Extradition

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The decision that those individuals be extradited went through all the proper and appropriate processes, including the European Court, and in all those stages extradition was considered appropriate. We have a process already whereby decisions are taken as to whether individuals should be prosecuted in the UK or in any other country asking for extradition, and those decisions are properly taken by the courts. We will in future be changing the way that that takes place so that it is more open and transparent.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that we have a Home Secretary with the backbone to stand up for British citizens and British principles of justice. I also welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s acknowledgment—her first, I think—that the European arrest warrant needs reform, because in quantity and quality those cases have proved far more serious than our arrangements with the United States, including in relation to my constituent Colin Dines. Does the Home Secretary agree that the best bet for common-sense reform of the EAW would be to exercise the block opt-out and then use our leverage to press for modest safeguards so that we do not continue to hang innocent citizens out to dry?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his observations and comments. As he knows, the Government’s current thinking is that we will exercise the block opt-out and then seek to opt in to a number of measures. We will obviously consider the matter carefully and, as I said earlier, discuss the whole question of the European arrest warrant with the European Commission and other member states. As I have indicated, I am aware that other member states are also concerned about certain aspects of the European arrest warrant’s operation.

European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, it is not open to us to opt out of individual measures. The last Government negotiated a block opt-out, with a right to opt into certain measures following negotiation with the Commission and member states. We intend to follow that process.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about cross-border crime, which is significant. The drugs that are being peddled on the streets and lead to petty crime are being brought across the border by organised crime gangs. That is why we are setting up the National Crime Agency, which will include a border policing command and will have an enhanced ability to deal with serious and organised crime.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Conservative Members want focused co-operation, not blind loss of democratic control.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that as she goes through the 130 measures in question, she will examine all options for co-operation, whether they are formally opting back in or alternatives such as co-operating under a memorandum of understanding or ad hoc co-operation? That would broaden the scope and potential for practical co-operation without ceding democratic authority.

[Mrs May]

I assure my hon. Friend that our consideration of these matters will be wide ranging and that we will examine each measure individually and carefully. As I have said, we will consider not just opt-ins and opt-outs but the other opportunities and options that are available.

European Convention on Human Rights

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), although, unlike him, I welcome this debate and the serious way in which Ministers have identified and targeted the issue of article 8 undermining deportation, especially in relation to foreign national criminals, but also, increasingly, in relation to other elements of our immigration controls. It is worth putting the specific problem of article 8 into perspective. The European convention on human rights was never intended to have any extra-territorial application at all. It was certainly not intended to fetter deportation in any way. That much is very clear from the travaux préparatoires of the convention, all of which are in the public domain.

All of the restrictions have arisen through judicial legislation. Judges in Strasbourg and the UK have stretched existing rights to restrict our capacity to deport. That is contrary to both the separation of powers and basic democratic accountability. It is a serious constitutional matter. It is for elected Members of this House, not unaccountable judges, to decide whether British human rights need to be upgraded from the ones we signed up to in 1950. I should say that, for my part, as a matter of principle and as an elected representative, I support upholding the absolute prohibition on torture. Some will disagree, but I think it is wrong to deport anyone into the arms of a torturing state. On the question of what the right balance might be in terms of deportation and human rights, however, it must be for elected law-makers to decide whether we are going to raise the bar. Politicians can, perfectly respectably, disagree on where the bar should be set, but democrats cannot disagree that it is for legislators to strike that balance.

The fact is that the European Court of Human Rights has been legislating since the 1970s. In the notorious Chahal case in 1996 it was decided that Governments could not deport terrorist suspects if there was a substantial risk of torture in the country to which they were to be returned, but Strasbourg has gone much further. We see new fetters placed on deportation, most recently in the Abu Qatada case. The House will recall that Qatada’s deportation was barred by Strasbourg not because he faced the risk of torture—that was rejected—but because he might not get a fair trial in Jordan. That is a very dangerous precedent. It cannot be Britain’s responsibility to ensure that the justice systems of the world meet British or European standards. Again, it is not for Strasbourg to expand the fetters on deportation through judicial legislation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Surely the hon. Gentleman is rather overreaching himself here. This country signed the UN convention against torture, as one of many countries that did so, and it therefore specifically becomes part of UK law and there is precedent for that. So deporting somebody to a regime that does not accept the convention against torture and therefore might torture them would be illegal under UK law, leaving aside what might happen to them when they were sent back.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he made so many leaps of legal logic that I could not possibly follow them all. The fact is that Strasbourg’s application of a bar on deportation when the individual is at risk of not having a fair trial in their home country is not set out in the UN convention against torture and is not in the European convention on human rights; this is something that Strasbourg, of its own whim, created. The number of appeals by Qatada, at home and in Strasbourg, makes a mockery of the rule of law.

That said, by far the biggest problem we face on deportation arises as a result of the new restrictions under article 8 and the right to family life. If we are being honest, we cannot blame that on Strasbourg, because these are home-grown restrictions; they are a direct result of judicial legislation by UK courts under the previous Government’s Human Rights Act, beyond even the high tide of judicial legislation in case law that has come from Strasbourg. As a result of the Immigration Minister’s direction, the Home Office has produced data showing that 400 foreign criminals a year defeat deportation orders on article 8 grounds. That represents 61% of all successful challenges to deportation orders and this is by far the biggest category.

These cases are not just statistics; they involve real lives. Many shocking cases have been reported in the news, and I wish to refer to just one, that of my constituent Bishal Gurung, a waiter from Esher who was brutally killed by a gang, with his body dumped mercilessly in the river Thames. The perpetrator was convicted of manslaughter and later released. He frustrated his deportation order by citing his right to family life. Let me make it clear: he had no wife, no children and no dependants, yet still he claimed that his family ties trumped the public interest in his deportation. The House can imagine how Bishal Gurung’s family felt about that, and we can imagine what they feel it says about British justice. Now I can at least tell them that the Government and the House of Commons are trying to tackle the problem and reform the law.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

We all encounter cases where members of constituents’ families have suffered as a result of the most brutal crimes and wish the most terrible justice to be placed on those who committed the crimes—if they are British, they of course stay in our courts and within our country. What I am worried about is: what happened to the principle of not visiting the sins of the father on the child? In the case the hon. Gentleman cites there was no family, but in many cases these men have married British women and have sired British children. Do those children and those wives have no right to have a life, after the sentence has expired, with their father and with their husband?

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. He crystallises things cogently, but in this case there were no dependants, so what he says does not apply. This is an interesting case. There are many examples where someone has committed a vicious, violent crime—it might be murder or, as in some cases, a sexual offence—has had a child in the meantime and has coerced members of the family, putting them under duress, so that they give evidence, which this person has then relied on to stay in this country. I challenge the view that it is always in the best interests of a child to be with a father of such character and background, but it is very difficult for a court to make that determination when they have evidence in front of them.

