the removal of those who have no basis for remaining in the UK, but it still provides an opportunity to challenge a decision where fundamental rights are concerned. The public are fed up with cases where foreign criminals are allowed to stay because of an overly generous interpretation by the courts of article 8—the right to respect for family and private life. Under the current system, the winners are foreign criminals and immigration lawyers and the losers are the victims of these crimes and the law-abiding public.

The Government first sought to address this issue in July 2012 by changing the immigration rules with the intention of shifting the weight the courts give to the public interest. This House debated and approved the new rules, which set out the factors in favour of deportation and the factors against it. The courts accept that the new rules provide a complete code for considering article 8 where we are deporting foreign criminals. However, some judges have still chosen to ignore the will of Parliament and go on putting the law on the side of foreign criminals instead of the public. I am sending a very clear message to those judges: Parliament wants a law on the people’s side, the public want a law on the people’s side, and this Government will put the law on the people’s side once and for all. This Bill will require the courts to put the public interest at the heart of their decisions.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given that the figures show that first-instance decision making is very poor in this regard, with 42% of family visit visas and 51% of entry clearance applications successfully appealed last year, does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be better to focus on getting the system right than on eroding appeal rights against immigration decisions?

[Mrs May]

We are going to put in place a system that enables people to have appeal rights in relation to fundamental rights, but we will also put in place an administrative process that enables decisions to be looked at in case administrative errors have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Doctors have concerns about whether the proposals are workable in practice—the practical bureaucracy attached to the proposals—and the implications for public health. We think it is sensible to have better co-ordination between hospitals on, for example, cost recovery through the E111 system, but for any proposals it is important that the Government listen to GPs’ concerns.

[Caroline Lucas]

Building on the right hon. Lady’s point, does she agree that it is not only inhumane for doctors not to treat people with serious illnesses, but counter-productive? If somebody is here with a communicable illness, it is counter-productive for doctors not to treat them. This is just a nasty policy and a case of blaming foreigners to distract from the Government’s £20 billion of cuts to the NHS and the cost of reorganisation.

[Yvette Cooper]

This is a matter on which the Government still need to answer questions and they are confused about what they are proposing. The Bill contains limited measures, but they also seem to be setting out other measures that are not in it.

The measures on landlords take up 16 clauses—a quarter of the Bill. This, it appears, is the Government’s flagship policy on tackling illegal immigration. The only trouble is that we have no idea how it is supposed to work. There are more than 400 European identity documents, and the Government have not explained whether private landlords are supposed to know which one is which. There are countless different documents to show that people are entitled to be here. Will private landlords have to know each one? On some figures, nearly one in five usual residents, including British citizens, do not have passports. What will they have to do to rent a flat? When the Home Secretary was asked two weeks ago about how this policy would be implemented, all she could say was:

“There’s a lot of confusion.”

That is right, and the Home Secretary has done nothing today to clear that confusion up.

All these policies on driving licences, tenancy agreements and bank accounts will, according to the Home Secretary, tackle illegal immigration. How much difference will they actually make in practice, even where the policy is sensible enough in principle? One does not need a British driving licence to drive in Britain and one does not need a British bank account to take cash out of a cash machine or to earn some cash on the side. What difference will the measures make to the growing number of people who are here illegally because they are less likely to be stopped at the border and less likely to be sent back home? Deportations are down by 7%. The number of people stopped at the border and turned away has halved since the election. The number of illegal immigrants absconding through Heathrow has trebled, and the number caught afterwards has halved. Six hundred and fifty thousand potential smuggling warnings were deleted by the Home Office without even being read, and 150,000 reports of potential bogus students were never followed up.

There is still no answer from the Home Secretary about how many people came in without proper checks as a result of her bordersgate experiment. We get the same response from the Home Secretary each time: to blame the civil servants, to blame the landlords, to blame all migrants, to blame the technology and to blame the Labour Government. Her latest response is to blame the Minister for Immigration.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

It is helpful to know that. However, time is pressing, so I shall move on to amendment 76. The Minister spent a fair amount of time discussing the amendment and the issues that he considered arose from it. It would exempt all proceedings of the ISC from civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings¸ which would protect members of the Committee, staff of the Committee, and evidence held by the Committee. In that respect, it extends the protections that the Government inserted in the Bill in Committee, which have now been refined in their amendments 61 and 62.

Before I go into the details of the difference between amendment 76 and the Government amendments, I should establish why these protections are important. They are important because we want witnesses to be able to give full and frank evidence to the Committee, and we want the Committee to be able to receive evidence in confidence. It may be helpful to compare the provisions governing the ISC to the provisions governing Select Committees. Evidence given to Select Committees, whether written or oral, is subject to parliamentary privilege, which means that the evidence cannot be used in any court proceedings against the witness or anyone else.

This is a central tenet of our democracy and allows witnesses to give the frankest possible answers without fear of reprisals. Witnesses giving evidence to the ISC are likely to be particularly mindful of the legal obligations on them. Evidence is likely to be covered by the Official Secrets Act and, technically, an offence would be committed every time a witness exceeded the explicit permission they had been given, which could be frequent.

This may not be the only restriction on a witness’s ability to give evidence. Restrictions are likely to be contained within the witness’s employment contract and the civil service code. Such restrictions have the potential to pose two problems to the ISC. First, they could slow down or prohibit witnesses where there is no genuine need for them not to be able to divulge evidence but it is not clear they have the legal authority. Secondly, they could prevent the Committee from taking evidence from whistleblowers. In recognition of these difficulties, in Committee the Government tabled amendments introducing statutory protection for witnesses, exempting evidence they provided to the Committee from civil, disciplinary or criminal proceedings. Amendments 61 and 62 refine that. They maintain the complete exemption from civil or disciplinary proceedings, but limit the exemption in criminal proceedings to action taken against the witness.

The Opposition welcomed the introduction of these protections and accept the refinements made today, but it is important that the House realises that these protections fall far short of those enjoyed by Select Committees and leave many unanswered questions. It is also important to realise that because these are statutory protections and not privilege, it would be possible for the Government or an agency to obtain an injunction preventing a witness from appearing before the Committee.

As I have stated, parliamentary privilege covers all the proceedings of a Select Committee, and it is important to realise what that means in practice. It means the evidence presented to a Select Committee is covered by privilege. That is not any document submitted to the Committee, but documents accepted by the Committee as evidence. Privilege also covers all proceedings of the Committee, including advice given by the Clerks to members of the Committee and actions of members while serving on the Committee.

I highlight these areas because it is not at all clear to me what alternative protections are given to the ISC in such situations. I would like to ask the Minister about a hypothetical situation where the ISC receives classified information relating to serious wrongdoing on the part of an element of the security agencies. Let us say, for example, the ISC were anonymously to receive Secret Intelligence Service transcripts indicating an agent had committed torture. I am not saying this has ever happened; I just want the Minister to say what would happen if it were the case.

It is questionable whether the ISC would be able to act on the evidence it received. That would depend on the provisions in clause 2. These documents may be directly related to an investigation the ISC was already undertaking, but that is not the question I want to focus on here: I am asking whether the ISC is even in a position to accept these documents.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Would the effect of amendment 76 be that if, for example, the ISC uncovered evidence of collusion in torture, that evidence could not be used in a court case?

[Diana Johnson]

I have tabled this amendment because I am not satisfied that the provisions the Government have proposed so far offer the type of protection that this Committee needs. I heard what the Minister said, and his response seemed to be that the amendment was drafted too broadly. I do not have the back-up of learned counsel in drafting amendments, and I want the Minister to explain what kind of protections are available and what their effect would be in the circumstances I have described.

It is questionable whether the ISC would be able to act on evidence it received. I hope the Minister will address that point and explain the impact of the clause 2 provisions. The documents might relate to an ISC investigation, which might be relevant to whether it would be possible to put the documents forward and examine them.

ISC staff members will be signatories to the Official Secrets Act. It is my understanding that parliamentary Clerks would be protected as soon as the document was taken into evidence, but no such protection is available to the ISC Clerk. Is that correct? If a staff member who received documents decided to pass them on to the Chair of the ISC, will the Minister confirm that they would be doing that without lawful authority and would therefore be in breach of the Official Secrets Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I shall be brief. On amendment 73, in the light of the undertaking given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the publication issues will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding, I am say on behalf of colleagues that we do not propose to press that amendment.

On the question of taking evidence on oath, I think I speak for colleagues on the Committee in saying that we are entirely happy with what the Government propose. On the use of the word “voluntary”, I can only re-emphasise what has been said by many other colleagues. The Minister endeavoured to explain to the House why this applies only to that part of our duties that relate to operational matters. All I can say to him and to the Government is that we will be spending an awful lot of our time trying to fend off critics who, wilfully or otherwise, choose to interpret the presence of the word “voluntarily” on the face of the Bill as implying that we do not have the ability to force the agencies to comply with our requests, when in most cases we do. There must be a simpler and less emotive term that can be used to express the same purpose, without leaving us open to such unjustified criticism.

On the question of privilege, I am still concerned, as are the Opposition, that sufficient measures have not been taken to empower the Committee and protect the Committee to anything like the same extent. For example, when the Committee discusses people’s possible involvement in serious criminal activity, could we end up in a situation in which some of our proceedings that involve statements —not from witnesses, but from Committee members—that in the ordinary course of events might be regarded as defamatory may result in court proceedings being taken against members in a way that would not be possible with members of a Select Committee in analogous circumstances? If we could end up in such a situation, the Government need to consider that problem very seriously indeed and do something about it at a later stage. I hope that the Minister will refer to that in his closing remarks.

On the question of pre-appointment hearings, I do not believe that the Committee has taken a corporate view as such, but one point must be made, and made strongly: this would add to the work load of the Committee’s staff. The Committee, as has been made crystal clear today, is already grotesquely understaffed by comparison with comparable committees and organisations in this country and in Europe. Therefore, were we to take on that further burden, we would definitely need better proposals for resourcing it than those that are currently ready.

