UK Extradition Arrangements

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunkett]

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

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunkett]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I, too, begin by welcoming the debate and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it. Last week’s debate in Westminster Hall and the number of hon. Members present tonight show the strength of feeling on this important issue. It is absolutely right that it is debated on the Floor of the House.

Some 140,538 individuals have added their signature to the “Free Babar Ahmad” e-petition, which is rightly the catalyst for this debate, although the problem is much wider, as has been shown. I am glad that such cross-party support exists—even the Daily Mail, which I do not normally read, supports the campaign—but it was not always so. The Liberal Democrats have been vocal in our criticism of the lopsided extradition arrangements between Britain and the US for many years. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and for Southport (John Pugh) were the only Members to vote against it in a scrutiny Committee. In 2006, we proposed amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 to protect the freedom and fair judicial treatment of British citizens, but, sadly, the previous Government refused to accept them.

I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are acting on this issue in government and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) will lead a Liberal Democrat review of UK-US extradition arrangements. I await the findings of his report with interest.

No one is denying that extradition remains a necessary process in pursuing the ends of justice. It is rightly founded on the concepts of reciprocity and mutual respect among jurisdictions, although it recognises differences between them. However, extradition also deals with the most basic human right—that of liberty—and as such we must ensure that it is not entered into lightly or without proper process and oversight.

The affect of extradition on that basic right has been examined in detail regularly and recently by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other Committees of both Houses. Reform is now advocated by Members on both sides of the House, which is to be welcomed. Both in the House and outside, it is recognised that extradition has changed. The process altered significantly in the wake of 9/11, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said. Although the aim of such change was undoubtedly positive, the reality is that arrangements continue to be open to abuse.

A few high-profile cases have demonstrated that to all. The lack of discretion to allow the UK to decline extradition when the case should be prosecuted in the UK has become synonymous with the case of Gary McKinnon; problems with the European arrest warrant and trust in suitably high standards of justice in Europe are synonymous with the case of the British student Andrew Symeou; and the lack of a prima facie safeguard, previously an integral part of UK extradition law, is synonymous with the case of Babar Ahmad. High Court rulings even today give examples of further concerns, on, first, the definition of a “judicial authority” and whether that authority is truly independent; and, secondly, on whether extradition should be allowed when no charges have been laid, or whether it should be limited to being for the purpose of trial or sentence.

Those concerns add to the feeling that there is no reciprocal arrangement in practice. For every person extradited to Britain from the EU, we surrender nine back. We have surrendered 50% more of our citizens than the US. Today’s motion would implement the JCHR recommendations, which offer basic safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice and deal explicitly with the concerns highlighted by those cases. The Committee suggests a forum clause that would allow UK courts to refuse extradition when an individual should be tried in our country; a requirement for any requesting country to show a prima facie case; and proportionality checks to ensure that EAWs are not issued for minor offences.

As well as proportionality, the presumption that human rights are respected equally in EU member states is another significant issue with EAWs. The JCHR was minded to agree that judges are reluctant to refuse extradition on human rights grounds because of that presumption. As such, we agreed with evidence given by Liberty that highlighted the clear difference between equal protection of all rights in practice and protection in law, which means that there is a need to give defendants the ability to rebut the presumption of equality.

The Committee is clear that we need to deal with significant EAW issues, even if that means renegotiation of the framework decision. I am heartened by the Government’s willingness to act on that.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he support the principle of renegotiating things in Europe to get the right balance in our relations with the EU?

[Mike Crockart]

I do indeed. That is exactly what the JCHR report asks for. It supports that unequivocally, as do I—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That does not make me anti-European, however.

I am not saying that the use of EAWs has not been beneficial to the UK and Europe in the fight against serious and organised crime, or, to a certain degree, helpful in establishing a common area of freedom, security and justice, but we should not ignore the problems to support such advances.

The independent Baker review focused on five areas of extradition. Although I disagree with many of its findings, I share many of its points. On the Home Secretary’s power to extradite, I instinctively have grave reservations in giving Ministers further powers when the distinction between state and judiciary becomes blurred. I believe that human rights considerations are more appropriately examined by the judiciary rather than a Minister, with proper consideration of relevant case law.

The Baker review also calls for a strengthening of legal representation in both issuing and executing states; an improvement in the process for the removal of EAW alerts, which was highlighted by the dreadful treatment received by Deborah Dark; and the prevention of excessive pre-trial detention. As a side comment, I would say that seven years is almost certainly excessive. There is a degree of unanimity on the need to act on those points.