I shall discuss one case, which is the most skewed and perverse that I have come across. There are reporting restrictions on it, so I shall be careful about talking about some of the details. It involves an individual raping his partner and then claiming that relationship as part of the family life that he relied on to stay in this country. Many people would regard that as both legally unsustainable and morally perverse.

This is not just about the deportation of foreign criminals; it is about the shifting goalposts of article 8. It is very important to understand that the state of the law now—that static snapshot—is not the sole issue; it reflects years of development. My worry is about the direction in which things are headed. I worry that it will be increasingly impossible to apply border controls, be they in relation to the deportation of foreign national criminals or to other aspects of coalition policy, including cracking down on things such as forced marriage, increasing language requirements or dealing with sham student visas and bogus colleges. All those things will come later because the goalposts will keep shifting. That is a real danger for this Government and for future Governments.

[Mr Cash]

In his excellent, extremely well researched and powerful speech, my hon. Friend has not yet referred to the manner in which section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 impinges on this question. When I was shadow Attorney-General and I invoked our party to repeal the Human Rights Act as part of our policy, it became the policy up to and including the general election. Does he agree that nothing will stop the courts striking down immigration rules as a disproportionate violation of article 8 if they decide to do so?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If he is patient, he will find that I will come on to deal with exactly that point, but I wish to avoid duplication at this moment.

I shall now deal with the points made by the shadow Home Secretary. She clearly knows little of the history of this problem or has conveniently forgotten it, so let me remind the House that this problem has been created by the Human Rights Act that her Government introduced. In fairness, there is an additional element to this, because the previous Prime Minister at least recognised that there was a problem. The House may recall his barnstorming 2007 conference speech in Bournemouth. His biggest cheer came when he vowed, all misty eyed, that

“any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out. No-one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country.”

As a result, we got changes, including the UK Borders Act 2007, to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. Section 32 of that Act deals with the deportation of foreign national criminals—so far, so good. However, by including an express reference to the Human Rights Act in section 33—something that was totally unnecessary and a matter of political choice—the previous Prime Minister, far from strengthening our capacity to deport, fatally weakened our capacity to deport. Ultimately—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is making—primary legislation trumps the Human Rights Act, but not if that Act is expressly written into the relevant statute. That may sound like a technical point, but it is crucial to understanding what went wrong with the 2007 Act. The former Prime Minister emasculated his own deportation law, and that speaks volumes about the expediency with which Labour has approached this debate. I believe that the shadow Home Secretary will be a bit less pious about this issue and will perhaps eat a little more humble pie before the House—I am sure that the shadow Immigration Minister will do so. [Interruption.] We live in hope.

I welcome the changes and the motion, but there are questions about whether the changes to the guidance and a mere resolution of this House can deliver the reform we need. I put that precise question to the Lord Chief Justice in November, when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He made it clear that without primary legislation the courts would probably not rein in the expansion and application of article 8 in deportation cases. So I would be grateful if the Minister said what the Government will do if these changes are not fully effective, as at least Government Members hope they will be. Does he agree that if we cannot stop the rot, we will need a new UK borders Act to deal with this issue clearly, categorically, once and for all? It is vital that we can measure the success of the proposed changes we are debating today. Will he ensure that the Home Office now records the number of deportation cases frustrated on human rights grounds, with a breakdown in respect of articles 3, 6 and 8—the main offenders—so that we can measure, see and scrutinise whether this problem gets better or worse as a result of the changes being introduced? The Home Office has not routinely recorded those data. The Immigration Minister went out of his way to ensure that it produced a single quarterly snapshot in 2011—I welcome that and commend him for it—but can he reassure us that that information will be routinely recorded from now on?

Human rights reform is contentious and it needs to take place on three levels: reform of the Strasbourg court; replacement of the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights; and UK legislation to strengthen our border controls.

For my part—others might feel differently—I recognise that our coalition partners are sensitive about the Human Rights Act. I accept that we are unlikely to see the reform that I would like to see in this Parliament and I have already made clear my commitment to the absolute prohibition on torture. I cannot understand, however, why anyone except the lawyers, non-governmental organisations and academics who have made an industry out of human rights would die in a ditch to stop the deportation of serious criminals because it might disrupt their family, social or private ties. To me, as I have said, that suggests a skewed moral compass, not just legal chaos for our border controls.

The changes we need require primary legislation, but we do not have to touch the Human Rights Act to solve this specific problem. It can be done by statutory amendment. I hope that the proposals before us today will tackle the problem—they have my full support—but, if they do not, I hope that all parties will agree to consider very seriously the case for amending the UK Borders Act. We need to draw a line in the sand, to restore democratic control over the criteria for deportation, to stop the ever-expanding list of legal excuses used by some of the worst criminals to stay in this country, to protect the public and, above all, to restore their confidence in British justice. We will do that only by injecting a healthy dose of common sense back into the increasingly perverse application of our human rights law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman once again because he gives me another opportunity to restate that this is the reality—the things that we have to deal with in our constituency offices day in, day out. Yes, we see the headlines in The Daily Telegraph and yes we are appalled by the actions of some foreign nationals. Yes, such people should be deported, but if we are discussing, as we are this afternoon, the right to a family life, this is the reality—the stuff we deal with day in, day out. That is the stuff that needs the real attention.

Who can forget where all this started? It was the hilarious speech by the Home Secretary at the Conservative party conference when she—I am not making this up—cited the example of a Bolivian man who was allowed to remain in the country because he owned a cat. Of course, the Home Secretary is never one to unleash the cat among the pigeons. That ridiculous story had the Justice Secretary twitching in his Hush Puppies. He said at the time that he was willing to bet it was not true, and he was absolutely right because the Home Secretary’s story unravelled faster than a condemned pasty shortly after her speech.

[Mr Raab]

Has the hon. Gentleman read the case to which he is referring? I do not think he can have because the cat was a relevant factor—not the decisive factor but a material one—in the relationship between the boyfriend and the girlfriend, which was relied on in this case. Has the hon. Gentleman read the case?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been following his campaign with great interest, but I think he has ruined it totally with that intervention.

[Mr Raab]

Has the hon. Gentleman read the case?

Proceeds of Crime

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I support the motion, and I commend the Minister and the Home Secretary for taking a wise decision. I wish to speak briefly because after years of our sleepwalking into many mindless EU regulations, we are at last getting some substantive scrutiny of and rigour in how we take these decisions under this Government and in this Parliament. I also wish to commend the European Scrutiny Committee and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). That Committee has become the nightwatchman for Parliament on these matters, and on this directive in particular.