The Opposition are quite right to resist amendment 71, because individual complaints against the agencies, such as that involving Binyam Mohamed, are not the responsibility of the ISC; they fall within the statutory remit of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. That is the correct body to deal with such matters.

Finally, on the question of the Osmotherly rules, I am glad that the matter will be dealt with one way or another. We would prefer it to be set out in the Bill, but otherwise in the memorandum of understanding, because the ISC frequently needs access to the papers of a previous Administration, for example, or has to deal with matters that are sub judice, and we cannot row backwards from that situation. Subject to those comments, we are very pleased with the progress the Bill has made thus far.

[Caroline Lucas]

Amendment 71 seeks to provide some form of recourse for people who have been defamed by the UK security services and to ensure that part of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit is to investigate such claims and, where necessary, ensure that they are corrected. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said about this not necessarily being the right forum. I am happy to be advised on that, but right now it feels that there is no appropriate forum. The situation of Shaker Aamer, for example, which I will set out in more detail shortly, demonstrates that. If the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me on how we can make existing forums work more effectively, for example in this case, I would be very interested to hear what he has to say.

The ability of the security services effectively to say what they like about anyone, often resulting in serious consequences for the individual concerned, is at present largely unchecked. As John Cooper QC said in a legal opinion on precisely that issue, the security services are “presently allowed to literally say what they will to achieve their own ends, whether or not those ends are legal, democratic or in accordance with the rule of law. In addition to this, those who indulge in these activities are completely unaccountable to the citizen, to the Government, and even to a quasi-regulator or body charged with their oversight, such as the ISC. What is more, the victims of such defamation are likely to be the most vulnerable individuals, most likely detained under the most restrictive of circumstances. In essence, they are prisoners defamed by their controllers and captors. That is neither right, nor acceptable.”

I want to give a real-life example to help illustrate why I believe that this is so important. British resident Shaker Aamer, whose wife and children are British citizens and live in south London, has been held in Guantanamo for more than 11 years, despite having been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama Administrations. The Foreign Secretary has raised the case with the US on several occasions, and the Foreign Office has made it clear that

“The government remains committed to securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK.”

Given that the US has cleared him for release, a complicated process including multiple federal agencies, and the UK Government have made it clear that they want him to come home, one cannot help asking why Mr Aamer remains detained in Guantanamo, never having been charged or tried for any crimes. The conclusion that his US lawyer has reached is that Britain’s intelligence agencies have been defaming Mr Aamer to the US, passing on false information and accusing him of extremism, and that is what is holding up his release.

Mr Aamer is being deprived of his liberty on the basis of lies being told about him that he is unable to challenge. He has therefore begun defamation action against the security services—action that could be pushed into a secret court under part 2 of the Bill, leaving him once again unable to confront his accusers or to challenge the evidence used by the Government against him. I would argue that, at the very least, it is important that a duty be placed on the Intelligence and Security Committee fully to investigate such claims. That would not be a solution in itself, but it could provide some small measure of recourse for those such as Mr Aamer who find themselves in the gravest of positions as a result of information passed behind their back.

I will be very happy to hear if there are other ways of addressing this problem, but right now the advice that I am receiving from some of the legal people involved in the case is that they are not aware of any measure that would do so.

[Mr George Howarth]

Perhaps some of my right hon. Friends will explain to the hon. Lady the powers that exist to deal with such cases, and deal with them shortly, one hopes. Does she think it would be right for a Committee of Parliament to act in a quasi-judicial or even wholly judicial role, which would be the effect of her amendment?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am not convinced that the Committee would be acting in a quasi-judicial role; I would share the right hon. Gentleman’s reservations were that to be so. I am honestly searching for a solution to the problem, and perhaps this is not the right one. However, I want to put on record the real concern that exists about the situation that Shaker Aamer finds himself in. If nothing else, I hope that if this is not the right route to take, Government Members will direct me towards the appropriate measures, because this case has been going on for very many years.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I wish to be helpful to the hon. Lady, and I think that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the body that she has in mind. All these tribunals, including those for communications issues and for complaints such as this one, are headed up by senior judges. I think she would find that they are a much more appropriate route. However, it is obviously very interesting to hear what she has to say about these worrying cases.

[Caroline Lucas]

In the interests of time, I will leave the matter there and pursue it via other avenues. I am grateful for the opportunity to have aired this really important case.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am entirely sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has said about that case. However, a statutory avenue is already available under the Regulation and Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which set up the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Further to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), a fellow member of the Committee, one might not be able to describe the proposed power that she wishes to provide as quasi-judicial, but it might possess a hybrid relationship in being both investigative and judicial, or in a position of seeking to create redress.

Apart from that, there is a fundamental statutory point. The hon. Lady’s proposed subsection (4A) refers to a situation in which

“a plausible claim has been made by or on behalf of an individual to the ISC that the Security Service…has disseminated any information to any recipient concerning any person that appears to be…materially false; and…harmful to the person defamed.”

The breadth of that goes far beyond even the jurisdiction of any court in the United Kingdom of which I am aware. Proposed subsection (4B) says that

“the ISC shall fully and expeditiously investigate the claim”—

so it does involve an investigative function—

“and, where the claim appears to be well founded, shall ensure that the misinformation is expeditiously corrected.”

But by what means? The ISC is not in a position to implement any such action. The amendment is not legally well-founded. In any event, as has been pointed out, its scope goes far beyond anything that the Committee’s staff and resources would permit. Moreover, there is no indication of how the powers would be exercised or how they could ever be implemented.

[James Brokenshire]

This has been a useful debate underlining the importance the House attaches to the scrutiny provided by the ISC and how it is being enhanced by the steps contemplated as a consequence of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, made the point about the scrutiny so far seen in the House and how we are seeking to strengthen it further.

I shall respond first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and her amendment 71. As others have said, the essentially judicial function she seeks does not sit well within the ISC, which is intended to be a Committee of Parliament. It is not for the ISC to consider, much less determine, individual complaints about the intelligence services, especially given that there is already a body that can consider these matters and which we believe is well equipped to do so. Right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted the work of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is the appropriate route through which complaints should be made.

The hon. Lady referred to the case of Shaker Aamer. I assure her that his case remains a high priority for the UK Government and we continue to make it clear to the US that we want him released and returned to the UK as a matter of priority. We continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications for Mr Aamer’s case of the 2013 National Defence Authorisation Act. Discussions continue with senior officials within the US Administration. The Foreign Secretary raised Mr Aamer’s case numerous times with former Secretary of State Clinton and will continue to do so with Secretary of State Kerry. As the Foreign Secretary told Parliament last October, he and the Defence Secretary also made representations to the US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta last June.

[Caroline Lucas]

I appreciate the Minister’s rehearsing the Government’s commitment to getting Shaker Aamer back from Guantanamo. I have no doubt about that, but does he understand what the obstacle is? The US says he can come back here and the UK Government say we want him back. What, then, is the obstacle? Does he have any idea?

[James Brokenshire]

I can only say that decisions about the release of Mr Aamer rest entirely with the US Government. I underline that the British Government remain committed to engaging with the US with the aim of securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK as soon as possible. To conclude my remarks on the hon. Lady’s amendment, let me say that we believe there is an appropriate mechanism by which she or others can bring complaints to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

On amendment 74 and pre-appointment hearings, I do not wish to go back over the lengthy debate we had in Committee on this issue. I can only restate several points I made then: pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon in the UK; the Cabinet Office has published guidance on the process to be followed for such hearings; and at the moment the list of posts subject to those hearings relates to public bodies, such as the chair of Ofcom or the Social Security Advisory Committee. The pre-appointment process has never been used for the appointment of civil servants. The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are permanent secretary-level civil servants, so the recruitment process is expected to follow the process for the appointment of civil servants of such seniority. We judge that this continues to be the appropriate mechanism.

On the Osmotherly rules, I made the point in Committee that the powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used sparingly and that we expect them to continue to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Osmotherly rules set out categories of information, including information on officials’ personal views, as distinct from the views of Ministers, on policy options; information that could be supplied only after carrying out substantial research or at excessive cost; information about matters that are sub judice; and the papers of a previous Administration. The provisions in the Bill are necessary to safeguard the long-standing conventions that are reflected in the Osmotherly rules. We judge that the provisions, although they have been used only sparingly, remain appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

Good local authorities work with good local landlords. As I have said, we will ensure that the correct cases go through. We want to ensure the integrity of the system, and those people who need to take cases to review will be able to do so. We are on the side of disabled people and we will ensure that their views are heard.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on measures to end violence against women and girls.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

There have been a number of recent discussions involving ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education on issues relating to ending violence against women and girls. These include a round-table with police and crime commissioners and the Local Government Association on local commissioning, and a round-table last month on ending female genital mutilation.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister for Women and Equalities has already welcomed the fact that 1 billion women are rising today, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the campaign wants the Government to do a lot more? Will he ensure that he works with the Education Secretary to make the prevention of violence against women and girls an integral part of education policy that is delivered in every school as part of the statutory curriculum, and will Ministers vote yes in today’s important debate?

[Mr Browne]

We welcome the campaign and the opportunity for the House to debate these issues at greater length later today. Schools are, of course, free to teach about issues such as sexual consent within personal, social and health education or in other lessons, and children can benefit enormously from high-quality education that helps them to make safe and informed decisions and choices. The DFE has conducted a review of PSHE and will publish its outcomes later this year.

Violence against Women and Girls

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I pay tribute to the leadership shown on this subject by the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We have heard compelling speeches from Members on both sides of the House and I was particularly struck by those from the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). Notwithstanding that, I share the disappointment that has been expressed about the lack of vigour from those who sit on the Government Front Bench, in particular. When I asked the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), this morning about the importance of statutory education in PSHE and violence against women and girls, I was told that it is voluntary and that schools can offer it if they want to. Everything we have heard in the debate this afternoon suggests that that is not enough.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a problem that PSHE is not part of the curriculum in academies and free schools? As we have all agreed during the debate, the problem goes across society.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree. I also agree with those who said we need a whole-school approach. Yes, PSHE is vital but such education should also be mainstreamed across all other parts of the education system.

