Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Indian Mujahideen—the IM—to the list of 47 international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 10th proscription under the 2000 Act.

Section 3 of the 2000 Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including through the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in what will probably be a short contribution. What reviews have been conducted of all the other organisations on the list? Every time these orders come up, we seem to add to the list, rather than subtract from it.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell the House that an annual review is undertaken in respect of all the proscribed organisations. I also note the recommendation from David Anderson, the independent reviewer on terrorism, in respect of a mechanism for de-proscription. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining that recommendation carefully, and that we will respond to David Anderson’s report in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I shall be brief, but I want to follow up on the comments made by the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks on behalf of the Opposition.

I feel that we should be cautious when we proscribe any organisation. As the Minister pointed out, the effect is that anti-terrorist law rather than normal criminal law applies to that organisation, not just in this country but in other countries. It almost ends up criminalising entire communities, as my right hon. Friend for Leicester East mentioned in the context of the Tamil community, but it affects many others too. We should not always reach out to anti-terror laws to deal with our problems in security; we should instead use the criminal law that we have.

The other effect of banning an organisation from a particular community can be to choke off perfectly open and legitimate political debate and deter people from taking part in normal political debate. It might also have the perverse effect of encouraging some people in completely the wrong direction. We should be more than slightly cautious about that.

These issues are not new and they have been raised many times. I realise than the Minister probably cannot give a full answer today, but I have asked questions concerning the Anderson inquiry and its proposals. There are a substantial number of organisations on that list and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the LTTE is a banned organisation although it no longer exists, so there does not seem to be a great deal of point in continuing that ban. Will the Minister give us a more specific indication than “in due course” of when he will be able to come before the House with a substantial reply to the queries of many Members about some of the organisations listed?

Will the Minister also give a strong message to the law enforcement officers in this country at all levels? If a specific organisation is banned, there is clearly a legal sanction against that organisation. However, it is not a legal sanction against all members of the community or against legitimate political debate. It is not a legal sanction against normal political discourse but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, some people somewhere hear that the LTTE is banned and therefore believe that all Tamil activity is banned. That is obviously not the case, but it is a message that some people misunderstand, or choose to misunderstand. If the Minister would set the record right, that would be extremely helpful. I look forward to his reply, and I hope that he can give a substantial answer to the report by the Home Affairs Committee sooner rather than later. I realise that that will not be before the summer recess, but if we could at least have an indication that it would be available in early autumn that would be helpful.

UK Border Agency

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Quite right—why are students considered immigrants? They are here for only a few years.

We face particular issues with students at university, and I hope that the House will bear with me, as I should like to try to explain what they are. We need to continue to be a centre of excellence in Scotland. We have three universities in the top 100 in ratings around the world. Today, we have heard about the Higgs boson, whose existence was proposed by Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh university professor, which shows the excellence of Scottish universities. Those places are centres of excellence because we can attract the best and brightest, and we need to continue to be able to do so. However, we cannot do so if the new immigration rules and UKBA policies are implemented—and for what end? Students do not have recourse to public funds. They pay fees and maintenance, and have minimal impact on public services.

The benefits that we see in Scotland are not just financial, significant as they are—international students contribute £500 million to our economy. We gain so much by working with and learning from students from hundreds of countries who enhance our education system, our distinctive culture and Scottish society. We want to be at the forefront of the international marketplace for ideas and imagination. We want to continue to attract the brightest and best overseas academic talent to help build a smarter, wealthier and fairer Scotland. We want to welcome talented people to live, learn, work and remain here, but the proposals by the UK Government send out entirely the wrong message. They are already being perceived negatively overseas, deterring prospective students from applying to study across the UK, and that is particularly so in Scotland.

UKBA is simply doing its job: making tougher rules and enforcing them ever more rigidly. Perhaps the Minister for Immigration will confirm this, but I think that it is looking for a reduction of around 80,000 students across the UK—that is the target—and by heck it is going to achieve it regardless of the collateral damage to our universities. If it is bad for universities, tough luck. If we lose out on attracting the students we need for our economy and our institutions, too bad—UKBA has a job to do, and it is going to do it.

If it bad for students who now have to be relatively prosperous to come to the UK, for goodness’ sake they should not be poor and destitute if they are fleeing oppression, because in that condition they will undoubtedly remain. Our treatment of failed asylum seekers who cannot return to their country of origin because of fear of persecution or oppression should shame all in this House. There is almost positively a policy of destitution.

How is the UKBA dealing with people who are here legally?

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast number of people in this country feel strongly about the question of failed asylum seekers and destitution, and provide food, support and somewhere to live in churches, mosques and other places? I agree that it is an absolute disgrace that we expect people to live in complete destitution until they have got through the relevant number of years, which the Government propose to extend, before they can get residence in this country. We need to be humane about it.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. I see those efforts in Scotland, particularly Glasgow, where we have a number of failed asylum seekers. We cannot return them to countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe—it would be absurd to do so—and the policy of destitution that the Government have imposed on them is a disgrace. We in the House are rightly appalled about the way in which we deal with them.

The people with whom we come into contact are those we have heard about from Members across the Chamber, and a feature of the debate has been the ultimate frustration experienced by ordinary Members of Parliament who have to deal with the UKBA. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and several Members who attended that debate are here today. The House indulged in the usual kickabout stuff about marauding foreign rapists and murderers on every street corner who go home to their state-funded apartment and get all their swanky lawyers to invent reasons for them to stay in the UK. However, we deal with the real, mundane issues that are brought to our offices by people who suffer as a result of trying to ensure that they can stay here.

The UKBA’s job is quite simple: to stop people coming to the UK who want to come to our shores—people who should not be here should be kicked out—and to frustrate as much as possible those who are trying to go up the citizenship or immigration ladder. I have only a few minutes, but I want to mention two cases that I have dealt with. One is quite a celebrated case that the Immigration Minister may remember and shows the type of case we have to deal with. It concerns a lovely guy called Swarthwick Salins, who lived in my constituency. The UKBA, which was doing its job, looked into his bank account, and found that instead of £800, there was £740 there. There was no phone call to Swarthwick to say, “Listen, Mr Salins, there is an issue with your bank account. You’re £80 below the necessary level—this is a warning that you are £80 short.” The one and only course of action by the UKBA was to boot him out. That is the way it officiously applies the rules.