One fundamental consideration is lost in the detail: whether our constituents—British citizens—have sufficient protection in respect of their safety and human rights. As Liberty eloquently wrote in its 11 November letter to the Home Secretary, that is a balancing act:

“There is, of course, a balance to be struck in any system of extradition between the public interest in expeditious extradition to enable prosecution of crime and the provision of essential safeguards to ensure procedural fairness for the accused…the Extradition Act 2003 secures the former at the dangerous expense of the latter.”

I agree that the balance is wrong, and commend the Government’s willingness to re-address it and secure the fundamental rights of the nation’s citizens. However, I trust that the Minister will put a time scale on the willingness to act that is more precise than the one he articulated in last week’s debate. Such affronts to justice have waited too long. We must put them right and do so soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I agree. As I said, I acknowledge that there are some serious defects with the European arrest warrant, but the motion conflates the European arrest warrant with the UK-US arrangements and I want to inject an important observation about those arrangements into the debate.

The law enforcement relationship between our two countries is predicated on trust, mutual respect, protecting our peoples and removing safe havens as options for those people who seek to evade justice. It is also important to remember that the United States is, as the Baker report illuminated for those who might not otherwise agree, a rights-based democracy in which accused persons have fundamental protections provided by the constitution to ensure that they are able to participate effectively in a criminal trial process that is conducted fairly. It is important to emphasise that our Anglo-American relations are predicated on those facts and on our acceptance that the United States system of jurisprudence provides a very advanced state of rights-based democracy for accused persons.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but let me ask him a question. If I were facing a Texas jury having been extradited from my homeland here in the United Kingdom under the extradition treaty to face trial, would I have recourse to legal aid or something analogous to it under the wonderful rights-based system in the United States?

[Michael Ellis]

The systems provided by the United States are accepted by the international community as being perfectly amenable to the interests of democracy and the rights of the individual within the state of Texas and other states of the American union.

Approximately a year ago, Her Majesty’s Government commissioned a report—the Baker report—to which several colleagues have referred and which I am holding. It is 500 pages long, it took one year to complete and it was conducted by three eminent jurists: Sir Scott Baker, who was called to the Bar some 50 years ago, and two eminent lawyers, both of whom have acted for Governments and for requested persons and have therefore dealt with this issue on many occasions and from both sides of the fence. They came to the conclusion that there was no significant difference or imbalance between the extradition arrangements in the United States and the United Kingdom. That is the crux of this matter. Many of the previous speakers seemed to assume that there were imbalances, which they criticised, but they did not address those alleged imbalances.

I have heard no evidence, and the Baker report came up with no evidence, pinpointing where there is imbalance. There is different terminology, with “reasonable suspicion” being used often in the UK arrangements in relation to the evidential burden that is required, whereas “probable cause” is used by the United States. Those two terms may be slightly different in phraseology but they mean very much the same thing, and those who have analysed the position in some detail, either in the Baker report or elsewhere, have come to that clear conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who made a passionate defence of the current arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States. I regret that although I agree with him on so very much, on this rare occasion we will have to part company in our legal and political analysis of the situation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing the debate. It is good to have the debate on the Floor of the House and to see a measure of consensus emerging as the debate has gone on. I have looked at the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, so boldly defended by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) who, sadly, is no longer in his place. As a former Home Secretary entering into that agreement, one would expect that.

I have some difficulties with the treaty. The first of those, which has vexed many, is on the issue of reasonable suspicion versus probable cause. As everyone who has read the Scott Baker report will know, probable cause is reviewed on page 239, paragraph 7.35, where it is defined as

“a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime”.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion, which is the arresting standard in our jurisprudence, and America, where probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. Belief is clearly a higher test than suspicion. As I know from my time in my books, a suspicion that someone has committed a crime is a sense that that might be the case. Belief is a higher level than suspicion. Suspicion is maybe, maybe not; belief is “I’m pretty sure.” I think we should be careful about that. Indeed, the Scott Baker report discusses the difference at some length but later glosses over it.

This error, which in my opinion results from the use of different legal definitions in our two systems, has crept into the defence of the treaty. Indeed, His Excellency the American ambassador to the Court of St James, Louis Susman, has decided to take an interest in our internal affairs and wrote in The Daily Telegraph today that there is no real difference. I think that in a deep sense there is a difference. He states:

“In all extradition cases, the UK authorities always begin by considering whether an individual can and should be tried in the UK instead of being extradited. Once the UK authorities decide that the case should be tried in the US, all extradition hearings are then held in UK courts”,

and then off the person goes. My difficulty with that argument is that I see nothing in the treaty that makes that the case. There is a provision in the treaty that states clearly, in my humble opinion, that just because no action is being taken in the UK the person can be extradited. Nothing states that. Paragraph 4 of article 2 states:

“If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances.”