This draft EU directive is flawed. The Minister has explained one of the specific law enforcement problems with it, but beyond that there are six reasons why Britain should not opt in. The first of those is the basic issue of principle: the directive empowers the state to freeze assets without a court order being obtained first, and that extraordinary proposal is contrary to the fundamental tenets of justice in this country. Given the exponential increase in security legislation in this country since 9/11 and the many examples of broad powers being expansively interpreted by law enforcement agencies, whether inadvertently or otherwise, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and elsewhere, the retention of judicial oversight before making such an order is vital.

Those who want to make a practical rather than ideological argument in favour of opting in should note that in the UK a court can be asked to issue a property freezing order at any time and, if necessary, without notice to the affected party. The risk that assets might be moved if a court order was first sought are not a good reason for us to legislate along these lines. The decision to deprive an individual of their property should always require a judge’s consent.

[Mark Reckless]

Although the Labour Chair of the Home Affairs Committee took a different view, how does my hon. Friend react to Her Majesty’s Opposition apparently, in principle, supporting opting into this directive, despite the issue of principle, to which he refers, of the state taking away a private citizen’s assets—freezing them—without any reference to a court?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I think we saw a classic piece of fence-sitting. There is a clear contradiction in the position set out by the shadow Minister, which I shall refer to briefly in due course.

The second argument against opting in is, as the explanatory memorandum explains, that there has been no formal domestic consultation yet, so the House does not have the official and formal views, based on operational law enforcement experience, of the police, SOCA, the intelligence agencies and other departments, let alone external experts and groups, on the need for and the practicability of what is being proposed. The Government are therefore right to be cautious and not to be bounced into signing up to a broad new law with far-reaching implications that have not been properly thought through. I noted that the shadow Minister has explicitly requested some gist, explanation or consultation in respect of the nature, character and substance of those submissions, yet without having seen them, he would be happy to opt in anyway. I respectfully suggest to him that the ideological view in this debate and in this House is his, in favour of more JHA integration, irrespective of the scrutiny of the merits and the substance.

The third argument against opting in relates to the costs associated with this directive. Those remain unquantified, but they could well be substantial. The directive will require changes to UK primary legislation. It would introduce new data collection requirements, specifically for evaluation purposes at the EU level. Those would create a pointless administrative burden for UK authorities and lead to an additional bureaucratic tier of EU monitoring of our practices. In addition, as has been said and as the explanatory memorandum explains, the directive’s insistence on effective remedies could add to the legal aid bill, just as we are taking difficult decisions to reduce it which require uncomfortable sacrifices at home.

The fourth objection is that the UK already has ample powers in the area of asset confiscation and freezing. The Government’s explanatory memorandum states:

“We believe that the UK exceeds many of the minimum requirements and so we do not foresee that it would have an impact on the number of cases.”

If anything, those powers have become too broad in the post-9/11 era. The amount of money confiscated by the UK authorities rose by more than 500% between 2003 and 2009, which is scarcely the symptom of a weak regime. The reality is that the directive is neither necessary nor desirable.

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the UK framework for dealing with the confiscation and freezing of assets is perfectly robust. Let us be honest about this—I think that the shadow Minister should be honest about it: by legislating on this matter in Brussels, we would be legislating for the failings of other EU member states whose regimes are criticised by the Commission as “underdeveloped and underutilised”. In other words, we are expected to sign up to this blunt EU directive to try to encourage other EU states to pull their socks up. That is not a satisfactory basis for legislation in this country. For one thing, most of the failings in other member states arise less from legislative defects and more from deficiencies in operational law enforcement capabilities. The statement from the Commission suggests that the problem is less one of legislation and more one of law enforcement.

The Home Office recognised that point in its explanatory memorandum, which states:

“The UK does not consider that non-legislative options have been fully considered”.

That is the fifth objection to opting in. If there are alternatives to legislation, why have they not been thoroughly and properly examined by the Commission before it rushed to churn out yet another intrusive and in certain respects draconian directive?

The final objection is the impact on the UK’s 2014 opt-out decision on crime and policing, which has already been mentioned. Every time the UK opts in to one of the 130 or so measures that are subject to our block opt-out, that measure is removed from the list of laws that the UK will have the chance to repatriate by 2014. In other words, if we opt in we will automatically become subject to the jurisdiction and interpretation of the Commission and European Court of Justice. Given that Brussels will be assuming competence over broad and, for the UK, unprecedented security powers, that is not an ideological issue but a major constitutional one.

The directive is in part draconian, but it is in whole costly and unnecessary. It conflicts with basic principles of British justice and would undermine Britain’s opportunity to wrest back democratic control of justice and home affairs legislation. There is no good reason why Britain should opt in—the Opposition have not advanced one—and for principled and practical reasons, we should remain out. I commend the Home Secretary and the Minister for their rigour in reaching this decision based on the substance and merits of the matter.

[James Brokenshire]

rose—

Abu Qatada

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, as I said in response to an earlier question, I am confident in the TPIM measures that we have introduced and put in place. I note that not only a number of Labour Back Benchers, but the shadow Home Secretary herself have raised a number of questions about the issue of terrorism, anti-terrorism and national security. I simply say to them that they should ask themselves this: if they care so much about that issue, why is the Labour party campaigning to stop the extradition to the United States of a known terror suspect?

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

May I, like others, welcome the Home Secretary’s determination? As already said, the House of Lords has already approved this deportation without the requisite assurances that the Government are now able to provide. I seek some clarification of the rule 39 injunction to which my right hon. Friend has referred. Given the nature of how the UK implements international law, on what basis in UK law would such an injunction be directly enforceable in the UK courts?

[Mrs May]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. I thought that I had implied the answer to that question in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.

The point is that if we were to act against the rule 39 injunction, it would be open to Abu Qatada—or, indeed, to anyone else in the same position—to go to our UK courts to obtain an injunction against deportation, and we would then find ourselves acting against the law that exists here in the UK. It is on that basis, apart from any other, that I say that we would be acting illegally.

Abu Qatada

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the balance between judicial proceedings and the consideration of those proceedings, and the interests of national security. If I may say so, I think it possible that those who have been in the Home Office are often more acutely sensitive than others to the fact that the balance sometimes goes in a direction that we do not feel gives sufficient weight to issues of national security. However, as we try to bring 46 other countries along with us in our attempt to introduce some reform to the European Court, we shall need to examine exactly what sort of cases should be going there.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The Qatada case highlights wider chinks in our security strategy. It is a fact that the number of terrorism convictions has plummeted by 100% in the last four years. Will my right hon. Friend consider lifting the ban on intercept evidence so that we can prosecute more of these terrorists? Will she also consider amending the UK Borders Act 2007 to strengthen our capacity to deport, which we can do without touching the Human Rights Act? Above all, does not the Qatada ruling show that it is time for Britain to say no to Strasbourg?