The figures, tragically, are all too familiar. In Britain, 60,000 women are raped every year and two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. That culture of violence is doing enormous damage to our young people. As the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, NSPCC research found that so-called sexting is linked to coercive behaviour, bullying and violence and has a disproportionate impact on girls. A YouGov poll for the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that more than 70% of 16 to 18-year-old boys and girls said that they heard sexual name calling towards girls routinely and, even more disturbingly, one in three girls said that they experienced groping or other unwanted sexual touching at school.

In a report published last year entitled “I thought I was the only one,” the office of the Children’s Commissioner found that in the space of just 12 months more than 16,000 children, mostly girls, were identified as being at risk of sexual exploitation. The report highlights that we need to ask why so many males, both young and old, think it is acceptable to treat both girls and boys as objects to be used and abused. That brings me to my key point: violence does not happen in a vacuum. We must recognise the impact of the wider culture, so I want to focus on just one aspect of that—the objectification of women in the media, whether it is in the newspapers, music videos, adverts and video games.

Women have been served up as sex objects in some of our daily newspapers for many years. They show images that would be prohibited on television or subject to the watershed, yet they are sold entirely without age restriction in shops, often at a child’s eye level. As the mother of two sons, there are shops I would prefer not to go into because of the eye-level material that they will see and have seen and because of the effect on them.

Every week we read in the papers cases of women who are killed by their partner or former partner. Every one of these cases should cause an outcry, but rarely warrants a paragraph because it is tragically becoming so routine. The problem was highlighted last year by women’s groups who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and later published a report called “Just the Women”. This examined how domestic homicide cases are reported as “tragic” one-off incidents, rather than as part of a well-understood pattern of behaviour. Rape cases in some papers are routinely placed next to pictures of half-naked women. Cases of forced marriage or so-called honour-based violence, a horrible misnomer, are explained in terms of culture or religion—anything but violence against women and girls. Lord Leveson himself suggested that a front-page report in The Sun headed “Bodyguards for battered Towie sisters” about violence against two women from “The Only Way is Essex”, which was accompanied by a picture of one of the women in an erotic pose in lingerie, may well infringe clause 12—the discrimination clause—of the editors code of practice.

No one is suggesting that the media are solely to blame for these attitudes, but their objectification of women and the treatment by some newspapers, for example, of rape cases go some considerable way towards explaining why prejudicial attitudes to women are so deeply entrenched and are so normalised. The chief Crown prosecutor for London, Alison Saunders, has expressed concern about the impact that the treatment of women in the media has on rape cases and jurors’ decision making. She believes that jurors are coming to court with preconceptions about women that affect the way they consider evidence and she says:

“If a girl goes out and gets drunk and falls over . . . they are almost demonised in the media, and if they then become a victim, you can see how juries would bring their preconceptions to bear.”

Fortunately, much needed work is being done with detectives and prosecutors, for example, to dispel myths and stereotypes about women who have been raped or subjected to sexual and others forms of violence, but Alison Saunders asks whether there is

“something more we should be doing”

so that people doing jury service are not being challenged for the first time, and the subject is not one that they are thinking about for the first time.

The answer to that question is, of course, yes. That is why our schools should be taking a lead. Work to prevent violence against women and girls must be an integral part of education policy, delivered in every school as part of the statutory curriculum. It is astonishing that in 2010 40% of 16 to 18-year-olds said either that they did not receive lessons or information on sexual consent, or that they did not know whether they did. Although PSHE education must now teach about consent, it needs to go further and cover all forms of violence against women, including teenage relationship abuse, forced marriage, FGM and sexual exploitation. It should also be linked to work on gender equality and challenging gender stereotypes; otherwise young women and men will never be exposed to education designed to reduce gender violence and to counter the damaging impact of cultural factors, such as the media.

The 1 billion women rising today want a world that empowers young people, rather than represses their sexuality, so work in our schools must allow young people to be more in control of their sexual identity, rather than being dictated to by the media or advertising. Crucially, it must address harmful notions of masculinity and present boys with positive alternatives. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Deputy Children’s Commissioner have both spoken out about the impact of pornography on young men’s sexually aggressive behaviour, and there is evidence of the negative impact of porn on young men’s attitudes to women.

In my constituency, the domestic abuse charity Rise is an excellent example of existing good practice. It delivers a PSHE preventive education programme on healthy relationships to schools across the city. Our schools also subscribe to the whole-school approach recommended by the End Violence Against Women coalition, where heads take a lead, teachers are trained on the issues, and all students receive comprehensive sex and relationship education which deals with consent, equality and respect. If we are serious about preventing gender violence, those messages need to be reflected not just in our schools but across society as a whole.

Extradition

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We will seek to consider with the Commission and other member states the issues that have arisen in relation to the operation of the European arrest warrant. This view is not held solely by the United Kingdom. Across a number of member states, there are concerns about the way in which the EAW has been operating, and we shall be working on that matter as part of our consideration of closed measures that we may choose to opt back into, or wish to opt back into, in relation to the 2014 justice and home affairs powers. However, I have certainly heard the point that my hon. Friend makes.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I too warmly welcome the decisions on Gary McKinnon and the forum bar, and only wish that they had been made sooner. Why, if the Home Secretary accepts that the law needs to change, did she sanction the extraditions of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan? Surely they should also be benefiting from a fair extradition process. They were extradited on 5 October, and it will be a year at least before they even come to trial. They are British citizens accused of committing crimes here in Britain, and they should be tried in Britain, not in the United States.

[Mrs May]

I consider that the process that Abu Hamza and the other four individuals went through was fair. Where it was relevant, consideration would have been given to the issue of prosecution in the UK and the decision taken that that was not appropriate.

Alcohol Strategy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right. We were promised, under Labour’s Licensing Act, a European-style café culture. Nothing could be further from the truth in many of our town centres on a Friday and a Saturday night, and law-abiding citizens are suffering as a result. We are looking at ensuring—in some of the legislation that we have already passed, such as the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, we are ensuring it—that it is easier for local authorities to clamp down on those outlets that are selling alcohol particularly to children. The fine has been increased. We are also making it easier to revoke licences where people are persistently caught selling alcohol to children.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

A minimum price for alcohol is something that I have campaigned on, and I am delighted that, on this issue at least, the Government are listening to the health professionals, who warn that we are losing nearly £3 billion a year on alcohol-related disease. Without pre-judging the outcome of the consultation, will the Home Secretary acknowledge that the university of Sheffield suggests that a unit price of 50p is more effective? Why has her strategy not included the really important issue of alcohol advertising?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the support that the hon. Lady is giving to the thrust of the alcohol strategy. We have based the assumptions that are in the strategy on a minimum unit price of 40p. I am aware that there are those out there who say that it should be higher. We will be consulting, and obviously we will look at the results of that consultation when we make a final decision on the unit price.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is of course right. That must be a point of principle, even when serious allegations have been laid.

The proposed change in the law might not even necessitate amendment of the treaty. Nevertheless, given its disproportionate value to our American friends, it is inconceivable that they would refuse if pressed to change the treaty. I also note that in the US’s extradition treaties with Brazil, Mexico and Australia, to name a few, those countries retain the right to decline extradition in those and far wider circumstances as it affects their nationals. Is it so unreasonable for Britain, a stalwart ally, to ask for that rather modest adjustment?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

With regard to an earlier intervention, it might be helpful to the House if I explained that the legal advice I have received—I know that there is plenty of legal advice on all sides—indicates that if it can be demonstrated that there were original flaws in the Babar Ahmad case, as I believe it can, the outcome of the vote could be particularly relevant to that case.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for shedding light on some of the legal advice on that.

In my view, the regime in place under the European arrest warrant suffers from far more serious and widespread flaws than the UK-US arrangements, despite the important concerns that have been raised in that regard. If we consider the appalling treatment of Andrew Symeou, we will see the egregious nature of the flaws in the system. Greek police beat identical statements out of witnesses, which were later retracted, and Andrew spent practically a year in appalling prison conditions. He was left with a flea-ridden blanket in a baking-hot cell crawling with cockroaches and was abused by guards. He witnessed a prisoner being beaten to death for drug money. The trial proceeded at a crawl, with translators who spoke little English. Eventually he was cleared after a two-year ordeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on his role in securing this important debate.

The motion calls on the Government to introduce

“as a matter of urgency”

a Bill to enact the safeguards recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report. The motion calls for urgent legislation rather than simply legislation because a number of British citizens face the risk of extradition at any moment—this is an urgent issue. Babar Ahmad’s father started a grass-roots e-petition with no formal organisation and no big newspaper backing, but none the less it garnered more than 140,000 signatures.

People signed the petition because they were horrified by the plight of Babar Ahmad, a British citizen who was detained in the UK for more than seven years without charge or trial. He faces extradition to the US with the prospect of solitary confinement for life in super-max conditions, which arguably amount to torture. Babar is not alone in his ordeal. The poet, Talha Ahsan, another UK citizen, is also being held—his case is related to Babar’s—without charge or trial under our shocking extradition arrangements. He is entering his sixth year of imprisonment.

Of course, such asymmetric extradition arrangements do not apply only in terrorism cases, and I put on record my deep concern about the Gary McKinnon case, but I want to focus on the case of Babar Ahmad. I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of the families of Babar and Talha in fighting for justice for their sons, and to their MP, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who has worked to support them since their ordeal began.

I have long lobbied for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. As we approach its 10th anniversary, the cases of Talha and Babar remind us that one of the most fearful things about Guantanamo Bay—people being held without charge or trial—is happening on UK soil, right now, at the behest of the US.