Let me explain who Swarthwick Salins is. He is a PhD student from St Andrews university, he has three Scottish children, he is a strong member of his church and a loyal member of the community. A community campaign was launched to ensure that Swarthwick Salins could remain in Perth and it was backed by practically everybody there. I would have paid the £80, and I would have put money on with the Minister, because I know that I would win the bet that he will never reduce immigration to the numbers that he wants.

The Government want to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. It ain’t going to happen. We live in an interconnected globalised world. We are here in London. One third of the people who live and work in London come from outwith the UK. That is the type of world we live in. It is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide to imagine for a minute that we are going to be able to deal with these issues. What has immigration done for London, as Monty Python would say? London is the most successful, dynamic city in the world. Let us hear a little more about the positive sides of immigration. Let us talk it up. Let us see what we can do to try to encourage a good feeling about it, because the Minister is not going to reach his targets. Regardless of an immigration-obsessed Conservative Government giving massive resources to the UKBA, the issue will never be effectively addressed.

Thankfully, in a few years, we will have control over and responsibility for our immigration policy in Scotland. We will do it differently. We will work in partnership with the rest of the UK, but we will not kick people out for £80, we will not harass overseas students who want to come and study in our universities, and we will deal with immigration damn well better than the UKBA is doing just now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I will say two things. First, there has been a huge amount of fraud in the past and the sweeping away of bogus colleges reduces the chances for such fraud. This point was also raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Individual students have 60 days to find a new college and their visa is still operational for that period. That is the sensible first step for them to take.

Stripping away the bogus colleges is only the first point. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a perfectly reasonable point about those who overstay or abscond. The UKBA has been working through tens of thousands of leave curtailments. It is stripping students and others of their right to remain in the UK if they have no right to be here and providing them with written notification that they should return home. In recent months, it has dealt with almost 25,000 curtailments. To ensure that such people return home, the UKBA is undertaking a summer enforcement campaign to target those who have overstayed their visa. The aim of the campaign is to galvanise intelligence-led enforcement activity against such individuals, with the intention of removing them. So far this summer, we have removed almost 1,800 overstayers. As has been said, that is probably 1,800 more overstayers than have been removed in any previous year. That is not just students, but all overstayers.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I apologise, but we are coming to the end of the debate and there are lots of points that I wish to respond to.

Foreign national offenders were mentioned by a number of Members. We now start deportation action 18 months before the end of the sentence to speed up the process. We are also chartering more flights to remove foreign offenders. Last year, we removed more than 4,500 foreign criminals—43% of them before the end of their prison sentence. Many Members raised the issue of those who are released from detention while awaiting deportation. In only 30% of those cases is the decision made by the UKBA. The courts make the other decisions.

The asylum legacy was perhaps the biggest bugbear of hon. Members from all parts of the House. I sympathise with them entirely. There are currently 80,000 cases in the asylum controlled archive. That is down 18,000 from last September. There is some confusion about this matter, but no new applications are being added to the archive. If we find cases while mopping up around the agency that belong in the archive, which is for very old cases, they are put there and processed. Nobody should be under the misapprehension—I think it was the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) who brought this up—that new applications are going into the archive; they are simply not.

As has been mentioned, we are now checking cases not just against public sector databases but against credit scoring databases and so on, to see whether people are leaving any footprint in this country. If they are not, there is clearly evidence that they have left, which allows us to concentrate on those who are here so that everyone gets a decision. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, the target is finally to clear the backlog this year.

Another big issue that many right hon. and hon. Members brought up was the changes that we are making to family visit visa appeals, which we are restricting. I should point out that no other category of visit visa attracts a full right of appeal, and it is a disproportionate use of taxpayers’ money to fund a full right of appeal for a visitor, to be heard by a tribunal in the UK. No other country does that. From 9 July, the new regulations will restrict the full right of appeal to those applying to visit a close family member with settled refugee or humanitarian status.

I repeat that it is quicker for people to reapply than to appeal, and it is not the case that every decision is simply rubber-stamped. I believe it was the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) who brought that up. I assure him that each case is examined by a more senior member of staff, and that some decisions are changed by the entry clearance manager.

European Convention on Human Rights

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I believe that what we are doing today and the motion we are asking this House to pass—I hope it will pass with support from all parts of the House—will send a clear message about what we believe the article 8 rights mean in terms of where the public interest lies. That is important because, as I say, Parliament has not been able to do that so far. But of course we uphold the principles of human rights, and this is in no way contrary to those principles or to the convention because, as I have said, the convention itself qualifies this particular right.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

As nobody has a dispute about whether article 8 is an absolute—it has always been subject to definition by national courts—why on earth are we debating this today? Is this not just part of the Home Secretary’s general attack on the whole principle of the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, which her Back Benchers frequently raise at every possible opportunity?

[Mrs May]

I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman stands up to question why Parliament is debating something, as he has usually been keen for Parliament to debate more than it does. The point of this is that clearly—I shall deal with this later—there has been a request from the judiciary that Parliament should make its views clear on this issue, so that they can take that into account when examining cases. It is entirely reasonable that Parliament should give its voice on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that we need action to deport more foreign criminals. That includes more practical action through the UK Border Agency. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration need to explain what they think the motion means. I will come on to that now, because it is an important issue.