[Mrs May]

Of course we are always in the business of considering what measures we can take to ensure that we can strengthen our ability to deal with potential terrorists. As for the issue of intercept evidence, we are still pursuing it, the advisory council of Privy Counsellors is considering it again, and it has been considered by successive Governments. It is a complex issue, but that work continues while we try to establish whether there is a way in which it would be possible to introduce intercept as evidence.

Foreign National Offenders

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) believes that, he really is completely out of touch with reality.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Office’s review of article 8 and the right to family life. Successful article 8 challenges to deportations are running at about 400 a year, and they include that of the man with no dependants who was convicted of killing my constituent, Bishal Gurung. Will the Minister tell the House when the Home Office review will report, and is he mindful of the evidence from the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court that changes of this nature would require primary legislation?

[Damian Green]

Obviously, we are mindful of all the representations we have received on the consultation. We will come to a conclusion within the next few months. My hon. Friend’s point is clearly a serious one, and we are looking carefully into the fastest and most effective method of achieving what I hope we all want to achieve.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls upon the Government to reform the UK’s extradition arrangements to strengthen the protection of British citizens by introducing as a matter of urgency a Bill to enact the safeguards recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its Fifteenth Report, HC 767, and by pursuing such amendments to the UK-US Extradition Treaty 2003 and the EU Council Framework Decision 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant as are necessary in order to give effect to such recommendations.

First, may I thank the Backbench Business Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for granting this debate? Her Committee is proving to be a shot in the arm for Parliament and our democracy. I also wish to thank the cross-party sponsors of the motion, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee, and the many, many MPs on all sides of the House who signed and support the motion.

The debate was scheduled at relatively short notice, so the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee are not here. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife is leading a parliamentary delegation in Washington. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee is also engaged but will join the debate later. Both spoke passionately in the Westminster Hall debate on 24 November. Both asked that I reiterate their firm support for the motion this evening.

The issue before us is technical and legalistic but, at its core, it is about the price we place on the liberty of our citizens, and the value we ascribe to that cornerstone of British justice, innocent until proven guilty. It is not about abolishing extradition, which is vital to international efforts in relation to law enforcement. It is about whether, in taking the fight to the terrorists and the serious criminals after 9/11, the pendulum swung too far the other way. I want to praise the Minister and the coalition for their efforts to defend our freedoms and their achievements to date, and for taking seriously the case for extradition reform. My purpose today is to encourage their best instincts and inject a dose of common sense into the blunt extradition regime that we now have in place.

What went wrong? Let us take, first, the UK-US treaty of 2003. Much has been made of the different evidential thresholds. The review by Sir Scott Baker concluded that there was “no significant difference” between the two tests, probable cause and reasonable suspicion. For my part, I do not believe there is a massive difference between the paper legal tests, but that does not mean that their operation is symmetrical. As Alun Jones QC, who represented the Spanish Government during the Pinochet case, argued and points out in The Daily Telegraph today, an American citizen who is subject to an extradition warrant in the US has the constitutional safeguard that a judge must examine the evidence. In this country, a short recitation of the allegations suffices. That is a very real and important imbalance.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He says that he believes the evidential test to be higher in the USA than it is in the United Kingdom. Will he acknowledge, however, that the United States has not refused a single request since the treaty was introduced?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will take his word on that data, but the key distinction that I am making is between the paper legal test and how it actually works. We are not going to be ivory tower academic lawyers about this. Let us understand the impact on the people affected.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Let me correct the record. The Americans may not have refused any British applications for extradition, but they have refused to provide witnesses in other countries’ cases, which has led to broken trials.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification.

In practical terms the arrangements are unbalanced too. On the latest data available—I thank the Immigration Minister for his letter correcting earlier replies to parliamentary questions—29 UK nationals or dual nationals were extradited from Britain to the US since 2004. Five Americans were extradited from the US to Britain.

Obviously, states extradite their own nationals and third parties as well, but we in the House are rightly concerned about the treatment of those removed from the home country. In front of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the US ambassador disputed some of the earlier data that I spoke to in the Westminster Hall debate, complaining about untrue accusations being made by MPs and adding:

“The constant use of skewed arguments and wilful distortion of the facts by some to advance their own agendas remains of great concern to the United States”.

If there is any dispute about the facts it is not with me or any Member of this House, but with Ministers from the previous Government who failed to record consistently data on the issue between 2004 and 2007. I emphasise that all the figures cited today and in the previous debate were from Government replies to parliamentary questions. Neither the ambassador nor the US embassy, when I later followed up, were able to correct the figures with data based on their own records, so I find it regrettable that the charge of

“wilful distortion of the facts”

is being bandied around without His Excellency being in command of a few of his own.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am greatly enjoying what my hon. Friend is saying. I am a thorough supporter of the idea that the extradition rules should be reviewed, but I am still grappling, in the American case, with the difference between the two tests. Will he give us a sense of how they might come apart?

[Mr Raab]

The fundamental question is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. As paper tests, I do not think there is an enormous amount of difference between them, but as Alun Jones QC, whose article in The Daily Telegraph I commend, has spelled out, the practical operation—the judicial scrutiny that is available in the US because of the US constitutional guarantees—is higher. That is the key difference.

For all the talk of the evidential burden and the question of reciprocity, in my view, the critical issue in the US arrangements is forum. That is the label for how one decides where, in cross-border cases, the appropriate jurisdiction lies. The Gary McKinnon case is the leading case attracting great controversy at present. At root it is about the injustice in dispatching someone with Asperger’s syndrome hundreds of miles from home on allegations of computer hacking when he was apparently searching for unidentified flying objects. Gary McKinnon should not be treated like some gangland mobster or al-Qaeda mastermind.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his efforts to secure the debate. Does he agree that whatever the outcome of the debate tonight, it would be helpful if the Government Front-Bench team gave us an update on the Gary McKinnon and Babar Ahmad cases, given that they have been so closely involved in them in the past?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. It would certainly be useful to have an update on the cases that have attracted so much limelight and controversy.

More generally, we ought to have some discretion in this country to prosecute such cross-border cases here. Jurisdiction ought to be decided transparently, by independent courts, according to clear legal rules, not by prosecutors haggling behind closed doors. That is why the idea of guidelines for prosecutors does not go far enough. Of course, the legislation is already in place under the Police and Justice Act 2006. Let us bring it into force and take the political heat out of these cases, which I respectfully suggest would be in the interests of both countries. The previous Government enacted that legislation, so it is difficult to understand why Labour Front Benchers might seek to block it by opposing the motion.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Many constituents have raised with me the Babar Ahmad case, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what effect he understands his motion, if agreed to, will have on pending cases, as opposed to future cases?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The short answer is that it is not clear. There has been talk about whether it might have some impact on the Babar Ahmad case, and indeed the Gary McKinnon case, but the truth is that it is not clear, and from this position I cannot give legal advice on individual cases.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes his case with great erudition and I have every admiration for him, but I would like to return to something he said earlier about the practical import of the matter. Does he agree that, whatever the measure’s impact, it is essential that never again must anyone spend seven years in prison awaiting extradition?