It also seems clear, in the paragraph relating to no prosecution, that if charges are not made in the UK the person can be extradited, but even if charges were laid in the UK, my reading of article 5 is that there is no bar on extradition being sought from the United States in that case either.

My fundamental trouble with the support being given to the US-UK treaty in its current format is very simple: if a crime is committed or alleged to have been committed on British soil so that the act of the crime, what lawyers call the actus reus, was in the UK, meaning that the deed was done in the UK, surely the proper forum is the UK. Many of the cases that we have discussed tonight and that have caused so much ire are cases where people in the UK have allegedly committed crimes for which the foreign requesting jurisdiction, typically the US, is asking for them, and we know that if a crime has been committed it has been committed in the UK. Surely the right place for that person to be tried is the UK, for all the reasons my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has given. For example, they have their friends, family and loved ones around one, they have a house, they do not have to pay to maintain themselves and they have access to legal aid.

If people are shipped over to face a jury in Texas, as the NatWest Three or Enron Three were, they will know very well that they will have to maintain themselves, that they are far from their loved ones and best advisers and that they will have to pay all the fees if they want to see the court case through. When someone faces the massive likelihood of a conviction because there is a Texas jury and they are not from Texas, which regrettably can be the case, they will accept a plea bargain that is made to look very enticing and attractive. They can have a massively long sentence of multiple years on the one hand or a very short sentence on the other. What will they do? Of course they will accept the plea-bargain. I think that that is incredibly unfair. If people in that situation have committed a crime, it was in the UK and they should have been prosecuted in the UK.

There is a provision set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 13 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 that does not seem to have been commenced, and I wonder whether the Minister for Immigration might be able to enlighten the House on whether it is likely to be commenced, and if so when, so that there can be the kind of forum bar, which I and so many Members have spoken about this evening, to right that balance so that there will not be the lingering feeling of injustice.

The other issue is the European arrest warrant, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Liberal Democrat Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) say that it was an area for righteous renegotiation with our friends in Europe. I agree. We should renegotiate in the national interest and, indeed, in the interests of the people of this country, when it is right to do so, and that area should be looked at, if only because it has been so massively abused—for fishing expeditions, for investigating crimes and for wrongful processes. We therefore need to rebalance that and to get the balance right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

It was partly because Russia has made a large number of extradition requests to this country to which we have said no because Timothy Workman, the judge in charge, has decided on each occasion that they were being advanced merely for political reasons, whereas when we make extradition requests, such as for Mr Lugovoy, who is sought for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian state simply says that no Russian national will be extradited. I do not think that there should be a distinction between different nationalities.

My second minor point is that I suspect that statistics throw far less light on the matter than one might think. It is true, for instance, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned, that the number of extraditions from the UK has risen dramatically since 1975, but then so has international travel. Moreover, although there was just one extradition to Spain in the decade up to 1973 compared with 61 in the past seven years, I suspect that that had more to do with the relations with Franco’s regime than with anything to do with the extradition system.

The same is true, I believe, of the US-UK extraditions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Since 2004 there have been 73 extraditions to the United States from this country, and just 38 to the UK from the US, yet 70% of UK requests for extradition have been successful compared with just 54% of US requests to the UK. In other words, a US request is less likely to succeed than a UK one. Moreover, far more British nationals go to the US every year than the other way around. I know that that seems counter-intuitive, but the Library’s figures suggest that roughly 4.5 million British people go to the US every year, and fewer than 2 million come from the US to the UK.

Thirdly, cybercrime almost inevitably crosses borders, whether we are talking about conspiracy to fund terrorism, illegal file sharing or industrial espionage. Consequently, I agree with hon. Members who have said today that we have to ensure that we have a better way of dealing with the question of where individual matters may be resolved.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in taking interventions. I put it to him that the original arrangements with the United States were entered into under the cloud of the history of 9/11 and terrorism, and now we are hearing cybercrime as the latest excuse. Is there not always another excuse to worry people about why we should go further in taking away their rights and protections?

[Chris Bryant]

I was actually agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in my remarks about cybercrime. I think it is legitimate for there to be a point at which we decide where is the right place for something to be tried. I believe that was the point that he was trying to make earlier, so I am grateful to him for his support for my argument.

Having dealt with the minor issues, I want to turn to the more significant ones, and first the operation of the European arrest warrant. It is true that there have been several cases in which the justice system in other countries included in the European arrest warrant has been far from ideal. Several hon. Members have mentioned those cases today. We are all mindful of the horrific experiences of some people who have been held for considerable periods for crimes that, as it turns out, they never committed. Incidentally, that is of course sometimes true in the United Kingdom as well.