The relationship between Parliament and the courts is made explicit in the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliament is actively encouraged to debate the way in which rights should be balanced, and the judiciary is expected to take that into account. Similarly, the British courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament or primary legislation on immigration, even if they think that it does not comply with the Human Rights Act. Parliament has to decide how to respond if that is the case. That is the legal and democratic framework within which we operate. As part of that, it is reasonable for Parliament to express its view on the balance of different rights, and in particular the balance of different qualified rights. Indeed, we do so all the time through our legislation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend will have heard the intervention of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Does she not think that it would have been better if this proposal had been laid on the Table today to enable his Committee to examine it and its implications for our participation in the European convention on human rights?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the Joint Committee on Human Rights does important work. The status of the motion is unclear, because we do not know exactly how the Home Secretary expects it to operate. For example, we know that the new immigration rules affecting foreign criminals, which were set out last week, explicitly refer to how article 8 should be addressed. We believe that is legitimate, but other immigration rules do not make such reference. The rules on foreign criminals also allow the courts to consider exceptional cases, but the process remains deeply unsatisfactory and confused. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to send clear signals to the courts, but she is not sending clear signals to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary talks about clear messages, but she is not giving a clear message to the House, never mind to the courts. She has been confused at every step about what the motion is supposed to do. Time and again, she has been asked whether it is supposed to trump case law or endorse the details of individual immigration rules, on which no opportunity for proper scrutiny has been given, and which have not even gone through the normal processes in the House. It is not clear whether this is supposed to be an endorsement of the existing immigration rules or the future immigration rules. She has not made her position clear.

We would like to be able to support the Home Secretary in her principled statement that article 8 should be discussed by the House and is a matter for legitimate debate. We also want to support her in taking action to deport more foreign criminals, but we urge her to do something about the real problem, which she is still ignoring. She also needs to provide answers to the House about how the detail on other aspects of the immigration rules, particularly on family and other parts of her proposed immigration changes, will be scrutinised, and whether she is trying to bypass the normal scrutiny processes.

The Home Secretary has not chosen a normal approach today. She needs to do more to deport more foreign criminals, but she should not try to subvert normal processes and should be straight with the House about what she is asking it to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In her speech, the Home Secretary referred extensively to rules laid before the House but not prayed against and therefore not debated. Is it in order for us to discuss the contents of those proposed rules, because that is exactly what she did throughout her opening speech?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but that seems to be another interpretation. When he sums up, the Minister for Immigration must tell us exactly what we are voting on this evening, because I do not know. I cannot support the immigration rules in their totality, so if the Government are saying that we have to accept them tonight, I unfortunately cannot support them and will press the matter to a Division. We cannot accept the rules as they stand. This is a very important debate condensed to four hours and a lot of nonsense.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am confused by much of the debate. Would his interpretation be that whatever the outcome of the rather odd motion the Home Secretary has tabled, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed as an approval of the rules, a direction to courts or as anything other than a vague statement from the Home Secretary of whatever she happens to believe in today?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman might be right—I do not know. We need to hear from the Government exactly what we are voting on. The Home Secretary made three different attempts to tell the House what we will be voting on tonight, but we are no clearer. At some point, we will need to hear from the Government exactly what they are asking us to support. If they want us to support the full rules, I cannot do that. It is a Conservative assault on article 8 and I will not be able to support it this evening.

We need a considered debate on immigration. Hon. Members who have spoken are absolutely right that the matter concerns our constituents, but in Scotland we do not share the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, right-wing Tory view of immigration. Scotland consistently sees these issues differently. Scotland’s population is at an all-time high, but only a few years ago we had great concerns that it was going to fall below the iconic 5 million mark for the first time since the 20th century. That was a real and absolute concern that has been addressed by immigration. We see immigration as something that is valuable to our communities and that is there to be cherished, grown and developed. The minute people set foot in our nation, they are new Scots. They are integrated from day one and that is why we do not have such problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for making a wonderful speech, trying to convince the House that we are actually doing something useful when the Clerk has just explained to us that we are not doing anything very useful whatever. We are deeply indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the courts are the stronger for the ability to make that kind of argument—to make something utterly irrelevant seem important. It is a skill and a talent that, sadly, only some of us are able to possess.

The Home Secretary probably tabled this rather strange motion because she assumed that it would be a useful bone to feed to her Back Benchers, who are obsessed with the Human Rights Act, with the European convention on human rights and, in some cases, with anything to do with Europe. They follow their obsession every day in The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Daily Express. Some of them even read The Sun, I believe, and they continue with that obsession.

We should be slightly more careful than that, however, because the European convention on human rights was established in 1948 to look to a future in Europe based on human rights and a respect for people, rather than on the power of the state to oppress people. We had come out of the Nazi period, the most horrible period in European history, so the popular press, which consistently reports anything to do with human rights as a laughable matter, should remember that many people owe their very lives to the existence of that convention and the European Court of Human Rights, which have had a good effect on many other countries.

The Home Secretary may be saying that immigration law trumps the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, but article 8 has always been qualified and no one has ever disputed that. What would she and others say if the Hungarian Government made a similar statement, announcing that it absolved them of any need to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights for their treatment of Roma people and Traveller people in Hungary? We should think a bit more deeply about the causes of human rights abuse throughout Europe, and be a bit more sympathetic to the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights.

I shall not speak for long, because others want to get in and the debate is time-limited, but the Home Secretary placed in the Vote Office last week an explanatory statement on her immigration proposals, and it ranges far wider than the question of just deporting foreign criminals. It skates over the important issue of how children and families are treated in the right to family life. She has chosen to interpret that right in the narrow sphere of the individual—usually male—criminal who has served a sentence, left prison, is hopefully a reformed character and then asserts that he has a right to family life in the UK, giving stern warnings that she will not accept any of that stuff any more and they are going to be on their way. She might care to look at what the London School of Economics did in considering the effects of article 8, and what others have done in this respect.

Baroness Hale has said that a child cannot be held responsible for the moral failings of their parents. That is a profound statement that emphasises that children do have rights in these situations. They have rights not to be deported, and their parents have rights to enjoy the company of their spouse or partner. Surely that is what we should be looking at. What is the effect on those children of one parent being removed? Some of us have been through the sad experience of arguing that case on behalf of constituents. One partner and their children do not want to be removed to another jurisdiction, so they remain here knowing full well that the missing partner—the ex-prisoner—will not be allowed into this country for at least 10 years. That is a huge proportion of a child’s life and experience. We should be slightly more liberal and understanding about these issues.