[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.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. He refers to my constituent, Andrew Symeou. Not only did Andrew go through all that before eventually being freed, but the human price his family paid was shocking. They had to put their lives on hold for up to four years, including two years in Greece.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Andrew’s father, Frank, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am sure that we will hear from the Chair of the Committee later. The damage done and the human suffering not only to the direct victims, but to their families, are very clear. One of the major flaws of the Baker review is that it did not talk to or take evidence from the victims or their representatives.

[Jesse Norman]

Further to the point about the case of Andrew Symeou, when the European arrest warrant was introduced, did the introducing authorities look at the standards of law, order and punishment across the European countries in order to assure themselves that such conditions could not occur?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will move on to the level of scrutiny later, but the short answer is that the level in that case was not nearly high enough. The question today is whether we in this House have the will to stand up and ensure that the trauma of the Symeou case and many others is not inflicted on other innocent people. Let us be very clear that Symeou was innocent, as are many of the victims under the European arrest warrant.

The Symeou case exposes the fatal flaw in the European arrest warrant. Fast-track extradition in the EU—I think this will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—is based on a leap of faith and an assumption that all European justice systems are of a decent standard. That assumption is a sham. The justice systems in many European countries are well below any acceptable minimum standard. The Baker review proposed no safeguards to prevent a repeat of such miscarriages of justice. The report expressed the aspiration that penal conditions and justice systems across Europe will get better in time. In fact, standards of justice in some of the countries concerned are getting worse. According to Transparency International’s corruption perception index—just one benchmark, but an important one—corruption is getting worse in Greece, Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria. Even if standards of justice improve across Europe, as we all hope they will, our duty is to protect our citizens today, not in five or 10 years’ time. That is why it is important to take action now and not accept the “hit and hope” counsel of the Baker review.

The Baker review failed to take evidence directly from the victims and hear about the trauma that innocent people and their families have been through. In contrast, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), took evidence from a range of victims, including Frank Symeou, Deborah Dark, Michael Turner and Edmond Arapi.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I am very much in sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. What is the balance between the number of Europeans who are extradited to the UK and the number of British citizens who are extradited to other European countries?

[Mr Raab]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way, but before he replies I gently remind him of the time limit that will apply in the debate and that his introductory remarks were supposed to take about 10 to 15 minutes.

[Mr Raab]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make progress. The short answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) is that I am moving on to that point.

Each of the victims had a story to tell about the Kafkaesque operation of the European arrest warrant. In none of those cases have any alleged crimes been upheld, and in this country I believe that we still call that innocent. In the case of Michael Turner, a business man accused of defrauding administration fees in Hungary, six years after the alleged offence took place Hungarian prosecutors have still not even charged him with any crime whatever. That warrant was a fishing expedition—no more, no less. If we do not put in place some basic check as the tide of warrants rises, there will be more of those injustices. The case for reform is overwhelming and the starting point should be the recommendations of the Joint Committee. No one is talking about tearing up the European arrest warrant altogether; we are talking about adding some safeguards enumerated in the report. If we do not put some basic checks in place, we are inviting worse to come.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton, according the EU Council Secretariat Britain now receives a third of all European arrest warrants, four times more than France and 15 times more than Poland. The number of surrenders is rising. In 2004, 5 British citizens were surrendered in a year, but last year the figure rose to one a week. The case for reform is clear. We must put in place some basic checks so that we can ensure that the innocent are not swept along with those whom we of course want brought to justice.

It is important to stress that no one is suggesting that we should let criminals go free. We want the introduction of basic safeguards. They might add a small delay in some cases, but they will not prevent a single criminal being brought to justice. Let us be crystal clear that there is no law enforcement dividend from selling out the innocent. The motion before us calls on the Government to introduce legislation to remedy the situation. Of course Parliament cannot tie its own hands. The JCHR recommendations should be the benchmark and any legislation must go through proper scrutiny procedures.

At the international level, the motion calls on the Government to pursue renegotiation of the arrangements with our American and European partners. The legislature is not demanding the impossible of the Executive. I hope that the Opposition will support us in this. The Leader of the Opposition has strenuously made the case, with regard to civil liberties, that:

“We should always take the greatest care in protecting them… too often we seemed casual about them. I won’t let the Tories or the Liberals take ownership of the British tradition of liberty.”

Those are fine words that he will be held to this evening.

I acknowledge the work of the Baker review. Judges and lawyers can give their legal opinions, but ultimately it is Members of this House, as elected law makers, who will decide. Each of us bears the responsibility to protect the liberty of our citizens and defend British justice, and I commend the motion to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Well, that is one way of looking at it. Certainly, if we were to decide to require everyone to hold to the prima facie standard, that might be fairer, although it would be extremely expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming. For the accused person and for witnesses, the interests of justice are not served by delaying matters, so that would be the problem there. However, before the 2003 Act, I believe there was a requirement to find a prima facie standard. If not, there was certainly an imbalance between the United States and the United Kingdom in that respect. The United States had to apply greater burdens to extradite people from the United Kingdom than the United Kingdom had to supply vice versa.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has made the point about the paper test, but the key point made by Alun Jones QC is that the quality of evidence is assessed in extraditions both ways by the US courts—that is a requirement of the US constitution—but in neither case by the UK courts. There is the imbalance. Does my hon. Friend accept that?

[Michael Ellis]

No, I do not accept that. I agree with the Scott Baker report that there is no fundamental imbalance. It is important to point out that the United States has not denied a single extradition request from the United Kingdom under the treaty. Although the United States makes more requests to the United Kingdom than it receives, the difference is largely because the population of the United States is five times greater than that of the United Kingdom. There is no imbalance. The Scott Baker report confirms that, and I cannot support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Had my hon. Friend paid closer attention to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, he would understand that there are differing views on that. It is well known that, with Government reports, the people are appointed who will provide the report that is wanted. That has been practised over many centuries.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is making his case in his usual passionate way, laced with history and forensic analysis. Does he agree that lawyers and judges give their legal opinions, but ultimately it is for accountable and elected lawmakers to decide on these matters?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, we are the ones who must decide what is right for the country, and we must do so on first principles.