Although I believe the EAW operates successfully in the main, there is one key matter that I believe needs to be addressed—the question of proportionality. Between 2004 and the end of March 2011, Poland accounted for 1,659 and Lithuania 355 of the UK’s 3,107 EAW surrenders. In part, that was because of the prosecutorial system in each of those two countries, but in many cases the warrants were for relatively minor offences. We believe that a proportionality test should apply. Indeed, I believe that the majority of members of the European Union would prefer to see some form of proportionality clause inserted into the provisions. It is important, of course, to bear it in mind that in many cases the UK imposes longer sentences than other countries in Europe, so there is a danger that if proportionality is introduced some countries will retaliate in the wrong direction. However, I believe that such a clause should be included.

Extradition

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Leigh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing an extraordinarily important debate and the Backbench Business Committee on doing such great work to ensure our chance to have this discussion. I want to keep my remarks brief, because so much has been said in the evolving consensus of the debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for their powerful contributions.

There has long been a tradition that Parliament is the last backstop for the liberty of the subject and the protection of the rights of property. It is right for us to be deeply interested in the liberty of our electors and citizens, and it is particularly great to see in the Chamber the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who has remained in his seat throughout the debate and who has been such a powerful advocate for his constituent, Babar Ahmad. There seems to be a strong, cross-party feeling that things are simply not right.

To pick up on one issue, if people are in the UK and commit a crime in the UK, the deep, natural sense that we all—the person in the street—have is that such people should be prosecuted in the UK for that act, if it is an offence in this country, and not be taken away from home, loved ones, community and everything familiar to be prosecuted in a foreign country. In particular, I have long found the US-UK extradition treaty troubling.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I issue a slight corrective? Everyone thus far has talked about British nationals being extradited. Quite often, a request under a European arrest warrant, or for that matter an extradition request, is for a non-British national. One reason for the number of European arrest warrants from Poland being so high is that a lot of them are for Polish people whom the Polish Government want to take back to Poland.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I am concentrating on our citizens and our electors.

The situation has long troubled me: in principle, if people commit an offence in this country, they should be prosecuted in this country. Many of us feel that way. According to paragraph 4 of article 8 of the treaty on extradition with the States:

“If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances.”

Perhaps I am an old-fashioned lawyer—that is my background and training—but I feel deeply that the right forum for prosecution in such a case is in the UK and that people in this country should be tried by their peers. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, perhaps it is our jurisprudence and long legal tradition, but that is how I feel, as so many of us do.

[Chris Bryant]

One area in which we in this country have changed direction slightly in the past few years—rightly so, and I suspect the hon. Gentleman would agree with me—is sexual offences, possibly committed in a country such as Thailand by a British national, that might not be prosecuted in Thailand, but could be in this country.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case for the extradition of a British citizen to another jurisdiction where the offence was committed and, arguably, if a sexual offence was committed in Thailand, the right forum for the case would be where the offence took place. I am speaking, however, about when the actus reus of the offence is alleged to have taken place in the UK—in particular, in internet-type cases—so the evidence, and the proper forum, would seem to be in the UK. That is my deep sense of how things should be: if a crime is committed in the UK, it should be prosecuted in the UK. One should not be seized from the UK, as the NatWest three famously were, and sent before a jury in Texas. Having been a partner in an American law firm and having talked to colleagues, my understanding is that Texan juries are simple: people from Texas get a good hearing, but if people are not from Texas, it is a bit more hit and miss. One needs to be cautious in such cases.

Another thing that I and many people feel strongly about is reciprocity, in particular the remarks in the Scott Baker report about probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. That takes us to paragraph 3(c) of article 8 of the treaty. It says

“for requests to the United States,”—

it is only to the United States—

“such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.”

That “reasonable basis to believe” finds its origin in the fourth amendment to the US constitution, which was passed in 1791. Interestingly, in our jurisprudence that principle found its heart and motivation in the famous, landmark case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765. I feel that in our Parliament we sometimes forget our finer and more enduring principles, while the Americans seem to embed them slightly more effectively. The Scott Baker report states, in effect, that there is no real difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I do not share that conclusion.

The table in paragraph 7.30 on page 237 of the Scott Baker report, which I am sure everyone has read in great detail, clearly states of requests to the United States:

“Information satisfying the probable cause test”,

but of requests to the United Kingdom it states:

“Information satisfying the reasonable suspicion test”.