Obviously in some of the extreme cases, such as that cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), one would have no sympathy with what those individuals have achieved, but looking at extreme cases does not make for good law. A serious examination of the totality makes for a better example of good law. That is why I suggested that we should refer the whole issue to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

[Pete Wishart]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. He, like me, will remember the debates of years ago when we argued the same type of case. In those days, we would be joined by the Liberals, but today we have heard not one speech by a Liberal Member on a very important issue that they used almost to scream about. We have not had even one intervention by a Liberal Member. Two of them came wandering into the Chamber, had a little look around, and disappeared again. Is the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I am that we have heard nothing from the Liberals today?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help him by describing what the Liberal Democrats are doing today, because I am not responsible for them. However, having been involved in a lot of human rights, anti-terrorism and immigration debates over the many years I have been in Parliament, I know that there are different allies in different Parliaments. Sometimes there are Conservatives one agrees with, sometimes there are Liberals one agrees with, and sometimes there is nobody one agrees with, but that’s life, and we plough on.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because he and I have agreed on several matters, including the Chagos islanders. May I offer him the thought that absence of the Liberal Democrats may have something to do with the lack of clarity in the motion? If it was as clearly expressed as I would like, notwithstanding the Human Rights Act and all that goes with it, I rather suspect that there might be some difficulty for those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, because they would want it to be less clear than I would.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I respect him for standing up for his principles and acknowledge that he and I have agreed on quite a lot of occasions, particularly on the disgraceful treatment of the Chagos islands by all Governments over very many years. We hope that the European Court of Human Rights, which is now hearing that case, will come to a good judgment, which we expect imminently.

When I intervened on the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) about the torture and ill-treatment of people in other jurisdictions, he did not agree with me, and that is fair enough; he does not have to. However, he should understand that the European convention was a very important step in improving human rights standards around the world. The principle of a continent-wide human rights court has been copied to some extent on other continents—for example, central America has such a court. The idea of an international convention such as the United Nations convention against torture is a very powerful one. That is why I disagreed so very strongly with Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister, on his agreeing to the deportation of people to jurisdictions that had not signed the international convention on torture. That undermined the convention, damaged the human rights of the individual, and damaged us as a country that is supposed to stand up for human rights and justice.

I cannot really describe what we are debating today, and I do not think that the Home Secretary can either. I look forward to a full debate on her proposed immigration rules, because some of them will have a devastating effect on the family life of very poor people in this country who have migrated here, work hard, clean our floors, look after our children, drive our trains, and help our industries to get along. We should also remember that immigration in this country has helped to create our relatively high standards of living. It does the House no credit when people condemn all immigration as an economic problem. Immigration is an economic benefit to our society, and it is about time we publicly recognised that.

Family Migration

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Sham marriage is a problem and it is right that we should look at it. We are examining some further steps that could be taken to deal with it, such as combining some of the powers of the UK Border Agency and the registrars to ensure that they have greater ability to deal with what they consider to be sham marriages, should they appear. We have also stepped up our enforcement activity. As a member of the Church of England, I am sad to have to say that, as my hon. Friend may have seen, there have been cases where Church of England vicars have been undertaking sham marriages. I think that is appalling, but we have been identifying those cases and taking action.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I ask the Home Secretary to think again about the answers she gave to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on spousal visas and family reunion? When she carries out this impact assessment, will she examine the impact on communities and on families on modest incomes, who have every right to be together as a family? In her impact assessment, will she also give some credibility to the enormous contribution made to the economic success of this country by 60 years of migration to our society and the great benefits given to us? Could she not say something positive about the role of immigrants in our society, rather than always repeating what the Daily Mail says?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman were to look back at the speeches and comments I have made on immigration over the past two years, he would see that I frequently say that immigration has been a positive benefit to this country. But what I think is not good for this country is uncontrolled immigration. That is why this Government are bringing some control into our immigration system. We made it clear two years ago that we would look at every aspect of immigration, and we have done so. We continue to look at issues associated with immigration, and it is absolutely right that we set out clearly what we believe are the parameters within which it is right for someone to be able to bring a spouse or partner here to the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the connections; indeed I visited Weymouth last week to examine the preparations for the Olympic sailing event, which we are very much looking forward to there. The police and the national Olympic co-ordinator have been actively bringing the police response together. We have been testing and carrying out exercises, and focusing not simply on London, but on all parts of the country involved in the Olympic games. We look forward to celebrating them very much.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

15. How many children and their families are being held in immigration detention.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

During 2011, 99 children entered immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities and pre-departure accommodation, which compares with 436 in 2010 and with 1,119 in 2009. The numbers held at any one time in 2011 were very low; snapshot figures from the end of each quarter ranged from zero to one child.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

When the coalition Government made their unequivocal statement in May 2010 that they would end all

“detention of children for immigration purposes”,

many of us welcomed that, because we had always thought such detention to be wrong. Will the Minister therefore explain what response she has given to the Refugee Council’s “Not a minor offence” report, which describes the detention of unaccompanied children arriving in this country from Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq? These children arrive deeply disturbed and very frightened, and they find that their first interaction with this country is to be put in detention and kept there. Will she please guarantee that no more children will be kept in detention, and that instead cases will be referred to the relevant local authority immediately where children arrive in this country?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the report by the Refugee Council that was published this morning. Obviously, we will consider the Refugee Council’s recommendations as we continue to improve at all levels, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that under the Labour Government it was 28 days before Ministers got involved, whereas under this Government it is 72 hours.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

In order to establish whether the present proposals will deal with our concerns adequately, it is worth considering what has happened in Scotland as a result of the legislation providing for a specific offence, and also making comparisons with what is offered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

On behalf of the House, let me thank those who have been campaigning on these issues, and who have led action both in the House and outside. Working with Protection against Stalking and the National Association of Probation Officers, the all-party inquiry into stalking— in which I know the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) participated—has tirelessly and persistently made the case for new legislation. I pay tribute to both those organisations, and to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who is present, for all their work on the inquiry.