In a debate in Westminster Hall last month, Members heard of the appalling circumstances of Babar Ahmad’s arrest in 2003 and the fact that he sustained at least 73 injuries for which he was awarded £60,000 compensation by the High Court in 2009. He is now in his eighth year at a top-security prison without charge. The allegations against him are serious. The US has alleged that Babar was running a website that solicited funds for terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda and Chechen rebels. That is a grave accusation and there should of course be a trial. Indeed Babar and his family desperately want the case to come to trial so that they can clear his name. They want it to take place in the UK and not in the US partly because Babar is a British citizen and is accused of committing crimes in the UK.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking up this case and on what she is saying. Does she agree that if Babar Ahmad were to face trial in this country, it is likely that the case would collapse because of the way he has been treated, the conditions under which he has been held and the nature of the accusations that have been made against him throughout?

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was explaining that Babar wants to stand trial here partly because he is a British citizen and partly because going to the US would separate him from his family, friends, and legal representatives, which would seriously undermine his ability to mount a strong defence.

Interestingly, I have seen extracts from the European Court interim decision on the cases of Babar and Talha. In paragraph 175, it is clear that the European Court has had from the UK Government an acknowledgement that they could be tried here, which runs counter to what is generally asserted. Moreover, Babar’s lawyers also point out that other comparable prosecutions are proceeding in the UK. Nevertheless, in July 2004 and December 2006, the CPS and the Attorney-General declared that there was insufficient evident to charge Babar Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law and that he should therefore be extradited.

If it is agreed today that there should be a Bill and a new approach, it would be even more essential for there to be new prosecutorial decisions in these very disturbing cases. In Babar Ahmad’s case, it is my understanding that his lawyers are requesting a new prosecutorial decision on the basis that there has not been a proper one to date. That should mean that the changes that we are calling for today need not be retrospective but, rather, current in relation to these new prosecutorial decisions. Those decisions are needed because of these very disturbing cases in which it is clear that things have gone wrong.

The night before the debate on extradition in Westminster Hall, there was a shocking turn of events. Babar’s lawyers received a letter from the CPS that admitted for the first time that it was never given the evidence that was sent to the US, apart from a few documents. The bulk of the evidence was shipped straight to the US by the police. Astoundingly, although we had previously been led to believe that the CPS had viewed all the evidence and judged it insufficient to bring the case to trial in the UK, we now have a confession that it had not even seen all the evidence let alone investigated it properly. Quite simply, a proper decision has not been made on whether a prosecution can go ahead in the UK. That is shocking and it raises serious questions about why evidence that should have been given to the CPS was not and why Babar was not told about it. Who directed and authorised that circumvention of the CPS, apparently in deference to and at the behest of the US? Given the seriousness of what the CPS has told Babar Ahmad’s lawyers, we need not just new prosecutorial decisions but a full public inquiry into what has gone on in this case.

The second major failure of prosecutors relates to human rights. Decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute here should not be relinquished so easily in favour of the US. There are grave human rights implications that have not been properly taken into account. In these cases over whether and where to prosecute and whether to extradite, it is incredibly important for us to understand that the police, the CPS, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Attorney-General’s office are all bound to consider the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to every one of their decisions. That means that it is extremely relevant that concern has already been expressed, both by the courts here and now by the European Court, that the human rights issues that lie at the heart of the ongoing consideration in Strasbourg clearly never even formed part of the CPS’s original decision in Babar’s case and that the evidence was almost immediately conveyed to the US.

That in itself demonstrates that there has been a failure in the fundamental duty of prosecutors, which has not been adequately addressed to date. We cannot and should not tell the CPS who to prosecute, but we can and we should tell it to do its job properly and to insist on it receiving and properly reviewing all the UK evidence.

Let me say a little more about the significance of the current role of the European Court in Babar’s case. The European Court of Human Rights has been wrestling with fundamental issues that relate not just to Babar Ahmad’s case but to many others for the past four years. The final decision is expected imminently. The European Court has been considering two key issues: whether the use of extreme isolation for prisoners in prisons in the US before trial and post-trial amounts to a violation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights—the article prohibiting torture—and whether the length of sentences in the US, in particular the imposition of life imprisonment without parole or of 80 to 100 years, also violates article 3 of the convention. Whether or not the European Court finds for the applicants, in which case the UK cannot extradite them as long as those two potential fates await them, it is shocking that things have come to this. Courts here and the court in Europe have expressed their concern that what faces UK citizens if they are extradited to the US in a number of cases might arguably constitute what the law defines as torture.

These cases raise, in the most fundamental way, a convergence of issues between whether these men should be prosecuted here and the extreme consequence of what would happen to them if they were extradited to the US. Now we have today’s debate. It is a matter of weeks before we hear the result of four years of anxious scrutiny by the European Court of Babar’s case. I ask hon. Members to support the motion that has been tabled today because it is a crucial opportunity for us to send a clear message to say that the extradition laws in this country need to be radically reformed. If we do not do that, we are failing in our most basic duty of protecting British citizens. That is why it is so significant that there has been huge Back-Bench support for this motion, and I hope that it will be demonstrated when it comes to a vote—if it does—later tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I am about to deal with the hon. Lady’s point.

The decision about whether to bring a prosecution is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities, and the Crown Prosecution Service has to date decided not to prosecute Mr Ahmad in the UK.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Damian Green]

If the hon. Lady will hold on a second, I shall deal directly with her point.

The CPS has advised that a small number of documents relating to Mr Ahmad were seized by the Metropolitan police and were submitted to the domestic prosecutor for advice in 2004. The domestic prosecutor was specifically asked to advise on whether any of those documents might disclose offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 with a view to prosecution in the UK. I am advised that, on the material provided, there was insufficient evidence to mount a UK prosecution. However, when the decision was made not to prosecute Mr Ahmad in the UK, prosecutors here were aware of evidence against him in the possession of the US authorities. I understand that that evidence was far more extensive than that which was in the possession of the UK authorities. Although the CPS extradition team was in possession of some of the US material, it amounted only to that which was necessary to seek extradition, and was provided to the CPS for extradition purposes only.

The extradition proceedings in this country have concluded. The case has been heard extensively through all tiers of the UK extradition process, and extradition has been ordered. The UK courts have held that the US authorities have jurisdiction in relation to the offences of which Mr Ahmad is accused and that they are entitled to seek his extradition. The offences are crimes in both countries, thereby satisfying the extradition test of dual criminality. Mr Ahmad is now challenging extradition before the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has asked a number of questions in relation to the case; both sides have submitted observations on these points on several occasions. The extradition review panel highlighted in its report those cases that awaited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights and the amount of time that they had been before that Court. The panel recommended that the matter of the delay be taken up by the Government urgently and that the Court should be encouraged to give priority to those cases where extradition had been stayed. The Government are considering that recommendation, along with others, but the United Kingdom has pressed, and continues to press, for the Court to reach its decision as soon as possible.

Many concerns have been expressed about the length of time for which Mr Ahmad has been detained in custody awaiting the outcome of the extradition request. This has at all times been on the order of the Court, and we continue to press the Court to reach its decision on the case as soon as possible. Where the Court seeks observations or clarifications from the Home Office on the representations in the case, these are provided as soon as possible. We are acutely aware of the time that has passed since the extradition request was first made and of the importance of dealing with the matters raised as quickly as is consistent with fairness to all sides.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister agree to investigate why the CPS acknowledged and admitted that it had not seen all the information only on 23 November, after many, many years in which Babar Ahmad had essentially been in prison? If that information had been available earlier, the process here in the UK could have been much faster.

Extradition

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Let me add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate.

I am grateful to other hon. Members who have made a strong case for the radical reform of the UK’s extradition treaties by citing the powerful case studies of Deborah Dark and Gary McKinnon and far too many others. Like other hon. Members, I want to use the opportunity of today’s debate to raise the case of Babar Ahmad. As other hon. Members have said, Babar Ahmad, a British citizen, has been detained in the UK for seven years without charge or trial. He is fighting extradition to the USA under the Extradition Act 2003, which, incredibly, does not require the presentation of any prima facie evidence.

Babar is not alone in his ordeal. The poet, Talha Ahsan, is another UK citizen who has also been held—his case is related to Babar’s—without charge and without trial under our shocking extradition arrangements. He is now entering his sixth year of imprisonment. I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of Babar and Talha’s families in fighting for justice for their sons. Before I go on, I want to join others in paying tribute to Babar and Talha’s MP, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). He is here today, but, as a member of the shadow Cabinet, he is not permitted to contribute to this Back-Bench debate. As we know, he stands firmly by both Babar and Talha and their families and has done so since their ordeals began.

As hon. Members know, in June this year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights urged the Government to change the law, so that Babar Ahmad’s perpetual threat of extradition was ended without further delay. Since all the allegations against Babar Ahmad are said to have taken place in Britain, Babar’s father has started an e-petition to call on the Government to put him on trial in the UK and support British justice for British citizens. As hon. Members will know, over 140,000 people supported that e-petition and, although today’s debate is welcome, it is not enough.

There are three key reasons why we need a full debate on a votable motion in the main Chamber. First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is no longer in her place. She sits on the Backbench Business Committee, and gave an assurance that it would look again at the possibility of holding a full debate in the main Chamber. That is important because of the level of grass-roots support for the e-petition on Babar Ahmad. The campaign had no formal organisation; there were no big newspapers behind it and it was basically an outflowing of grass-roots outrage that saw the families involved going from door to door in south London, out in the cold and the rain, standing outside supermarkets, churches and mosques, and making videos of each other signing the petition—many of those videos were posted on YouTube. It was an example of democracy in action.

The petition gained astounding support in such a short time because this is a shocking human rights case. People are rightly appalled at the simple but extraordinary fact highlighted in the petition: a British citizen is being held, without charge and without trial, in a maximum security prison, and that has gone on for over seven years. I have long lobbied for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and as we approach the 10th anniversary of its existence, the cases of Babar and Talha remind us that one of the most fearful things about it—people being held without charge and without trial—is happening on UK soil at the behest of the US.