Is there a difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion or not? Scott Baker says not.

Let us look at more of the detail. The Scott Baker report then mentions the definition of “probable cause” in paragraph 7.35 on page 239:

“A well-known definition of probable cause is, ‘a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime’… The Oxford Companion to United States Law defines probable cause as, ‘information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime’.”

We are talking about the difference between reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief, and I say that belief is a rather higher test than simply suspicion.

Let me give an example. An hon. Member’s Order Paper has gone missing in the House and the Member thinks that a colleague has taken it—but which colleague? There are so many around. The Member sees the Order Paper, or part of it, poking out of a colleague’s jacket, so the Member has a reasonable belief that that colleague has taken it. If the Member does not see anything and merely suspects the ne’er-do-well in the next seat, that is reasonable suspicion, because that colleague has done that kind of thing before. Belief is a higher test than suspicion, and there is strong feeling of concern—rightly—that the treaty does not have the degree of reciprocity that it should have.

Another matter that I feel strongly about, because I believe strongly in the liberty of the subject and the proper testing of any case, is the fact that there should be the old prima facie test that we used to have. I know that that would raise the objection that it leads to long hearings and so on, but why should we not have the same test for extradition as for a committal for trial of the old style? That seems to me to be the right way to go, because we should be cautious before sending our citizens abroad. I appreciate that that may cause difficulties with the European arrest warrant, because it is bound up with the wider European issue, where angels fear to tread. However, leaving that aside, we have wider discretion with other countries, and perhaps we should consider firmer testing of the proof, particularly with jurisdictions where we are unsure whether they will provide the proper level and quality of information and fair trial, and when we worry that they might not be entirely straightforward and honest about their level of evidence. Today, we have heard about cases in which there has been concern about the level of evidence.

I would like the Minister to provide some clarity. I understand that 24 British citizens have been extradited to America, and that one American has been extradited to the UK. Given that the treaty was entered into to deal with terrorism, how many of those 24 cases involved extradition for terrorist-related charges, and how many did not? That is germane to how correctly the House was led when the treaty was introduced. It was told at the time that the treaty covered terrorist activities, but not wider activities.

The Secretary of State should have a backstop power to decline to authorise extradition, and reintroduction of that should be considered to provide extra, discretionary protection in favour of liberty of the subject. We should be super-cautious before sending any of our citizens to face trial in another jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The honest truth is that it is a right old mix. That is why, as we consider the matter, there is a danger that we proceed only on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman referred to as anecdotal evidence of individual cases, rather than properly garnered substantive evidence that covers the whole realm.

I know the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent very well; I have met the family. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was a Member of Parliament, I answered debates. At the Foreign Office, we tried as much as possible to rectify the problems with Greek justice. His constituent’s case was far from a unique example, not specifically regarding extradition, but regarding British people facing justice in Greek jails, in a criminal justice system that was falling apart at the seams in many ways. The Foreign Office had a difficult job to do in trying to ensure that those people got justice.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman cited the case of Russia. Does he think that, in such dealings, reciprocity is an important underlying principle that we should follow?

Border Checks Summer 2011

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharman) has obviously got himself into a Whips-induced lather, but if he is concerned about asylum cases he may want to ask the Home Secretary about the 100,000 cases that have now been written off, as identified in the Home Affairs Committee report.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am a representative of Dover. This issue is a key concern to my constituents, as is Brodie Clark’s statement that such controls had been relaxed since about 2008-09. Who authorised that relaxation?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman, as a representative of Dover, will I know be concerned by the removal of the watch list checks in Calais. Like him, I certainly look forward to Brodie Clark’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee next week. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary will be looking forward to his evidence in quite the same way, but I am sure that he will set out at that point—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. People want to listen to interventions, and we certainly want to listen to the answers from Alan Johnson.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

Government Members are in happy ignorance of the fact that all this built up over many years under successive Conservative Home Secretaries, and it was the Labour Government who got on top of the issue in the end.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) should not stand up for such a long time. If he wishes to intervene, he must rise quickly and then sit down straight away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I had the great pleasure of inspecting the border controls at Dover and at Calais with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. We went last year, and we were shown around by Brodie Clark and his fellow officers. It was a very interesting educational journey, and we saw the hard work of the officers on the ground.

Whatever the brickbats from Members on both sides of the House in relation to what did or did not happen in the Home Office among the high-ups and all the rest of it, we ought to pay tribute to the front-line officers at the UKBA, who do a fantastic job standing at our border, keeping watch and keeping guard come rain or shine. It is a difficult job—a very hard job—that requires a lot of experience and knowledge, and the longer they are there, the better they get at just knowing, deep down by instinct and experience, who to stop, and which lorries to stop.