Although she was not able to be here today, I think that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), deserves credit for putting the case for the legislation in September last year. She also stressed the need for stronger sentencing and police training to improve responses.

Finally, I think that we must all pay particular tribute to Baroness Royall, who, back in November, began tabling amendments to the Bill in the other place to introduce this law in some form and thus to force action on the issue. We can see that that tactic has worked. Ministers initially refused to accept the case, saying that the current legislation covered criminal behaviour of this kind, but their view has now changed, and that change is welcome. I note that Lord Henley himself acknowledged the work of Lady Royall in raising the issue.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. There has been a good deal of publicity and discussion on stalking over the last six or 12 months. Has my hon. Friend noticed any improvement in the attitude of police forces towards people who report stalking, given that such people have received no response in the past?

[Stella Creasy]

When I discussed the proposals with the police, they were anxious to ensure that we used this opportunity to get the proposals right. I welcomed their acknowledgment of concern about the way in which the legislation had been used to deal with the problems, and about the lack of training in what stalking might involve.

As a result of this pressure, we stand here today to debate not whether proposals are needed, but the strength of the proposals that are on the table. We can see how the proposals are evolving as the Government respond to people who have been campaigning. The new amendments—as opposed to the proposals that were put to the other place last week—reflect further movement in the right direction, given the Government’s initial response to Baroness Royall’s proposals.

It is in the spirit of ensuring that the Bill is meaningful and effective that Labour Members have tabled further amendments today. Having championed the need for legislation, we wish to ensure that this opportunity is not wasted. When we test the Lords amendment against the realities of the crime that we are discussing, and indeed the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we still see difficulties. In particular, we fear that the amendment presents the appearance of progress while failing to deliver through its confusing demarcation between section 2A and section 4A offences. We also believe that it does not give the criminal justice system the full confidence that it needs to be able to address this crime in its many manifestations, whether through investigation, prosecution or conviction.

Our amendments (a) and (b) would ensure that the Bill would be what I call future-proof. When the Protection from Harassment legislation was enacted in 1997, Google did not exist. One of the compelling examples of the behaviour of the persecutor of Claire Waxman was the fact that he had searched for her name 40,000 times in a single year. The amendment reflects the need not only to train all who work in the criminal justice system to recognise that stalking can manifest itself in many ways, but to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with the innovation. As we have heard, many victims experience multiple forms of harassment, and do so many times before it is reported. These amendments would enable the Secretary of State to respond to the creativity of perpetrators and ensure that all those charged with protecting the public from these crimes are able to act. The inclusion of “inter alia” and the ability to include additional clarification will give confidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the magistrates courts that these kinds of conduct could in future be relevant to this offence.

If the Government will not accept the amendments, they must set out now, on the record, how they propose to ensure that the criminal justice system is able fully to comprehend and respond to the way in which fixations occur, both online and offline.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I shall be asking the House to agree with Lords amendment 51. I am pleased and proud to be standing here supporting and speaking to amendments relating to the introduction of new criminal offences for stalking. Some years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate in the House about the tragic case of Rana Faruqui, the daughter of my constituent Carol Faruqui. Rana was stalked for some time. Sadly, the police did not pay attention to the instances of stalking that she reported to them and, as a result, Rana was ferociously murdered by the individual who had been stalking her. Since that case came to my attention, I have personally believed that we need to do more to take the issue of stalking seriously, so I am glad that we are debating this issue.

It is fair to say that when the then Government introduced the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they believed that it would cover stalking and be adequate but we have seen over the years that it has not been taken as seriously as Members across the House would wish. Stalking is an appalling crime, both in itself and in the distress that it can cause an individual. It can also lead to physical violence and has, sadly, led to the death of the individual being stalked in cases such as that of Rana Faruqui. When I have spoken to stalking victims, they have said that some police officers are very sensitive to the issue of stalking and handle it very well and appropriately—dealing with it properly—but, sadly, others do not see the seriousness of the offence in the way that we would wish them to.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Home Secretary will have heard my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). In the Home Secretary’s discussions with the police, have they begun to understand the sensitivity of stalking and that it is very difficult for someone to report it? It is at that interface at the police station that things can all go terribly wrong or well depending on the training and sensitivity of the officers concerned. Is the Association of Chief Police Officers aware of that and has she been able to discuss the matter with ACPO?

[Mrs May]

I have had some opportunity to discuss this issue with ACPO and those representing victims of stalking. Their comments are similar to what victims of domestic violence say to me. If an officer has been trained specifically in the identification of stalking and dealing with a stalking victim, then they, like an officer who has been specifically trained to deal with a domestic violence victim, understand the context and the issues that the victim is facing. Officers who have not had that separate training might not understand these issues. There are certainly matters that need to be addressed in terms of how the police look at stalking. I hope that the creation of stalking offences will be part of the process of ensuring that all officers recognise the importance of the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to turn this into a simplistic debate. As Home Office Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and I wrestled with officials for many months about where to draw the line on this matter. We recognised that there were different places to draw it. What we tried to do in government was to draw the line at the furthest point we possibly could to ensure that we maximised the police’s ability to collect and examine DNA so that subsequent crimes could be solved by its use. Because rape and murder are not always one-off crimes but repeat offences, we wanted to prevent further victims downstream. We looked at that in the light of our European responsibilities, and we drew the line at six years.