Although the American extradition treaty is not entirely satisfactory—I was very much persuaded by my hon. Friend’s introductory remarks—I am much more concerned about the European arrest warrant, which risks the freedom of innocent people in this country. I really would rather that we did not manage to arrest a foreign criminal if the exchange for that was allowing an innocent English person to be transported abroad—[Interruption.] Or a Scotsman, a Welshman or a Northern Irishman. I do not particularly want the southern Irish to languish in jails unnecessarily either, but that is not my business. It is therefore important for the Government to reinstate these protections. In fact, it would be quite encouraging if, in our efforts to renegotiate with Europe, we started with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

With the House’s permission, Mr Speaker, I rise for the second time to wind up what has been an excellent debate. Let me thank the Backbench Business Committee again for making it happen.

We have heard powerful speeches on the basic principles of justice which are at stake. I doubt that I shall have time to mention all of them, but the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) started us off with the benefit of his considerable experience as Home Secretary; my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke passionately and at length about the importance of the presumption of innocence; the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, talked about the Committee’s review and report; and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) spoke about the flaws in the European arrest warrant. I am sure that we all look forward to the publication of his report in due course.

We also heard compelling speeches from a range of Members representing victims of rough justice under our extradition laws. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke passionately and powerfully about the arbitrary treatment of Gary McKinnon, while my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) talked about the Michael Turner case. I welcome the Minister’s engagement. He has listened very patiently, and I hope that he has been convinced of the case for reform and the strong consensus in favour of it in the House.

I listened carefully to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He seems to be rather lukewarm about the whole issue of extradition reform, but I am glad that at least he does not oppose the forum provision enacted by the previous Government.

In truth, it is for Members of Parliament in all parts of the House to stand up for our constituents, to stand up for our citizens, and to stand up for the basic principles of British justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls upon the Government to reform the UK’s extradition arrangements to strengthen the protection of British citizens by introducing as a matter of urgency a Bill to enact the safeguards recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its Fifteenth Report, HC 767, and by pursuing such amendments to the UK-US Extradition Treaty 2003 and the EU Council Framework Decision 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant as are necessary in order to give effect to such recommendations.

Extradition

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a tremendous pleasure and privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, for, I believe, the first time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall. I welcome the presence and participation of the Immigration Minister and thank him in advance for engaging proactively on such an important issue.

The Home Office is often berated for letting too many people into the United Kingdom, so it is something of a novelty for Ministers to face the reverse criticism. Yet, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, pointed out in its most recent report on extradition, there are flaws in and widespread concerns about our extradition laws. There are concerns about the UK-US extradition treaty of 2003, in which paragraph 3(c) of article 8 sets different evidential thresholds for the two countries. The United States did not ratify the treaty until 2007, but for clarity, my understanding is that it has relied on the lower burden of proof available to it since 2004.

Lawyers can bicker about whether there is a substantive difference between the requirement that the US has to satisfy—the reasonable suspicion test—and the requirement that the UK has to satisfy, which is showing probable cause. The fact is that, in operational terms, since 2004, 24 Britons have been extradited to the United States under the new arrangements, and just one American has been extradited to Britain. In practice, in the way they affect our respective citizens, the arrangements have practically been all one way.

The main problem, in my view—others will speak about the individual cases of their constituents—is the absence of any discretion to allow the UK to decline extradition in cross-border cases, having taken into account the interests of justice. That has been the problem in the case of Gary McKinnon, which is equally, or more about the injustice in dispatching a young man with Asperger’s syndrome hundreds of miles from home on allegations of computer hacking, when he was apparently searching for unidentified flying objects, than about the alleged offence or the evidential threshold. More misfit than terrorist, he should not be equated with some high-level al-Qaeda suspect or gangster.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate and on raising the case of my constituent, Gary McKinnon, at an early stage. My hon. Friend has already mentioned the issue of disparity. Does there not seem to be a self-evident statistical disparity? I understand that, in the past 40 years, three suspected terrorists were extradited from the United States to this country, in comparison with the situation facing Gary McKinnon, who is being prosecuted on the basis of alleged terrorism.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that historical context, and I certainly accept it. It is important to have a practical, operational background about the numbers of cases, so that the debate does not become a dry, lawyer’s debate about the terms of the treaty or the Extradition Act 2003.

We have legislation in place to inject a dose of common sense and discretion into the McKinnon case and other such cases. The Government ought to bring that into force as a matter of priority.

I understand the US’s concern. I have spoken to officials from the US embassy, and I understand their concerns regarding the treaty’s operation. They make quite strong arguments about the discrepancy between the evidential thresholds. None the less, in the US’s extradition treaty relations with, to name but a few, Brazil, Mexico and Australia, the domestic authorities in those countries have the right to decline extradition in these and much wider circumstances. Why should Britain, a stalwart ally, not request such a modest adjustment?

The problems created by the European arrest warrant have proven to be even more serious and far more widespread than those created by the US treaty. First, there are cases that are exemplified by the case of Andrew Symeou. Andrew, a British student, was whisked off to Greece under a European arrest warrant for involvement in a fight at a nightclub that left another man dead, which is a serious offence. Andrew was extradited, despite eye-witness accounts that he was not at the club at the time.

Fast-track European Union extradition is based on the assumption that standards of justice are adequate across Europe. We all put our faith in that assumption, but I am afraid that the Symeou case and many others show that that assumption is a sham and a fraud. We cannot understand the operation of the EAW without understanding that fraud—the assumption that all the justice systems operate to a similarly high standard.

Let us look at the Symeou case. Greek police beat identical statements out of witnesses, which were then retracted. Andrew Symeou spent almost a year in squalid prison conditions before being bailed. He was left with a flea-ridden blanket in a cell exposed to a sewer and crawling with cockroaches. He was abused by guards and witnessed another prisoner being beaten to death for drug money. The trial proceeded at a snail’s pace, with court translators who spoke scant English. He was eventually cleared in June this year, after a two-year ordeal, and he was left to rebuild his life.

The independent Baker review, commissioned by the coalition to look into the operation of our extradition relations, makes absolutely no recommendations for preventing such horror stories being inflicted on other innocent people—I use the word “innocent” advisedly, although that was clearly the case for Andrew Symeou. The Symeou case highlights the need for a higher evidential threshold—a prima facie test—to militate against the risk that fast-track extradition goes ahead on manifestly tainted evidence or spurious grounds.

The Baker report merely suggests that, over time and with effort, the justice systems and prison conditions across Europe will get better. All of us in the Chamber may well hope for that, but that view is naive at best and reckless at worst. I urge the Government to ignore that legalistic and simplistic analysis and think about what innocent people such as Andrew Symeou actually go through in real life.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about my constituent. I, too, congratulate him on securing the debate.

While in prison, many of Andrew Symeou’s human rights were fundamentally breached. Does my hon. Friend agree that unfortunately, the Scott Baker report clearly believes that, because there is mutual recognition and all EU members have signed up to the European convention on human rights, we are not right to presume any fundamental breaches of human rights?