The Home Secretary’s pilot is not a bad idea. Opposition Members say that it is weakening controls, but I am not sure that that is right. It is a different method of border control, which takes a risk-based approach, and if we take such an approach we are saying that we will rely on the experience of those front-line officers to determine who should and who should not be stopped. We are relying on their intelligence and on intelligence gathering.

It is quite significant that, since the pilot was introduced a year or so ago, we have seen a rise in the number of illegal entrants being caught, so we should be slow to say, “Let’s just chuck this pilot out.” Instead, we should carefully and thoughtfully evaluate and consider it, and see whether that way of organising our border controls might actually be the best way.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in this debate we must be careful not to become too party political, as has already happened. Is it not important to ensure that all three investigations that the Home Secretary has put in place are thoroughly undertaken, so that they can lead into what my hon. Friend is saying?

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is a fair point. There are several important ongoing inquiries into what happened, and they are the right thing to do. It is right that the new boss of UKBA should have the licence and ability to supervise his staff—and that includes Brodie Clark. If the new boss takes that view, and the Home Secretary endorses it, that will be the right execution of the chain of command. The House should respect that, and it should respect the need to let the inquires go through and be conducted properly. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) may not agree, and may want all the papers published on the internet immediately, but the proper processes should be followed and dealt with. We should ensure that we have the most secure borders possible, because our constituents are deeply concerned about what has gone on.

I talk to people on the doorsteps of Dover who tell me, “I am really unhappy about the fact that we have had so many people come into this country,” and it is a matter of public record that about 2.2 million have done so. European Union citizens have in broad terms a free right of entry to come and go, but that does not apply to people outside the area.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Without trying to be too opportunistic, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) told the House that concerns over immigration, border controls and asylum were just “nonsense” and apparently “huff and puff” in many of the tabloid newspapers, he showed that he has no credibility on the subject—and neither do the Labour party.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and he is right. The hon. Gentleman discussed the matter in a question on the EU constitution, and in fairness I should read out his entire remarks. He said to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett):

“The Home Secretary may well have heard over recent days much huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers about the draft constitutional treaty and what it will do to border controls and asylum and immigration in Europe. Will he ignore all that nonsense”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]

The then Home Secretary replied: “Yes, I agree entirely.” One gets a perspective from that, but I do not want to labour what is a partisan point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read out more of what he said—he did go on; indeed, he does go on—when he gets his own chance to make some remarks.

I shall close with the concerns of my constituents. We need more controls for people from outside the European Union. The figures reported by the labour market survey show a total increase of 966,000 in employment between quarter 1 of 2004 and quarter 3 of 2010—that is, 966,000 people not born in the UK. UK-born employment fell by 334,000, while foreign-born UK employment rose by 1.297 million. Of those, 530,000 were born in the EU8 countries. The essential point is that the majority—800,000—were born outside those countries. We see immigration as somehow an EU problem, but there is a bigger problem with people born outside those areas—people for whom we can take controls. I hope that in time we will not only do that, but do more to make the Home Office fit for purpose, after the mess of the past 13 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There have been many striking things this afternoon. The most striking one at the beginning was how few members of the Cabinet came to offer their support to the Home Secretary. I have been in this Chamber on many occasions when people have called for a resignation. I have nearly always on those previous occasions seen at least half the Cabinet present. I presume that she does not have much longer, in light of the support from her colleagues.

There have been a great many contributions. I think I am correct in saying that we have heard from three members of the Home Affairs Committee—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), although I know she is unable to join us now, and, of course, the much-respected Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have also heard from a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

We heard, too, from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I must say that when he said he thought the Labour party should have taken a humility pill, I thought that was—well, talk about “pot” “kettle” “yellow”! The Liberal Democrats should be swallowing a humility pill in respect of a whole load of things at the moment—but I think we will leave that to the electorate.

Other contributors were my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael); my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound); the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Margot James), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab); and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).

All spoke and made interesting contributions, but what have we learned today? First of all, we have learned that the Home Secretary experimented with lowering our border controls—and unlike the Home Secretary, who made up her contribution, I am not making this up—in the year before the Olympics. She chose to experiment with border controls in the year before the Olympics!

Secondly, we learned that the Home Secretary did not even know what she agreed to in the first place. We saw that classically on Monday afternoon, when Members asked whether the experiment applied to Manchester airport, to Glasgow or to Belfast, and she did not know. She did not have the faintest idea; she was completely clueless. She still does not know today how, where or when her experiment with our border controls was applied. Even after days and days of this issue being the main one in the media, she has not chosen to brief herself to find out how it was applied.