To answer the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I still wish to draw the line at six years today. I accept that the amendment may be technically flawed, but its purpose, given the limited opportunities available, was to put our concerns to the Minister, as I have explained. We want to stress that the impact of sexual offences and other serious crimes needs to be examined. What is the clear difference between the Minister and me? It is the fact that his proposals to restrict the use of DNA put at risk people’s lives and their ability to enjoy them freely without being subjected to sexual offences. I fear that the Minister and I will continue to disagree on those issues. Let me tell him that the gut instinct of many Conservative Members is to share the gut instincts of many Labour Members. What we are trying to do is at least to give the Minister an opportunity to look at these issues again.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are very concerned about the way in which DNA is collected and stored? Clearly, when someone has been reported, questioned and possibly arrested by the police, but then exonerated—with no conviction and in many cases no trial—surely there is no case for storing their DNA. This is what leads to a great sense of unease for many people and probably diminishes relations between the community and the police as a result. Is my right hon. Friend not concerned about that? I know that he had to make these judgments as a Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

We did have to make those judgments when we were in government, and our judgment was that having the envelope of six years was consistent with our European obligations, and also with the pattern of offending. If people had not reoffended within the six years, the likelihood of further offences diminished considerably. People tended to reoffend within a one-year to six-year period. I genuinely take my hon. Friend’s concerns about the retention of DNA impacting on people’s civil liberties. However, I support what the hon. Member for Shipley said, as being raped, murdered or subjected to serious crimes also has an impact on people’s civil liberties.

As a Minister I had to make a balanced judgment, and the judgment reached by me and by my colleagues was that six years was an appropriate limit. There is an honest disagreement between the present Minister and me about that.

The Government’s own research—research carried out by the Home Office in July 2010—found that 23,000 people every year whose DNA would be retained on the database as a result of our proposals, but that would not be as a result of the Government’s, would commit further offences. We are talking about 23,000 further offences. My amendment may be flawed—I do not have recourse to all the fine civil servants who are available to the Department—but my aim was to initiate a discussion about sexual offences, and to persuade the Minister to reflect on the issues once more before the Government’s proposals became law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

First, may I apologise for missing the opening speeches in this debate? I imagine, however, that they followed the usual form, with the Minister saying there are real problems with the retention of names on the database and the Opposition saying they ought to be retained because of the possibility that someone whose DNA is retained may well commit an offence in future, so it is better to hang on to it than to get rid of it.

My attention was drawn to this matter when a constituent of mine who had no previous convictions was at a pub and intervened to prevent a fight between two individuals. As a result of his intervention, his DNA was retained, and remains on the database. To be fair, the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), said it was important that Parliament as a whole should debate this issue. My position is that if someone has not committed an offence, their DNA should not be retained on the database. There is absolutely no reason to do so. We can either have a position, as set out by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—as I doubted whether I could pronounce his constituency, I almost called him the hon. Member for the whole of Wales—under which everyone is on the DNA database, so that is fair to everybody, or we can have a position whereby only the DNA of those who have committed an offence are on the database.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the disproportionate number of black and ethnic minority people whose records are kept and the disproportionate number of young people who are pulled in for questioning because of incidents in the street whose DNA is kept, although often no charge is made, and they are then under some form of surveillance? Does he think that that is very damaging to their relations with the police?

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a concern about certain other groups, as well as those in ethnic minority communities, whose DNA is retained disproportionately. We have proportionately the largest DNA database of any country in the world. I am sorry to say that at the end of the previous Labour Government we lost our way on civil liberties issues. That has been acknowledged and there has been a mea culpa; those on the Front Bench, leaders and candidates in the Labour leadership election have all admitted that this had been a problem for us. However, we now have an opportunity to pause and to look at these issues carefully again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Home Office has undertaken a study into the use of khat, and into whether to make it illegal or to retain its current status. Will the Secretary of State say what progress has been made on the consultations within the community, and if and when there are to be any proposals from her Department?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. The question of khat has caused concern to a number of people for some considerable time. I have asked the ACMD to consider the use of khat. It will conduct a study and expects to be able to report back to me and the Home Office later this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there are now more than 450 colleges that have not been accredited under the scheme or did not apply to be accredited, which gives us a clear message about whether they were actually providing education. On his second point, it is important for this country to work with other countries and help them to improve their border security, so that the problem of people entering Europe and then the United Kingdom is reduced.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I understand that some 98,000 cases have been put in what the Home Office calls the “controlled archive section”, and it claims that many of the people involved cannot be found or located. As a constituency MP, I have many such people coming to see me, and they are living here and going through an application or appeal, and simply waiting for a reply from the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary look again at the whole system and ensure that proper efforts are made to find people who are legitimately trying to continue their stay here?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and I remind him and other hon. Members that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee asked Members of Parliament to write to the Home Office to say whether they had any cases of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentions. The work that we have been doing is of course clearing up the chaotic mess in the asylum system that was left, sadly, by the last Government.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

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

[Caroline Lucas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I start by congratulating the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on how he introduced it. I also place on the record my pleasure that, after the unfortunate way in which the debate was punted into Westminster Hall, we now have it on the Floor of the House. I thank those concerned and those who campaigned to ensure that these huge petitions were responded to properly.

When I was first elected to the House, I never would have dreamed it possible that public campaigns and public concern could result in a debate in the House of Commons. We spent years trying to secure debates on the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and several other cases that turned out to be serious miscarriages of justices and which, in the current atmosphere, would undoubtedly have attracted the same number of petitioners as the cases being discussed tonight. We should welcome the fact that Parliament has manoeuvred itself into a position where it can be more responsive to public concerns and justice issues. I hope that it continues. After all, that is what we are sent here for—not only to write laws and change laws but to consider issues of miscarriages of justice.

I want to refer briefly to three cases and then make a couple of general points. I shall not talk at great length about the first one because others have done so. The case of Gary McKinnon has been well reported and documented, and his mother and family have campaigned so assiduously on it, as has his own MP and many others. It is time that we understood that the McKinnon case goes to the heart of a whole load of inadequacies, of both our system and our relationship with the United States, which, as the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) pointed out a minute ago, is not a reciprocal arrangement, but something fundamentally different.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Is not one of the problems with the McKinnon case that there is nothing in the 2003 Act to enable the Home Secretary to take into account either mental or physical illness? That means that Gary McKinnon’s Asperger’s cannot be taken into account when deciding whether he should be extradited.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. That is the fundamental weakness in the 2003 Act, which does not allow that discretion which any sensible, right-thinking person would apply straight away on a humanitarian basis.