I appreciate that the Backbench Business Committee may find it difficult to devote parliamentary time to every petition that passes the threshold of 100,000 signatures, but this was a genuine grass-roots campaign. If we do not have a full debate in the Commons, we risk alienating the more than 140,000 people who signed the e-petition following efforts by the families involved. Those families want a debate on a votable motion in the main Chamber, as do the campaign’s many supporters. Officially, of course, all parliamentary Chambers are of equal standing, but in the eyes of the general public there is a difference between Westminster Hall and the main Chamber of the House of Commons. Critically, that difference comes down to whether there will be a vote and, quite rightly, Babar Ahmad’s supporters want to see their MPs take a stand on the issue.

Secondly, Babar’s family have been deeply moved that, in the midst of a recession, more people have expressed their concern to Parliament about a British citizen being detained for over seven years without charge or trial, than have shown their anger about rising fuel prices. We will send a negative message to all those who have engaged with the e-petition process if we do not take the matter forward with a debate in the main Chamber.

One of our strongest tools for combating the threat of terrorism is vigorously to protect justice, democracy and human rights. Every time we undermine the values that we purport to protect, with legislation such as the Extradition Act 2003, we run the risk of adding to the sense of alienation that we know is felt by many of our young people. Over 140,000 people have told Parliament that they want MPs to engage more with such issues.

The third reason for having a debate on the Floor of a House and a vote is that we urgently need to change the law. The detention without trial of Babar and Talha undermines our democracy.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Lady be clear about what she wants the vote to be on?

[Caroline Lucas]

I would be happy to take advice from other hon. Members on that, but a vote should consider the design of this country’s extradition treaty, so that it is not imbalanced, as it currently seems to be. I would like such a vote to refer directly to Babar but I understand why others may not. This is a point of general principle, illustrated clearly by the case of Babar Ahmad.

Members have heard the circumstances of Babar Ahmad’s arrest in 2003, and the fact that he sustained at least 73 injuries, all later documented by police and independent doctors. He filed a formal complaint, stating that he had been subjected to horrific physical, sexual and religious abuse by the arresting police officers. In March 2009, the Metropolitan police force finally admitted liability in the royal courts of justice in London and said that it had carried out the assault on Babar Ahmad in December 2003. The then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, admitted that Babar had been the victim of a

“serious, gratuitous and prolonged attack.”

In March 2009, Babar was awarded £60,000 compensation by the High Court. He is now, however, in his eighth year at a top-security prison, even though he has been found to have no case to answer in this country. The US has alleged that Babar was running a website that solicited funds for terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda and Chechen rebels. That is a serious accusation, and there should, of course, be a trial. Babar and his family desperately want the case to stand trial but wish that to take place in the UK, not in the US, so that he can clear his name. That is partly because Babar is a British citizen and accused of having committed crimes in the UK, and partly because going to the US would separate him from his family, friends and legal representatives, and seriously undermine his ability to mount a strong defence.

Babar’s lawyers point out that other comparable prosecutions are proceeding in the UK. Nevertheless, in July 2004 and December 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service declared—as did the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in September 2006—that there was “insufficient evidence” to charge Babar Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law, and that he should be extradited to the US. Last night, in a shocking turn of events, Babar’s lawyers received a letter from the CPS, which admitted for the first time that it was never given the evidence that was sent to the US, apart from “a few documents.” The bulk of the evidence was shipped straight to the US by the police. Astoundingly, although we had previously been led to believe that the CPS had viewed all the evidence and judged it insufficient to bring the case to trial in the UK, we now have a confession that it had not even seen all the evidence, let alone investigated it properly. A proper decision has not been made on whether a prosecution can go ahead in the UK.

After talking to the lawyers involved, I understand that the CPS knew all along that it had not been given all the evidence. However, it let Babar Ahmad languish in a maximum security prison with the threat of extradition to the US, under the false belief that the CPS had seen all the evidence against him. If that is the case, it is appalling and raises serious questions about why evidence that should have been given to the CPS was not produced, and why Babar was not told about it. Who directed and authorised that circumvention of the CPS, apparently in deference to and at the behest of the US?

The issue is simple: either there is evidence or there is not. If there is evidence, a prosecution should go ahead in the UK. The CPS must immediately obtain a copy of all the evidence, which was gathered in the UK by UK authorities, and it must then review that evidence together with its decision on whether to prosecute in the UK. Given the new revelation from the CPS, it seems—appallingly—that UK authorities deferred to the US, thereby subverting the process that should have been followed and denying Babar Ahmad a trial in this country. Because of the seriousness of the case, it is appropriate to call today for a full public inquiry into what has gone on.

On 10 June 2007, the European Court of Human Rights ordered the UK Government to freeze Babar Ahmad’s extradition until it had fully determined his final appeal. The European Court has declared that Babar’s application is partially admissible and now awaits further observations from the UK Government on the life sentence without parole, in solitary confinement in a supermax prison, that Babar faces if extradited to the United States. The final decision is expected before the end of the year.

It is astonishing that the previous Government passed an Act that does not require the presentation of any prima facie evidence by the US when they wish to extradite a UK citizen. That must be changed urgently, and the way to start such a process is by holding a debate in the main Chamber and having a vote as soon as possible.

In addition to enormous public support, this case also has cross-party backing, together with the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, and 100 senior barristers and solicitors who wrote to the Leader of the House this week, requesting that the matter be properly debated in the main Chamber of the House of Commons. Today’s revelations by the CPS make the case for a full debate with a vote even more urgent, and I hope that the Government will look favourably at the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

It is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Leigh. I join everyone else in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on gaining this debate. He and I have fought on the same side in many civil liberties battles over the years and will continue to do so. I thank him for the thoughtful tone of his introduction, which infused the debate and continued up to and including the speech made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on behalf of the Opposition. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) that we will indeed take very seriously the points that have been made in the debate. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in the House last week in respect of the extradition review, the Government are currently considering what action to take on these issues. As he made clear, we welcome these debates and the representations that have been made.

We have seen a number of high-profile extradition cases in recent years. The surrender of a person to another country to face trial is always a challenging and difficult process both for the person concerned and for his or her family. What is vital, and what the Government have said repeatedly in the context of the extradition review, is that we strike the correct balance between seeking redress for victims of crime, while protecting the fundamental rights of suspects brought to justice. That is the underlying principle that lies beneath today’s debate and it is why the debate is so useful. As has been said repeatedly this afternoon, a number of issues linked to our extradition arrangements have been of long-standing concern to Parliament.

Since the Extradition Act 2003 came into force, there have been numerous debates in Committees and on the Floors of both Houses. The issues range from the UK’s extradition arrangements with the United States, the forum bars to extradition and the European arrest warrant and they have all been debated at length. In addition, there have been various public debates and campaigns on specific cases and issues relating to extradition. A lot was said under the previous Government by the then Opposition parties about these issues. On coming into government we recognised that there were long-standing and deeply held concerns that we wanted to address. That is why the coalition’s programme for government document made a clear commitment to

“review the operation of the Extradition Act–and the US/UK extradition treaty–to make sure it is even-handed.”

In September 2010, the Home Secretary announced an independent review of the UK’s extradition arrangements. The review was chaired by Sir Scott Baker, a former Lord Justice of Appeal who presided over the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed. Sir Scott was assisted by two lawyers, David Perry QC and Anand Doobay, who between them have a wealth of experience of extradition from both a prosecutorial and a defence perspective. That independent panel undertook an extensive examination of the issues, including a very thorough and careful consultation process, with a range of parties representing all shades of opinion on the subject.

It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that the conclusions that the panel reached are not attracting universal assent. It has been very interesting to hear the views that have been expressed this afternoon, and I promise the House that those opinions will be given the most careful scrutiny before we reveal to the House the action we propose to take in response to the extradition review.

We have learned this afternoon that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and his commission on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party will publish a report on extradition; I think he said that it will be published as soon as possible. We discovered that the Home Affairs Committee is to publish a report in February. Clearly, the debate is not at an end and there will perhaps be a plethora of further responses, all of which will feed into the Government’s own consideration of the Scott Baker recommendations.

Although I am responding to the general part of today’s debate on extradition, it is important that I refer to some individual cases, not least because the case of Babar Ahmad is cited specifically in the context of today’s debate and, as has been said several times, the shadow Justice Secretary has sat here throughout the debate. He is enforcedly silent because of the rules of the House, but I know that he has been playing a most proper and energetic role defending his constituent’s interests in this case.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said that he did not want this to be a dry lawyer’s debate. I have never been accused of being either dry or a lawyer, but I am afraid that I am forced to go into the legal undergrowth in the Babar Ahmad case, and indeed that of Gary McKinnon.

I will start with the background on Mr Ahmad’s case. He was arrested for extradition purposes in August 2004. His case was dealt with under the Extradition Act 2003. Under the normal scheme of that Act, extradition hearings take place before a district judge at the City of Westminster magistrates court. The court found that there were no bars to Mr Ahmad’s surrender, whether on human rights or any of the other grounds that the court considers. Accordingly, the district judge sent the case to the Home Secretary for a decision under the 2003 Act as to Babar Ahmad’s surrender. As part of that process, it was then open to Mr Ahmad and those acting for him to make representations as to why he should not be surrendered. Following due consideration, it was decided to order surrender. At that point, Mr Ahmad had a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the district judge to send the case to the Home Secretary and the decision of the Home Secretary to order surrender. That appeal took place in July 2006 before the High Court and judgment was given in November that year, when the appeal was dismissed. There followed a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which in June 2007 refused leave. In that way, Mr Ahmad exhausted all the available domestic avenues for contesting the request for his extradition.