The one member of the Cabinet who was here to provide his paltry support was the Secretary of State for Education. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I forgot about the Secretary of State for Wales, because we always do. We have heard that this was a pilot, but I would have thought that a pilot would be introduced in just one airport to see how it worked out, not become an experiment in changing the whole policy on our border controls across every single airport and port of entry into this country. This was no pilot; it was a change of policy.

We have also learned that the Home Secretary extended the experiment for a couple of extra months without even getting a view from the front line on how it was operating. It was only because John Vine happened to go along to Heathrow that we were able to find out exactly what was happening. [Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that Ministers cannot be expected to do inspections, yet we heard from the hon. Member for Dover that at least he has been able to go and visit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman went, but the Minister did not bother.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already spoken.

We also learned today that data do exist. The Home Secretary admitted that for the first time this afternoon, but she is refusing to publish them. [Interruption.] She is looking confused again; of course she is, because she has not bothered to burrow down into the detail. We want her to publish the data as soon as possible. She also admitted that the interim operational instruction, which we have referred to over the last couple of days, represents Government policy and that it does not stretch Government policy at all.

We have learned today, too, that the Prime Minister and several hon. Members who have been given Government Whips’ handouts think that this policy was a good idea. Well, if it was a good idea, are they going to do it again next year? I suspect not because they know it was not a good idea in the first place. What have we seen in this country?

UK Border Force

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The terms of reference for the inquiry by the chief inspector will be placed in the Library, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself exactly what it covers.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary congratulate the front-line UKBA officers who do a brilliant job around the country, including in Dover, and is she aware of Phil Woolas’s comments that his efforts to tighten our borders were opposed by Treasury and Foreign Office Ministers?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will indeed pay tribute to the work that is done by UK Border Agency officers at our ports, including those who are at Dover. As I made clear in an earlier answer, they do very good work on a daily basis to stop people coming into this country illegally and to seize goods that should not be coming into this country. As I say, those who operate at Dover should be commended for the work that they do on a daily basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that knife crime is a serious concern, which is why the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just pointed out, have introduced a new offence of aggravated carrying of a knife. We need to send clear signals and there needs to be effective police action. He knows that the Mayor has been promoting that in London with his knife crime plan, Operation Blade, and we will continue to support those efforts.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not the key to cutting knife crime the sending of a clear social message that anyone who commits a crime with a knife or gun will go to prison, actions that this Government have taken, along with the excellent ideas that Brooke Kinsella has come up with?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about tough enforcement and sending a clear signal that those who carry knives and use them in a threatening manner will receive a custodial sentence, which we are legislating for, and about the programmes that work with communities to deter people from using knives. That is what Brooke Kinsella’s excellent report focused on.

Metropolitan Police Service

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is an important principle on which we must base what we do. That is why I try not to comment on things until I have seen the evidence on matters of concern. It is of course true that these investigations must be followed through properly and fully, so that those who are guilty can be brought to justice and any speculation about those who are innocent can be cleared up.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The allegations that payments were made improperly to the police were first made in 2003. The House needs to know what action was taken by the Home Office and by successive Ministers over the period since that date. Will the Home Secretary do a review and make a report to Parliament?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I indicated in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, there were indeed a number of times under the last Government when these issues and concerns were raised and no action was taken.

Proposed Directive (Information Systems)

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which transcends this directive, which is a Title V measure, as contrasted with the third pillar measures that are subject to the potential block opt-out in 2014. I hesitate to go into the technicalities, but we have clearly opted in to the directive, so it falls within the Title V base rather than the third pillar base. It was a technical question, and I am sorry for that rather technical response.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In Dover, we see human trafficking and all too often the evil perpetrated by international gangs in the physical sphere. We should sign up to directives only when we get information-sharing and international assistance, because crime knows no borders, but can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no mission creep from cybercrime to the snooping that we have seen under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and, in striking the right balance, we approach those issues with the rights of the individual’s freedoms and liberties very much at the forefront of this Government’s mind. We believe that the directive is important and will add value, but we will approach those issues with liberty and freedom at the forefront of our mind.