[Mr Raab]

That is exactly the point, and exactly why the assumptions that underwrite the European arrest warrant are fraudulent. I cannot think of any other way of putting it.

It is not good enough just to sit back and hit and hope on the Greek justice system getting better. For one thing, it may be getting worse. Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index is a well regarded measure of standards of justice in national administration and legal systems. On a score of one to 10—one being the most corrupt—Greece has fallen from 4.2 to 3.5 in the past 10 years.

Even if there were grounds for optimism that the Greek justice system would improve over time, which we all hope for, we need to protect our citizens right now—not in five or 10 years’ time, but today. That is why we need an amendment to the European arrest warrant framework decision, a prima facie test, a proportionality safeguard, and the other recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

In fairness to the Baker review, it acknowledged the case for an amendment to the EAW to accommodate a proportionality test, which is one of the other crucial safeguards that are required. However, in other areas the report ignores, almost wholesale, major flaws in the current arrangements. It casually disregards evidence that shows that warrants are being issued for investigation rather than for prosecution.

That important point is best illustrated by the evidence given by Michael Turner to the Joint Committee. Michael Turner set up a property business in Hungary in 2005. When it failed, as some business ventures do, he paid off his staff, filed for bankruptcy and returned to Britain. Three years later, he was extradited to a Hungarian jail, accused of defrauding on certain administration fees. He was detained in a prison that was formerly run by the KGB. He has now been allowed to return home, but he remains under investigation. At the time of the extradition, the Hungarian authorities assured the UK courts that they were ready to prosecute: that this was not a hit and hope; they were trial-ready. Yet six years after the alleged offence took place, Mr Turner has not been charged with any crime whatever. The extradition that threw his life into turmoil was little more than a hit and hope fishing expedition. Again, the Baker report remains oblivious, if not blind, to the basic injustice and the human toll that that kind of ordeal takes on those affected. I am talking about not just the victims but the families.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. During the course of his research, has he had the chance to look at the case of Babar Ahmad, who is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the shadow Justice Secretary? My right hon. Friend is in his place in this Chamber, but protocol restricts him from speaking in this debate. Babar Ahmad has been in detention for seven years. Can the hon. Gentleman qualify the validity of the fact that Babar Ahmad has not been able to be extradited, deported or tried in the UK, but languishes in a detention centre?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I want to be careful about what I say about the Babar Ahmad case. We must bear in mind the fact that, whatever the nature of the allegations—some of the individuals in the cases that I have mentioned are plainly and demonstrably innocent—we are dealing with that basic principle of British justice that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We are losing sight of that in this country. Irrespective of the nature of the allegations against Babar Ahmad, and I do not deny for one second that they are grave, the period of pre-trial detention is unacceptably high and should be looked at carefully within the scope of the UK-US treaty in relation to both the “most appropriate forum” safeguard and the other safeguards that might be available.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I wonder whether it is helpful to intervene on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. As there is such enormous interest in this debate and in the issue of Babar Ahmad, we are more than happy to take further representations from other Back-Bench Members for time in the Chamber to return to this subject in the event that all Members do not get the chance fully to explore the issue today.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has partly addressed my point. Given the number of hon. Members present today, does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that this is a matter that should be debated on the Floor of the House? We need to debate both this issue and the issue of Babar Ahmad, for which an e-petition of more than 140,000 signatures was collected.

[Mr Raab]

Certainly, we need to have a debate in Chamber time and on a votable motion. I hope that we can deal with all the individual cases within the scope of the broader policy issue about the UK-US treaty and the European arrest warrant. If there is enough support from hon. Members across the House, I will return to the Backbench Business Committee to seek what we originally asked for.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

If we had a vote today, we would carry it, but of course we cannot have one because we are not in the main Chamber. I agree with my hon. Friends who have already expressed the view that we ought to have this debate in the House. The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House all commented when they were in opposition that they supported what we are here today to do. Therefore, let us get this debate into the main Chamber and then we can carry the vote if they will deliver.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I find myself in the rare position of agreeing wholeheartedly with him.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Don’t worry, it won’t last.

[Mr Raab]

I am sure that is correct.

Going back to the Baker report and the issue of extradition under the European arrest warrant for the purposes of investigation rather than prosecution, the report effectively denies that EAWs are being used in cases where there is “insufficient evidence”. That is an astonishing conclusion; it is really remarkable. It is just one example of where the Baker review would have been assisted if it had interviewed the victims. It did not do that. However, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Joint Committee on Human Rights did, and we gleaned as a result not just the legal technicalities and the operation but the human toll on those affected, particularly the innocent—but actually everyone. If we stand up for the principles of justice, we stand up for them across the board and the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of British justice.

The Baker review should have heard the personal side of the trauma endured by Michael and his family. Instead, and this is really disappointing, Michael’s case merely gets a solitary mention in a footnote at the bottom of page 279. The review’s response to the broader issue of whether European arrest warrants are issued for investigations and not prosecutions is really to point out the blindingly obvious. It concludes that it should not happen under the terms of the framework decision, but that will be no comfort to the Turner family, because it does happen and it is happening and it will happen again unless we put a check in place.

Either we can and should amend the Extradition Act 2003 to make it explicit that extradition for investigation is barred or we need to pursue amendment of the framework decision itself. Given that we do so on other grounds, that would be a sensible course to take.

On other occasions, the EAW system has proved truly Kafkaesque for its victims. The case of Deborah Dark, a grandmother of two, best illustrates that. She gave evidence to our Committee. She was acquitted of drug offences in France more than 20 years ago. Without telling her, the French prosecutors appealed and a two-year jail sentence was imposed in her absence. Seventeen years later, on holiday in Turkey, she was stunned to be arrested at gunpoint. After a three-year legal ordeal, French investigators finally dropped the case. Traumatised, Mrs Dark told the Joint Committee:

“I had been walking around for over 20 years as a wanted person and I did not know.”

That major flaw would be remedied by the specific recommendations put forward by the Joint Committee, which considered all such cases and looked at the impact on the victims as well as taking advice on both law and policy from a range of non-governmental organisations.

There are many other victims, such as Edmond Arapi, and many other controversial cases, such as that of Babar Ahmad.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on raising the case of my constituent, Edmond Arapi. Mr Arapi was convicted in his absence of a murder that took place in Italy while he had evidence that he was actually 1,000 miles away in Staffordshire Moorlands. He has since been fully cleared and is currently pressing for compensation. Does my hon. Friend agree that wherever there is a miscarriage of justice, compensation should be paid? It should be paid to compensate the Arapi family for their financial loss and the emotional trauma that they went through.