Mr Ahmad then applied to the European Court of Human Rights. On 12 June 2007, that Court imposed a stay on his extradition, and on 8 July 2010—three years later—the Court declared his case partially admissible and it remains under consideration by that Court. The e-petition on behalf of Mr Ahmad calls for him to be put on trial in the UK, since the allegations against him in the United States relate to alleged conduct that took place while he was in the United Kingdom. The Government note the concern of petitioners on this issue, but it is not for the Government to decide if and when someone should be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. The decision as to whether to bring a prosecution is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities—

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I will give way shortly; let me finish going through the detail.

To date, the prosecuting authorities have decided not to prosecute Mr Ahmad in the UK and in terms of the extradition request the courts in the United Kingdom have held that authorities in the United States have jurisdiction in relation to the offences of which Mr Ahmad is accused, and that they are entitled to seek his extradition. Mr Ahmad’s case has been exhaustively considered by the UK courts and they have concluded that there are no bars to his extradition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he say whether he believes that the latest information we have—that the CPS apparently did not see all the evidence before it went to the US—changes the analysis that he is putting forward? How will his Department follow up the matter? It seems pretty shocking to me if the CPS has essentially been saying that there is insufficient evidence to try Mr Ahmad in the UK, yet now we discover that it has not even seen all the evidence.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady made an extremely interesting point earlier; when she revealed it a few minutes ago, it was the first I had heard of it. Obviously, all involved will need to look very carefully at the evidence that she is bringing forward.

Mr Ahmad is now challenging extradition before the ECHR. The Court has asked a number of questions in relation to the case and both sides have submitted observations on those points on several occasions. The review panel highlighted in its report cases that awaited a decision by the ECHR and the amount of time that they had been before that Court. It recommended that the matter of the delay is taken up by the Government urgently, and that the Court should be encouraged to give priority to cases where extradition has been stayed. The Government are considering that recommendation along with the others made by the review panel, but the United Kingdom has previously pressed, and will continue to press, for the Court to reach its decision as soon as possible.

Understandably, many concerns have been expressed, both today and over the years, about the length of time that Mr Ahmad has been detained in custody awaiting the outcome of the extradition request. Again, I obviously appreciate the concerns about this issue, but Mr Ahmad has been detained at all times on the order of the court. He may, of course, apply for bail at any time and a decision as to whether to grant any application for bail is also a matter for the court.

As I have said, we continue to press the ECHR to reach its decision on the case as soon as possible, and where the Court seeks observations or clarifications from the Home Office on the representations in the case, they are provided as soon as possible. We are acutely aware of the time that has passed since the extradition request was first made and of the importance of dealing with the matters raised as quickly as is consistent with fairness to all sides.

Concerns have also been raised in respect of the case of Gary McKinnon and I hope that it will be useful if I also update the House on his case. Mr McKinnon’s case is different from Mr Ahmad’s case as it falls to be decided by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will briefly explain the reasons. Mr McKinnon has exhausted all rights of appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 and in his case the ECHR refused an application to impose a stay on his extradition. However, the Home Secretary is under a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to act in a manner that is incompatible with a person’s rights under the European convention on human rights. Therefore, she must consider whether, as a result of events occurring after the extradition proceedings, it would be contrary to the convention for a person to be extradited. The sole remaining issue, therefore, is whether extradition is compatible with Mr McKinnon’s convention rights. The Home Secretary sought the independent advice of the chief medical officer, who has provided the names of two experts she believes are well placed to provide evidence on the relevant medical issues. Those experts have now been instructed to review the various reports that have been submitted in Mr McKinnon’s case. They will prepare a report that will help the Home Secretary to determine whether or not extradition would contravene Mr McKinnon’s convention rights.

The case is taking time to resolve. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the detail, but as Members will appreciate there have been a number of issues relating to the case that have been the subject of lengthy discussions. We hope that the experts will report as soon as possible. However, this is not an easy case and there are a number of issues that will need to be considered in depth. I am conscious of the long and energetic campaign mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and I know that he appreciates the frustrations of all involved at the length of the case.

Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about specific European arrest warrant cases, and although the EAW is dealt with operationally by the Serious Organised Crime Agency and not the Home Office, a number of significant cases have been brought to our attention. The extradition review, although not referring specifically to cases, has dealt with a variety of high-profile issues that the cases have highlighted. I assure Members that we will take those issues, and the circumstances of the individual cases, into account when considering the range of EAW issues, many of which were dealt with in considerable detail by the extradition review panel. In particular, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton about European arrest warrants being issued for trivial offences. I know that other EU member states and, indeed, the European Commission, share that concern with the British Government. As part of the review process, we are considering what action we should take to address the issue. In the meantime, there are ongoing discussions with our Polish counterparts to encourage their prosecutors and courts to consider whether the issuing of an EAW, in the way it has been done in the past, is a proportionate step to take.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said that they supported the concept of the EAW but that it had to be properly implemented, and when the Home Secretary announced the extradition review we recognised that there were serious concerns regarding that. The Baker report looked at that area in considerable detail and made recommendations on proportionality, pre-trial detention and, in certain cases, the possibility of people serving sentences in the UK rather than being extradited. In reaching its conclusions, the extradition review panel took evidence from a wide range of parties, and we will be looking at it very carefully.

Many Members raised issues about UK and US extradition figures, including the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Between 2004 and July 2011, the US made 130 extradition requests to the UK, seven of which have been refused by UK courts, and the UK made 54 requests to the US, none of which has been refused. In the same period, 27 UK citizens were extradited to the US and 18 US citizens to the UK. To clear up a point of confusion, the UK-US treaty covers all types of criminality; it was not agreed simply to ensure that people suspected of terrorist offences could be brought to justice. Indeed, no one has been extradited in either direction for terrorist offences since 2004, because in the case of extraditions to the US, the cases, including Babar Ahmad’s, are being considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, due to the human rights issues they raise.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife made a point about the Home Secretary’s power to take decisions in this area. It is a matter of lively debate as to what quasi-judicial powers politicians should have, but it is important to make clear what considerations should be taken into account. In a case involving extradition within the EU, there is no role for the Home Secretary; in a case involving extradition to another country, her role under the Extradition Act 2003 is limited to considering the death penalty, speciality—the protection that ensures that someone can be tried only for the offence for which they are extradited—and onward extradition, which deals with whether the state has given consent when someone has previously been extradited or transferred to the UK. There is, however, a duty on the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to ensure that extradition does not breach someone’s human rights, as I explained in the context of the Gary McKinnon case. During the statutory extradition process, human rights are considered by the courts, but if a human rights issue arises after the end of that process the Home Secretary must consider these issues.

I wish to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton to respond to the debate, so I will close by reiterating that we will take note of not just the many interesting comments and points made today, but also the various reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the reports we are expecting from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife and from the Home Affairs Committee. It is precisely because so many authoritative reports are being produced that I cannot respond to the question that various people have asked about an exact timeline for when we will come to a decision, but this has been an extremely valuable debate, and will play its own part in allowing the Government to develop the response that we will, as the Home Secretary has said, produce as soon as is practicable.

Violence against Women and Girls

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Thank you very much, Mr Robertson, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Although I am delighted to have secured this debate on the prevention of violence against women and girls, I wish that it was unnecessary. However, the facts and figures on gendered violence remain so alarming that it is clear that, as a society, we are still failing to approach the problem with anything like the urgency or seriousness that it deserves. Currently, two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner and every year 60,000 women are raped. Sexual harassment in schools, communities and workplaces is routine, and an estimated 6,500 girls in the UK are at risk of female genital mutilation.

According to the British crime survey, in Brighton and Hove—where my Brighton, Pavilion constituency is located—around 25,000 women are likely to experience repeat domestic violence as adults. Last year, 277 women sought housing advice and 102 homeless applications were made—[Interruption.]

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Could we have silence at the back, please? Thank you.

[Caroline Lucas]

As I was saying, 102 homeless applications were made due to domestic violence. Nearly 11,000 women experience physical and emotional violence; more than 2,700 women experience sexual assault; and more than 6,600 women were the focus of stalking. Those are big figures, but behind each number is a real life that has been hugely damaged by this experience. Moreover, 44% of the 264 young people assessed by the youth offending service in Brighton and Hove in 2009 had been abused—that is nearly half—and 42% had experienced domestic violence at home.

I therefore welcome the fact that, in its call to end violence against women and girls, the Home Office has recognised the need for a targeted approach to tackle the ongoing scandal of violence against and abuse of women and girls. The Government’s strategy purports to put prevention at its heart, yet I fear that that objective risks being undermined by a lack of joined-up thinking and the policies of other Government Departments.

Furthermore, as the domestic violence team at Brighton and Hove city council has told me, in the Government’s strategy, there is no allocated funding for prevention of and early intervention for violence against women. All the money is still being allocated to crisis work, with only limited attention being given to addressing the cause of the problem—in other words, perpetrators’ behaviour. In Brighton and Hove, since 2004, the city has been working specifically with perpetrators to address their abuse and I am proud that it was the first programme to be accredited nationally by Respect. The local authority has committed to maintaining the programme, but due to demand it is not able to accommodate all the referrals. It finds it very difficult to turn away people who want to join the programme, because it is so concerned about the risks that people face if help is not available.

That work needs to be properly funded. It should not be made dependent on sympathetic council administrations, or put at risk because of central Government spending cuts. Brighton and Hove, whose intelligent commissioning on domestic violence is recognised as good practice, has a local commitment to developing a strategy on violence against women and girls, with work already under way to deliver that strategy. However, not many local areas have the same kind of co-ordinated approach and I want the Government to consider making it an obligation that all local authorities must fulfil.

As well as the historical focus on tackling the aftermath of violence, such as bringing perpetrators to court, we must ensure that preventing violence in the first place is much more of a priority across Government. Let us take, for example, work with young people in schools. The importance of that work is underlined by the findings of an NSPCC study, which revealed that almost half—43%—of teenage girls believe that it is acceptable for a boyfriend to be aggressive towards a female partner. One in two boys and one in three girls believe that there are some circumstances in which it is okay to hit a woman or force her to have sex.