I was not going to mention the General Pinochet case until I got to the end, but I may as well do so now, as it fits with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point. Like many others, I fought to get Pinochet extradited so that he could go on trial. We won the cases all the way through, but unfortunately the then Home Secretary decided that there was an overriding medical reason for allowing General Pinochet to return on the “Lazarus flight” to Chile, where he walked off the plane and seemed to be perfectly healthy.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rather agree with my hon. Friend about General Pinochet, not least as several of my friends were killed by his police force in Chile. My hon. Friend said that any sensible person would want to change the leeway allowed to the Secretary of State, but unfortunately the report that we are discussing this evening says:

“We note the arguments for increasing the role of the Secretary of State in the surrender of persons…We are not convinced that changes should be made”.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry that the authors of the report are not convinced, but it is up to us in this House to try to convince the Government to make those changes. Although I welcome the examination of the issue, as well as this debate, it is absolutely up to us to ensure that that happens.

The second case that I want to mention is that of Julian Assange and the ongoing attempt to extradite him to Sweden. I want to go on to something else in a second, but let me briefly quote Debra Sheehan, who has been campaigning for Mr Assange not to be extradited to Sweden: “I believe this ruling”—the ruling that he can be extradited—

“sets a very dangerous precedent allowing any UK citizen—and possibly any European citizen—to be extradited without charge. Mr Assange’s case shows that the European arrest warrant can be used in a totally disproportionate way without using other less draconian methods of completing police investigations, such as Mutual Legal Assistance.”

The European arrest warrant is a serious issue, because, as others have pointed out, it seems that countries with a far from rigorous, fair and open judicial system can gain arrest warrants against British subjects, who are then taken to a different jurisdiction, where they face a much lower threshold of proof before a conviction is obtained. It is not our business to protect criminals, but it is our business to ensure that people get a fair trial and that there is absolutely the presumption of innocence before any conviction is made.

The third case that I want to mention is that of Babar Ahmad, which was brought up excellently by my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Yesterday I received an e-mail from his father that I would like to quote from:

“I am writing to request that you attend the debate…and…vote in favour of reforming the laws so that they strengthen the protection for British citizens, such as my son Babar Ahmad, who is now in his eighth year of detention-without-trial.”

He continues:

“Babar is the longest detained-without-trial British citizen in the modern history of the UK. He is in his 8th year of detention in a maximum security institution. He has served the equivalent of a 14 year sentence and if he had been tried and convicted in the UK, he would be probably out by now.

The CPS has recently admitted that it never considered the evidence against Babar before it was sent to the US authorities”—

a point made by my friend, the hon. Lady—

“yet for over seven years, they have allowed him to languish in prison without trial, refusing to prosecute him on the alleged basis that there is ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute him. The crimes for which he stands accused are said to have taken place in the UK. Over 141,000 people and 100 senior lawyers have”

written in his support.

“If extradited to the US Babar faces a period of 3 years pre-trial detention in complete isolation. If convicted he would face life without parole in solitary confinement at a Supermax prison”.

Is that really what we want for British citizens under this law? That is what will happen if Babar Ahmad’s extradition goes ahead. His father continues:

“On 22 June 2011, Parliament’s JCHR explicitly raised concerns over Babar’s case recommending that the government urgently re-negotiate the UK-US”

agreement. Finally, just to make the point, he says that this debate is part of the “enormous public interest” in the case, and in particular the examination of it by the Muslim community in this country, which feels that Babar Ahmad’s case is indicative of something about the treatment of people where there is any suspicion of the kind of offences in which he is alleged to have been involved. He cannot be tried in this country because of the way he has been treated—the trial would collapse—so why on earth should we even consider allowing him to go to the United States?

Baroness Helena Kennedy, who is extremely eminent on all legal matters and somebody for whom I have enormous respect, wrote an excellent article in The Guardian today in which she raised the question of the forum. She wrote:

“To my mind, where there is clear evidence to a criminal standard of a crime being committed either in the UK or from the UK and jurisdiction is being contested, an English court should be required to determine the strength of the evidence and the ‘forum conveniens’—that is, the location of any prosecution. The court’s decision on forum should be based on clear guidance—the nationality of the defendant and the victim; location of both the prosecution and defence evidence, witnesses, and so forth. Yet as it stands there is no statutory right for a UK defendant to challenge extradition on forum grounds.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in winding up the debate.

The general point that I want to make is this. We are not here to defend criminals. We are here to ensure that those who have been charged are given a proper hearing and a fair trial. Extradition arrangements must be fair and reciprocal, and in most past cases they have been, in the sense that the Minister for the Interior, or the Home Secretary, has been able to exercise some degree of discretion as to whether or not a person should be extradited. I think that that is right, although one might disagree with the discretion used on certain occasions. What we have here, however, is a completely imbalanced system—as a result of both the European arrest warrant and our arrangements with the United States—which I consider to be contrary to all the judicial traditions of this country, and on which I think it right for the House to take a stand.

I hope that the motion will be passed, and that that will send a clear message to the Government about what we want. I understand that there may not even be a vote. That either indicates unanimity or that the dark forces of the Whips’ Offices in all parties have taken the night off, but I fear that they are forces that never sleep.

On 11 November the Home Secretary received a long letter from Shami Chakrabarti, general secretary of Liberty, which made points about forum, and many more general points. She wrote:

“The human rights bar in the 2003 Act is of the utmost importance and we continue to encourage its effective application by the British judiciary.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that that letter has received a reply, and will be able to inform us of the Government’s general attitude. We are here to stand up for justice and liberty, and I believe that our arrangement with the United States is the opposite of those things.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We have considered the issue very carefully, and as I said on Report, we have received assurances from the police and Security Service that effective arrangements will be in place to manage the transfer to TPIMs when the new regime comes into effect. What I said on Report remains the case: the police and Security Service have been developing the additional capacity and capability needed to prepare for the transition to the new TPIMs regime. That preparation has been ongoing for a considerable time.