Counter-terrorism

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the reserve powers. The significant change is that instead of having something on the statute book to be used without any parliamentary scrutiny, we propose that Parliament should be able to act quickly, because we can imagine circumstances in which quick action is needed, while not leaving these onerous and draconian powers on the statute book. That seems to be a significant step forward towards proper balance and to giving Parliament more power over the process, which I am sure that he would welcome.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not proper border control an essential part of a review to deal with terrorism? It is no good building a police state at home if we allow pretty much anyone, be they friend or foe, to wander into the country. Will the Minister consider stronger measures?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, having strong and secure borders is one of the essential elements in our fight against international terrorism, and that, as he knows, is why one of the Government’s priorities is to make our borders more secure. We have been making significant progress on that over the past nine months.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes. Indeed, the right hon. Lady’s own Government looked at the possibility of electing police authorities and rejected it, but we are sure about what we are doing through the police and crime commissioners and the police and crime panels. The panels will comprise locally elected councillors and some independent and lay members, who will be able to veto a commissioner’s proposed precept by a three-quarters majority and veto any candidate a commissioner proposes for chief constable by the same majority. The public will also be given opportunities to scrutinise the performance of their police and crime commissioners directly, through enhanced local crime information, including street-level crime maps.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On accountability, is it not the case that London has an elected Mayor, covering 6 million people? That person is highly visible, highly accountable and, even, highly popular. There are executive mayors throughout the country, including in Lewisham and in east London, who are highly visible and accountable, too, so surely the argument about accountability is a bogus one.

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is exactly right: this is not an untried method of dealing with police accountability. The Mayor of London is indeed the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said that the Mayor of London was “too visible”, but politicians should be out there, visible and able to take on—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

We are not changing the law because a foreign country has put pressure on us. In relation to this law, the evidential requirement that is needed in order for somebody to go and get an arrest warrant is significantly less than that required for a successful prosecution. We are saying that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be able to look at any such application that is made and give consent to it or otherwise.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The measures on universal jurisdiction are one of the more important aspects of the Bill, because what we have seen before has made Britain a laughing stock as a place of fishing and trawling for international justice in matters that are better dealt with elsewhere.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is certainly clear that the current process for applying for an arrest warrant has deterred some public figures from overseas from coming to the UK. The Bill will make the process fairer and safer by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before a warrant can be issued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

My right hon. Friend is making the point that the previous Home Secretary would have fought his corner for the police and Home Office budgets. In the spending review, the Home Secretary did not exactly lead the police chiefs up Downing street, as the Secretary of State for Defence did with the defence chiefs. We heard nothing—not a squeak. The Home Secretary calls what we ended up with a fair settlement, but it is a deeply unfair settlement, compared with that for schools, health and defence, that hits the police disproportionately with spending cuts. Police chiefs around the country ask me, “Where was the Home Secretary?”

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman for the past 10 minutes, and I have yet to hear a credible alternative plan. All we have is another blank sheet of paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

As I said at the beginning, we will propose amendments in Committee to strengthen accountability at force and neighbourhood level, but in a way that is consistent with an approach to policing that respects political independence and ensures broad-based accountability across an area. Concentrating power in one individual will lead inevitably to political interference, and it will be impossible for one individual to represent, for example, the individual point of view of every town and community in West Yorkshire.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

Oh, go on.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his patience with me. In Kent, the police authority’s idea of accountability seems to be to sue people who question it for libel, which I regard with serious concern. That should not be done with public money. The Library report to which he referred states that two thirds of the public said that they did not know who to go to if they had a complaint, and that 59% said that it was very difficult to have a say on how their area was policed. Surely an elected police commissioner would be more responsive.

[Ed Balls]

I do not know whether the Library report quotes the Conservative chair of the police authority in Kent, who, as I understand it, totally disagrees with the hon. Gentleman and says that the proposal is flawed and will not work. It will not be properly representative.

Bizarrely, the coalition came along and proposed the abolition of police authorities, but then realised that it was a flawed policy. It then decided to reinvent police authorities and give them a new name so that they would be called panels rather than authorities. The problem of representation needs to be solved, because it is serious.

Public Order Policing

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

In response to the latter question, I can say, as I did in my statement, that the IPCC is investigating what happened to Alfie Meadows, who had serious head injuries. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that matter; it is for the IPCC to investigate it fully and properly. Of course a large number of people came to protest peacefully on Thursday. However, unlike in the previous demonstrations, the violent protesters were not a small minority—there was a significant number of violent demonstrators.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Given that we saw a feral mob intent on riot and desecrating important national symbols such as the Cenotaph, the statue of Churchill and the Supreme Court, will the Home Secretary praise in particular the restraint shown by the police in the face of such provocation and attacks from protesters?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police very bravely faced significant provocation last Thursday, and they did indeed exercise restraint. A number of incidents are being investigated, but overall the police showed restraint, ensuring that Parliament was able to conduct its business and that people could access this place for the right and proper democratic debate that we wanted to take place.