Young people in Britain not only have an alarmingly tolerant attitude to violence against women but many of them are exposed daily to the results of our failure to confront such attitudes head-on. For example, a YouGov poll for the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that a third of girls are subjected to unwanted sexual contact at school, with sexual harassment being routine. In addition, the NSPCC found that 33% of girls between 13 and 17 who are in an intimate partner relationship have experienced some sort of sexual partner violence. Although there has been an increased focus on other forms of bullying, many schools fail to recognise that unwanted sexual contact, sexual harassment and sexual name-calling are also specific forms of abuse that girls suffer routinely.

Girls from ethnic minority backgrounds may face additional risks. The Home Affairs Committee recently reported that schools are failing to respond to girls who are at risk of forced marriage and may even be putting female students in greater danger. We will wait and see whether forcing someone into a marriage becomes an offence in its own right, as the Prime Minister has indicated that it should be. I hope very much that he will introduce legislation on that issue.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made an important point about early intervention and prevention, particularly in relation to girls. Does she agree that we must do a lot more in schools and that we must talk to our girls about self-empowerment, self-esteem, gender equality and empowerment? Does she agree that we need to do much more in those areas?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, not least because I know that she has a great deal of expertise in this area, and of course I absolutely agree with what she says. It is also interesting that young women themselves tell us that they want things to change. Around 52% of young women who were polled said that ending domestic violence against women and children is the issue that they care most about. That is according to research carried out by Girlguiding UK in conjunction with the Fawcett Society, the British Youth Council and Populus.

All over the UK, women’s organisations are doing innovative work with these young people, often with only minimal resources. For example, Rise, a charity based in Brighton and Hove, delivers a personal, social, health and economic preventive education programme on healthy relationships to schools across the city. It is also currently working to integrate the Women’s Aid “Expect Respect” programme into work that is currently taking place in primary schools. Rise also delivers “Break for Change”, a groundbreaking group for young people who are aggressive in their relationships. That group is for the young people’s carers, too. The Home Office itself is currently running a campaign called, “This is abuse”, which is aimed at tackling teenage relationship abuse.

However, work to prevent violence against women and girls cannot be left to occasional campaigns or women’s organisations working in partnership with good schools where they can. It must be an absolutely integral part of education and policy that is delivered in every single school.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Department for Education is dragging its feet on this issue. The commitment to teaching sexual consent in personal, social and health education is welcome, but it needs to go much further and include all forms of violence against women, including teenage relationship abuse, forced marriage, FGM and sexual exploitation. It should also be linked to work on gender equality and work that challenges gender stereotypes.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I just wanted to draw on some of the experience that I have gained from the Education Committee. As I understand it, only three hours of teacher training time is dedicated to behaviour and discipline in schools throughout a two or three-year degree course. There is very little hope that we can even start to explore the issues affecting young women who face violence and give them any sort of strategy if the teachers have absolutely no awareness of behaviour and behaviour training. There needs to be a concerted effort from the Minister’s Department to work with the DFE to deal with that problem.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I did not know that particular piece of information and it makes me even more alarmed than I was when I first stood up to speak. It shows that this is part of a much bigger issue, which is about ensuring that our teachers are properly equipped to pass on that vital training.

It is interesting that Education Ministers have signalled that they want these issues to remain outside the statutory curriculum, running the risk that many young women and men will never be exposed to education designed to reduce gendered violence. Cuts to specialist local-level posts, such as domestic violence co-ordinators and teenage pregnancy co-ordinators, risk exacerbating the problem even further.

In its report, “A Different World is Possible”, the End Violence Against Women Coalition recommends a “whole school approach”, with heads taking a lead, teachers been trained on the issues and all students receiving comprehensive sex and relationships education on consent, equality and respect. That is already a top priority in Brighton and Hove—it builds on work by a number of the agencies that I mentioned earlier. The local authority’s strategy states:

“Evidence shows that to be effective in domestic violence prevention work, addressing the issue in PSHE and SRE lessons or in assemblies has limited impact and value, if the messages promoted are not supported by other initiatives and the broader ethos of the school.”

I therefore ask the Minister to call on her colleagues at the Department for Education to clearly identify one single Education Minister to lead on preventing violence against women and girls. I also ask her to tell us what contribution she has made to the Department for Education’s internal review on PSHE, and whether she has argued the case for sexual consent and all forms of violence against women to be a compulsory part of the curriculum.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister hosted a summit on tackling the commercialisation and sexualisation of children and announced a range of policies, many of which I warmly welcome. However, amid the messages about consumer and parent power, there was an element missing: empowering young people themselves to be media literate and to cope with the bombardment of often inappropriate images. Although I recognise that the measures announced will go some way towards cutting down on the images that young people are exposed to—outside schools, for example—we can safely say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Like any parent, I absolutely understand the desire to protect our children, and one of the best ways of doing so is through specific education that allows young people to be more in control of their sexualisation, rather than being dictated to by the media or by advertising. There is no plan as yet, however, specifically to address that in schools.

Earlier, I noted that central Government cuts might undermine efforts being made to tackle violence against women and girls, and I am particularly concerned about cuts to legal aid. Informing women of their legal rights and giving them access to legal representation is one way of empowering them and of trying to protect them against violence. It can give them the information they need to stand up to their abuser. There are serious risk implications, therefore, for women who cannot access legal aid. By reducing women’s ability to access legal aid, the Ministry of Justice risks damaging work at the Home Office on preventing violence against women and girls, and I would love to know whether the Minister shares my concerns about that.

I also wonder whether the Minister is dismayed by the Home Secretary’s proposal to change the eligibility requirements under paragraph 289A—the domestic violence rule—of the immigration rules. That would mean that all applicants under the domestic rule must be free of unspent criminal convictions. That actively undermines the Government’s commitment to eliminate violence against women. Will the Minister contribute to the UK Border Agency consultation, and remind the Home Secretary about the coalition Government’s obligations and commitment to protect all women from domestic violence?

The Equality Trust points out that 24% of women in Britain are worried about rape and that all kinds of violence are more common in more unequal societies. It stands to reason that preventing violence against women and girls is closely linked to tackling inequality and other social injustices. As just one example of what happens if we fail to do that, Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, tells me that more than a third of girls in the youth justice system have experienced abuse and a quarter have witnessed violence at home. Of the more than 4,000 women currently serving a prison sentence, more than half report having suffered domestic violence and one in three have experienced sexual abuse. For the vast majority of those very vulnerable women, prison is not the answer, and that is why both I and the Howard League for Penal Reform support community solutions for non-violent women offenders. I am keen, therefore, to see the Government’s target interventions to ensure the prevention of violence against women and girls address intersections of gender with other social inequalities.

I stress that the Government’s work on preventing violence against women and girls needs to encompass an international perspective. Here, too, we see evidence of a lack of leadership and concerns about co-ordination. There are now a number of very welcome Government strategies that reference international violence against women and girls, so oversight of all the different processes is vital and, for maximum impact, the different strategies and policies across Government should be coherent and mutually reinforcing.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Is it not important to bring the international communities into this—the women and girls of different nationalities with different cultural backgrounds? The Prime Minister will be attending a conference in a couple of weeks’ time at which he should raise that point, so that we can get the international communities behind us.

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s important intervention.

At the highest level, a member of the National Security Council should have explicit responsibility for women, peace and security, to ensure that gender perspectives are taken into account in all discussions. Despite some references in the “Building Stability Overseas Strategy” document and in the UK national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, violence against women and girls is still not fully recognised as either a foreign policy priority or a security matter. It is not recognised as both a cause and a consequence of conflict. When violent conflict occurs, violence against women and girls is not seen as a priority matter.

The UK Government must take a leadership role internationally, to ensure that preventing violence against women and girls stays on the international agenda. Globally, about one in three women or girls have been beaten or sexually abused in their lifetime, and 75% of the civilians killed in war are women and children, so I am keen to hear from the Minister what has been achieved, or what has changed in our approach to violence against women as a foreign policy issue, since she was appointed to the role of overseas champion about a year ago.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate and on her excellent and comprehensive speech. I agree that the international effort that we must be part of, and lead, is important, but it is vital that we lead by example. Yesterday in the Chamber, concern was expressed about the woefully low level of prosecutions for human trafficking, which affects many women and young girls, and about our country’s reluctance to take the lead on issuing a guardianship programme that would help us to secure those prosecutions. Does she have any thoughts about that?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to point to the guardianship programme as a concrete measure that we could take to show exactly that kind of international leadership. That would make a huge difference to some of the most vulnerable people coming into our communities. I very much support the proposal, and the work that she has been doing on it.

I was talking about the Minister’s role as the overseas champion, and I wonder if she can tell us what her priorities for that role will be over the coming year. Can she confirm whether she has a budget with which to carry out her responsibilities?

I am mindful that I have asked the Minister a number of questions, so I will wind up now. Making our schools safer for girls, enabling young men to challenge their peers, changing attitudes that blame women for violence and ensuring that the equalities team’s work is underscored by the policies of other Departments are all things that would make a genuine difference to the lives of women and girls here in Britain and around the world. The old adage that prevention is better than cure may well be familiar, but in this case it rings particularly true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will not. I am keen to answer the hon. Lady’s points, as it is her debate.

The hon. Lady asked me about my role of international champion in tackling violence against women and girls. The other half of that is policy coherence across Whitehall; it is in the job title. I assure her that when I came into the post in December, the first thing that I did was engage across Whitehall. Clearly, I will not be effective on my own in tackling worldwide violence against women and girls, unless I find a multiplier for the work that I am doing. I have done so, and have developed numerous messages on women and on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Travelling Ministers have agreed to take those messages to international meetings and raise them wherever they go. The issue at the moment is finding out who is going where and when, but it is an important step. I reassure the hon. Lady that I have nothing but support from the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. They are absolutely committed to the human rights agenda, and I argue that equal rights are human rights.