I should be absolutely clear that the additional resources are not simply about providing additional human surveillance capacity. The police and the Security Service are using the additional money to enhance their use of a range of covert investigative techniques, including human and technical surveillance. Inevitably, some of the benefits from the additional resources will take time to be fully realised, as it will be necessary to take the time to train and deploy additional staff in order to derive full benefit from technical investment. However, the key point is that at the point of the transition to the new TPIMs arrangement, effective arrangements will be in place in both the police and the Security Service.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain the exact thinking behind that relatively modest extension of the transitional period to 42 days? I do not quite understand why its coinciding with the Christmas and new year period makes it difficult to introduce what will presumably be a simpler system than the one that we currently have.

[James Brokenshire]

Christmas and the holiday season obviously have operational impacts, and we are therefore simply adding those 14 days to the 28 days for which the Bill originally provided to assist in the effective transition and management at that time. It is not about readiness; it is simply to aid the transition process for those people who are already on control orders and who may subsequently move on to terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

On Report and Third Reading, I was told, “Well, you say that the police are prepared and that appropriate arrangements are in place to manage the transfer effectively from control orders to TPIMs”, and I heard clearly the comments that were made then. I will put in the Library a letter from Assistant-Commissioner Cressida Dick, which sets out the preparedness of the Metropolitan police and underlines that arrangements will be in place to manage the transfer effectively. I note that the Opposition have consistently made several points about that. Again, I underline that effective arrangements will be in place to manage the transition. In the light of my continued assurances on the matter, I hope that Opposition Members will be willing to withdraw amendment (a).

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I agree. I am afraid that in some respects the Labour party is seeking headlines in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that control orders are a very serious and very great power used against people who have not been convicted? This is state power against an individual on the basis of suspicion, not evidence or conviction, so it is a serious matter. Does he also agree that TPIMs—despite my reservations about them—are an improvement on control orders and ought to be introduced as soon as practicably reasonable? I do not understand why they should be delayed for a year on the basis of the Olympic games. Presumably other events are approaching in 2013, 2014 and so on that would provide the same opportunity.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. One wonders why, having suggested that 365 days might be appropriate, the Labour party, excluding the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has not considered other significant events coming down the line for which it might feel that control orders should also be available.

I want to rephrase what I said about the Labour party playing for headlines in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. It might be more appropriate to deploy that argument in relation to the populist policing agenda rather than this serious issue of security.

In conclusion, I think that these amendments are sound, and I am happy to support them. I understand why the Minister has, in response to the Metropolitan police, chosen to extend from 28 to 42 days the transitional period for the implementation of TPIMs, but I hope that he will confirm that there will be scope, subject to security requirements, to allow people subject to TPIMs to undertake work or coursework where appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful for the opportunity to say what I hope will be a few words in this debate—we have been over this territory several times already. I want to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for the inclusive way in which he dealt with the Committee stage and to other Members on both sides of the House who had the opportunity to contribute. It is not often that people feel able to take such a role in Committee, and I think that the Bill was all the better scrutinised because of it.

The Minister knows how strongly and personally I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel about this matter, and the debate in Committee was nuanced and balanced. It was not simply about seeking draconian powers to last for ever as part of an anti-civil libertarian agenda. The debate has genuinely been driven by the concern of Members on both sides of the House for our national security and by the recognition that in Olympic year, when the eyes of the world will be upon London and when there will therefore be a heightened threat, the pressures on the capacity and ability of the security services and police to deal with some of the most dangerous people in the country will be significant.

The Minister has attempted to meet the arguments by talking about additional resources. We have heard the evidence of DAC Osborne, who said that relocation was probably the single most useful power under the previous regime and that it would take a year to get the assets and surveillance in place, and I think it perfectly legitimate, even at this late stage, to press the Minister on some of the practicalities of how that coverage will be ensured and maintained during the Olympics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said that those who have signed our amendment obviously have some experience in this field. The Minister has heard today from me, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), all members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We all share the same dedication to trying to ensure the security of our country, which is a very serious matter indeed. All we are asking for in our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 11 is to get us over the period in which we face the most heightened threat, which is a simple, straightforward, common-sense thing to do.

The Government have every right to move to the TPIMs regime. They have a majority in the House, together with their coalition partners. If the Government want to change the law from control orders, they have every right to do that. I am not objecting to that; all I am saying is that, when we face this heightened threat, with pressure upon pressure on our security and police services, is it not basic common sense to say, “Let’s tide it over until after the Olympics”? There will still be a threat—we will face a threat for years to come—but it will not be as great as the threat that we face at the time of the Olympics.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; she is being generous with her time. If there is a threat, it must obviously be dealt with, but does she not accept that one deals with threats by using the law, in particular the criminal law? We do not always descend into special measures such as those that we are discussing, which have a dangerous tone to them of the unaccountable power of the state against an individual. Does she not accept that it is important to stick to the principles of the criminal law and not endlessly go off into special laws?

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend has always taken a principled stand on these issues, and I respect him for it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that in a tiny number of cases we will not be able to prosecute, because that would lead to disclosure and therefore, because it is based on intelligence, a risk to agents and techniques. I said in Committee that I wanted to see the figure reduced to the smallest irreducible number possible, because I accept that we are talking about special measures that are outwith the normal framework of our legal system and transparent justice. I therefore accept my hon. Friend’s concern, but it is the case, I am afraid to say, that there are people who pose a significant and substantial threat to us who cannot be prosecuted at the current time, and some measures have to be taken to protect the public against them. None of us goes down this path with relish. I have said it before, but let me say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who intervened earlier, that this is not a matter of Labour Members rubbing their hands with glee and wanting to put people under house arrest. Rather, it is about saying, “What is the absolute necessity to protect the public?”