[Mr Raab]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Compensation should be paid by the country that has made the mistake. The Arapi case shows that a proportionality test, while important, is not the whole game. A charge of murder is very serious; it is not a frivolous allegation. In that case, the facts were completely out of kilter with reality. A prima facie test and some of the other safeguards would enable a basic check to be made before the extradition takes place or the process is completed.

I want to leave time for other MPs to make speeches on specific cases or on the wider policy issues at stake. I have just one final point about the European arrest warrant. It is the most important point and it has been raised by other Members. The EAW blindly assumes mutual trust in the justice systems of many countries deemed substandard if not rotten by the likes of Transparency International and others, but because it does so, innocent British citizens are also denied the full protection of the Human Rights Act and the European convention. For example, it is far harder for an innocent British national to cite disruption of family life, under article 8, as grounds for resisting extradition than it is for a foreign criminal to block deportation on the same grounds. That is a dangerous legal and policy discrepancy that will damage public confidence in our justice system if it is not remedied. There are various flaws in the current arrangements. As I mentioned earlier, I intend to go back to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate in the Chamber on a votable motion if there is sufficient support for it in our debate today.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could say what progress has been made in considering the conclusions of the Baker review and the recommendations of the JCHR, as well as the views of the numerous non-governmental organisations that have expressed an interest in this subject. In particular, can he give any indication of when the Government are likely to make concrete proposals of their own? In my view, the hit-and-hope counsel of the Baker review is just not good enough and I urge Ministers to be bolder than that. Protection of civil liberties ought to be the glue of this coalition; it ought to be an area of common ground. Indeed, it ought to unite all parties and I am hugely pleased to see so many Members from across the House, from all parties, including the smaller ones, in Westminster Hall today.

We need to implement the recommendations of the JCHR covering both the European arrest warrant and the UK-US treaty, because at the end of the day we can read the Baker review and judges and lawyers can all give their legal opinions, but as elected and accountable law-makers we in this House are charged with the duty of preserving British standards of justice and we have the ultimate responsibility for protecting our citizens.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Eleven hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate. If everyone can keep their remarks within 10 minutes, I hope that all Members will have the chance to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I pay tribute to many colleagues on both sides of the House who have participated in the debate. I thank my three co-sponsors, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

There have been many incisive contributions, and some harrowing stories of cases and of the ordeals that victims have been through. The hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about the Babar Ahmad case in particular. Clearly it is of great concern that we have had someone languishing in detention without trial for seven years. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) talked about the Michael Turner case and his four months in detention in appalling conditions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke of another appalling case, that of Deborah Dark. I have met Deborah Dark; she is incredibly courageous.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talked about the Gary McKinnon case and the wider issues affecting the US treaty, and I join him in paying tribute to Gary’s mother, Janis Sharp, who is a phenomenon and a force to be reckoned with. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) talked about the case of Andrew Symeou, and in particular made a point about the devastating impact on his family, which must be taken into account. Other colleagues raised broader issues about the operation of our extradition arrangements, and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), with her considerable professional experience, focused on the practical reforms we need.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that Parliament is a backstop for the liberty of our own citizens, and we should never lose sight of that. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) gave us a very cogent analysis of the Baker review, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), made some important points about the constitutional proprieties in the House of Commons, the value of extradition, of which we should not lose sight, and the case for a Chamber debate on a votable motion. If it is appropriate, I should also like to recognise the presence and support of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), even though he is constrained and cannot speak in the debate.

I welcome the Minister’s speech. He has been a staunch defender of civil liberties and has given us some useful clarification about his thinking. The Government deserve some credit for commissioning the independent review, even though almost every Back-Bench speaker has, I think, expressed reservations about it and has urged the Government to look more carefully at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I wish to pick up on two points. The first is about forum and the importance of its being decided by judges, transparently and openly, and not by prosecutors, who even with guidelines engage in a bit of haggling. The second point is about the European arrest warrant. It is not just trivial cases. Some of the charges are very serious, but the evidence is woefully lacking and there ought to be an opportunity at a very basic level to challenge it.

We have rare cross-party consensus on this issue. We have a unique opportunity, and I hope that the Government can take it.

Question put and agreed to.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Since coming to office, the Government have initiated a series of reforms to try to get a grip on the chaos they inherited, such as the cap on non-EU migration, the crackdown on abuses of the student visa system, the accreditation for colleges and the focus on the family route. However, we need to be clear about the size of the task we face after 13 years of open-door immigration, because under the previous Government, as much as Labour Members huff and puff, net migration was more than 2 million.

[Mr Watts]

That is not the issue!

[Mr Raab]

It is the issue, and we will come to why.

The lack of control under the previous Government was illustrated by periodic catastrophes. They could be dismissed as one-offs—I am sure that that is the intention of Labour Members—but this Government inherited serial, systematic failings that they must clean up. Under the previous Government, the Home Office ignored warnings that visa claims were being backed by forged documents; 1,000 foreign prisoners were released and not considered for deportation; illegal immigrants were cleaning the Home Office; and 12 illegal workers were given security jobs in the Metropolitan police, one of whom guarded the site where the Prime Minister’s car was parked.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way, because of the time.

We know from Brodie Clark that the relaxation of current checks dates back to 2008. One obvious question is whether the former Home Secretary—the former right hon. Member for Redditch—knew about or authorised the relaxation at that time. That is the institutional context and the legacy that the Government inherited.

I welcomed the Home Secretary’s statement on Monday. One thing remains clear: we still have a long way to go to repair the inherited fractures in our border controls. The big picture, however, is that the Government are dealing with the operational strains that result from the strategic error of one Labour Home Secretary, who said that he could see no obvious upper limit on net migration to this country, being compounded by another who confessed that the UKBA was not fit for purpose but failed to clean up the mess. There are unanswered questions and we need to get to the bottom of each one—that is why three reviews are in place—but we need right answers, not rushed ones.

The motion is so patently a fishing expedition to find something—anything—that might cause political embarrassment. It has little to do with sound public policy; it is all about cheap politics. The net is cast so widely as to be deeply irresponsible on security and the burden on officials, who are working hard to rectify the mistakes that have been made. To demand the publication of every item of official advice and every record of exchange would have a chilling effect on the candour and flow of advice to Ministers. The risk is more of the informal advice and sofa government that we had under the previous Government.

Opposition Members cannot on the one hand cry that Ministers are exposing officials to the harsh glare of media limelight and on the other ask for every official utterance immediately to be released to the public. Things might be different if the shadow Home Secretary were asking specific, focused questions, but she is not. It is irresponsible to ask officials to drain the swamp in search of vignettes for Labour party press releases.

Frankly, the motion trivialises an important debate and the serious scrutiny that the House should exert. All hon. Members should be seriously concerned about the recent failings at the UKBA, but no hon. Member who is concerned could credibly vote for the motion.