[Caroline Lucas]

While we are on the role of the overseas champion, will the Minister clarify whether she has a budget for any part of that work?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I do, and a little bit of help, although not as much as I would like. I have been to India and Nepal. I am working at three levels on such trips. I cannot go gallivanting across the world; I have a limited budget, and it is a matter of where I can get maximum traction on the issue. For example, in India, I met with the India Women’s Press Corps, which carried messages about gender-based violence across India and into every publication. I am trying to maximise bang for buck. I am meeting at the ministerial and permanent secretary level as well as in civil society. I am also visiting projects involving women in rural villages. I am going to Brussels on Tuesday to carry some of those issues forward, including LGBT issues. My eyes are on Afghanistan at the moment, as well as on the Arab spring, which I want to be a feminist summer, as I am sure the hon. Lady does.

The hon. Lady asked about immigration changes. No one with a minor conviction has been or will ever be denied their stay in this country, but neither do the Government think that it is right for different rules to apply if there is a conviction. On legal aid, we are keeping legal aid for victims in private family law cases where domestic violence is a feature, and we have not sought to change the accepted definition of domestic violence. We are including all forms of domestic violence, physical and mental, in legal aid criteria.

The hon. Lady mentioned forced marriage, which has been in the news recently. The Prime Minister has made it a priority, and we will consult on whether it should become a criminal offence in its own right. I am keen that we take evidence, for example from the women involved in the 257 forced marriage protection orders taken out under civil orders. We should ask those women whether they would have come forward had forced marriage been a criminal offence. In my view, the only reason not to make it an offence is that doing so might prohibit people from coming forward, which would undermine the benefits of sending a message that it is serious enough to be criminal.

I cite the issue of female genital mutilation, which is a criminal offence. The Opposition ask me every time we have oral questions whether there have been any prosecutions. There have not, either under the Labour Government or during the year and a half that we have been in government, because it is difficult to get evidence and make people come forward. I am keen that whatever we do should promote the best result in dealing with forced marriage. We know that there is great pressure, and the law may well change. The Prime Minister has announced that we will criminalise breaches of civil orders in the interim while we consult on the matter. However, I am not keen on messages; I am keen on getting it right. That is more important.

We as a Government have moved forward proactively. We have introduced domestic homicide reviews and pilots on domestic violence protection orders. If they prove successful, we will roll them out. We have extended the Sojourner project and will find a long-term solution. We are fast-tracking asylum applications for those in refuges who, due to their asylum status, have no recourse to public funds. I hope that hon. Members agree that we are on the right path to making society a better and safer place where women and girls do not have to live in fear of violence or lack support when they need it. These are tough times, but we are doing our very best.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I fully agree with that point about the ridiculously pedantic and capricious use of conditions to get something on these people, when they demonstrate no greater threat than the fact that they find it difficult to cope with increasingly bizarre conditions. Therefore, I do not hold the same brief as the Opposition for control orders and the existing legislation, which is why I do not support them on the amendments that suggest that control orders are somehow better; but neither do I fall for the Government’s false argument that TPIMs are substantially different, because they involve a large part of the same mix as control orders. I never bought the product “I can’t believe it’s not butter” and I am not going to buy “I can’t believe it’s not control orders.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to speak briefly in favour of new clause 7 on annual reviews, but only because it is the least worst option on the table. It is deeply concerning that, despite pre-election promises and having voted in the past against the massively controversial and now, I would argue, totally discredited control order regime, the coalition Government are trying to push through a Bill that in so many respects simply rebrands the very worst aspects of that failed regime. Despite the spin that was put out when the Bill was presented, it contains the same fundamental mechanism of detention. Restrictions on a terrorist suspect while further investigations continue will in many circumstances be reasonable and in the public interest, but what is so offensive about control orders and their close relatives, TPIMs, is that both are imposed by the Executive, not by a court. The continuation of a system of Government detention entirely outside the rule of law is neither effective nor just, and that is why I hope that, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, we can make these annual reviews more rigorous. Perhaps we can use them in the way I imagine people on control orders hope they will be used: for proper, rigorous scrutiny.

Today, I was in the same room as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and I, too, heard from somebody on a control order. I heard some shocking stories, and not just about that person waiting to sign in at a police station and being deemed to be two minutes late and therefore, supposedly, in breach of a control order. There were even more ridiculous accounts. People are being written to because they have not kept properly clean the flat in which they are supposed to be in internal detention. All kinds of ridiculous methods are being used to misuse the kind of tools being put before us today. That is why, at the very least, we need the option of an annual review.

Everyone agrees that public safety requires that terrorists be held in prison, but let us not forget that this regime is about terrorist suspects, some of whom will be entirely innocent—as, indeed, was the gentleman we spoke to today. So, when considering these matters, which are central both to our security and to our core democratic values, it is critical to remember that the concern is not whether we would like to see terrorists subject to punitive restrictions, but whether we want a system that allows innocent people to be treated outside the rule of law. It is not the action of a democratic state to hold someone without telling them what they are charged with. That is the definition of a living hell: to hold someone without telling them what the evidence against them is, leaving them with no opportunity to defend themselves. The many past miscarriages of justice should weigh heavily on our consideration of these matters.

I am disappointed that the amendments I co-signed with the hon. Member for Cambridge, on police bail, were not selected for debate. I realise that I cannot now debate them, but I would simply say that public safety is best assured when suspects are charged with a crime and, if found guilty, imprisoned, rather than left in the community to abscond—as a number of controlees have done—or, crucially, to act as an advertisement for extremism because the regime is so unjust and impacts not just upon them but on their families and communities. Police bail would have enabled us to get away from that and properly to investigate people who are suspected of a crime, rather than leaving them in this no-man’s land, which discredits us enormously as a country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I had not planned to speak in this section of the debate, but I was moved to do so by the eloquence of many of the contributions to it. We are debating TPIMs versus control orders, and the House will have heard in my intervention on the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that I do not see a whole lot of difference between their underlying principles. I do not welcome TPIMs any more than I welcome control orders. I voted against control orders in the last Parliament and will continue to do so in this Parliament—and against TPIMs—for much the same reasons as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has eloquently explained to the House.

We are getting into a debate about sunset clauses versus a review. I would prefer a sunset clause on the Bill; indeed, any special legislation should automatically have a very short sunset clause attached to it as a matter of course. We are passing major legislation that has a huge effect on the civil liberties of everybody. However, if we cannot have that—I do support the Opposition Front Benchers in this respect—we should at least have a 12-month review.

One has to remember the atmosphere in this House in which we considered the question of special legislation. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was passed after the Birmingham pub bombings. They were appalling, they were disgraceful, and in that fevered atmosphere the House passed that Act, which it renewed at six-monthly intervals for a very long time. The only time when anti-terrorism legislation was passed in an atmosphere of relative calm was in 2000. All other such Acts were passed in respect of some awful event somewhere. At those times, the House met in a fevered atmosphere and said that it was important that, because of the nature of what had happened—be it 9/11, 7/7, Canary Wharf or any of a host of appalling incidents around the world or in this country—we had to pass the legislation because it would deal with the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Let me begin by addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who cut to the heart of a number of arguments surrounding this Bill and the measures that we judge appropriate. We would all like to live in a world where the measures contemplated in the Bill were not needed. The sad reality is that they are, as a continuing threat will be posed to this country and its citizens by people who we cannot prosecute, deport or take other action, against, so preventive measures are required. I wish that that were not the case but it is, which is why we are introducing the measures in this Bill. They follow on from the counter-terrorism review and are in recognition of this continuing risk to the citizens of this country. The Bill is certainly not about protecting the security services; it is about protecting the public. That is the driver behind these measures.

Let me deal with the duration of the legislation and the Government’s sunset clause. Our starting point was that this legislation was not being considered in a fevered state but in a measured way so, like other legislation, it did not require a sunset clause. However, we listened carefully, we reflected on the Bill’s measures and the impact they could have on individuals, and we judged it appropriate that each Parliament should be able to review the measures in the context of the security situation at the time and consider whether their continuation was appropriate. That is why we have introduced the five-year sunset clause in the way that we have.

It has been interesting to hear this evening’s debate about annual renewal. The hon. Member for Islington North has been a consistent participant in these debates—I respect the contributions that he has made year on year—and he implied that some of them have been “perfunctory”. That is not what we would wish in relation to legislation such as this, which is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about the need for a serious and considered review of legislation was well made and strongly put. We took that approach when we sought to conduct a counter-terrorism review in preparation for this Bill.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) makes. In some ways, she sympathises with the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Islington North. She makes a point about Executive action, but I repeat that circumstances and situations continue to arise that mean, sadly, that legislation of this type is necessary and continues to be required. She made a point about secret evidence, and the Government will shortly be introducing a Green Paper to consider further its use in court and to consider this matter in further detail, given a number of associated issues that have been raised.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain why he is so certain that the TPIMs regime will be effective, given that it is very similar to the control orders regime and nobody who has been placed under a control order has ever subsequently been prosecuted for a terrorism offence?

[James Brokenshire]

In some ways, this relates to the package of the measures before us. This is about not only this Bill, but the capabilities and resources being made available to the police and security services to allow them to monitor people and seek to bring them to justice. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and it is our preferred option, that people who commit acts related to terrorism should be prosecuted and brought to justice in the normal way. However, the Government need to assess risk and seek to protect the public, and we judge that, for a number of reasons, it is not possible to achieve that aim in all circumstances. That is why preventive measures of the type contemplated in this Bill are required and will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future. We therefore argue that it is for Parliament to consider, on a per-Parliament basis, the necessity of these types of measures. I am aware that the hon. Lady has raised the issue of bail in this context, and we considered it in the counter-terrorism review. However, we had clear guidance from the police who recommended against bail being available for terrorist suspects because of the risk to public safety that might be involved.