Extradition

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, and I will go on to discuss that point.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who secured this debate, quite rightly concluded his remarks by saying that the fact that Babar Ahmad has been in prison for so long was damaging to the image and traditions of British justice; that is absolutely true. I think that the media have missed the point; perceptions, particularly in the Muslim community across the whole country, are that Babar Ahmad has been so badly treated because of his faith and religion, suffering terrible abuse as a result. I have had a large number of contacts and e-mails from people who attend local mosques, as well as from people who attend churches and other organisations, and who are deeply concerned that somebody should languish for eight years in prison on a case that cannot be brought to court in this country, all because of the very strange arrangement that we have with the United States. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not mend the arrangement, this will be the image of British justice, not what we want it to be?

[Mr Slaughter]

As so often, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, and I will discuss the length of incarceration in a moment. However, I think that my hon. Friend was also perhaps alluding to the circumstances of the treatment of Babar Ahmad: he was first arrested in 2003, and by the time he reached the police station he had sustained at least 73 forensically recorded injuries, including bleeding in his ears and urine. Six days later, he was released without charge. As we know, he was subsequently paid £60,000 compensation by the Metropolitan police for the assaults, although there was no apology and, I think, no admission. That would be shocking enough in itself, but of course in August 2004 Babar Ahmad was rearrested and he has remained in custody ever since.

I am addressing my comments effectively to the text of the petition, not to the offences alleged against Babar Ahmad but to the case that is being put by his family and the 140,000 people who have signed the petition, which I shall read as it is fairly short:

“Babar Ahmad is a British Citizen who has been detained in the UK for 7 years without trial fighting extradition to the USA under the controversial no-evidence-required Extradition Act 2003. In June 2011, the Houses of Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights urged the UK government to change the law so that Babar Ahmad’s perpetual threat of extradition is ended without further delay. Since all of the allegations against Babar Ahmad are said to have taken place in the UK, we call upon the British Government to put him on trial in the UK and support British Justice for British Citizens.”

That is the petition that has attracted 140,000 signatures.

The word Kafkaesque is somewhat overused in the media and in Parliament too, but it probably does apply to this case, where somebody has been arrested and held in high-security prisons for seven years without—clearly—any charge and without, as far as we are aware, any intention by the British authorities to charge. Therefore, the petition asks that the British prosecuting authorities take the lead and make a decision to go ahead and charge him here, if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

The excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that was published in June deals with many of these issues; a key one is forum. We know that there is provision on the statute book that would allow a forum test to be introduced. The introduction of such a test would immediately deal with cases such as that of Babar Ahmad and resolve the issue. Again, I strongly believe that the House should have an opportunity to make a decision on that matter if the Government are not prepared to make that decision.

Babar Ahmad’s situation is intolerable. It has been described by one of the judges who considered the case as an “ordeal”. As I have already said, I am making no comment at all, and indeed the petition makes no comment at all, about the strength of the evidence about the nature of the offences, because that evidence has not been made publicly available. I am making a comment that somebody—a British citizen—has spent seven years in high-security prisons without any charge being brought against them. That fact alone should shock all Members who are present in Westminster Hall today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it. I hope there will be a more detailed debate on the Floor of the House.

I want to talk about the UK-USA extradition treaty and the European arrest warrant not because I have constituents who have been affected by them, but because—I suppose I have to declare an interest here—I am a lawyer who has dealt with criminal cases and who has an interest in human rights generally.

Like other hon. Members, I accept that we need extradition proceedings and a European arrest warrant. What we are concerned about, however, is how those provisions are used in practice. I want to talk, first, about the UK-USA extradition treaty, which was signed under the previous Government. Secondly, I want to talk about the practical ways in which European arrest warrants can be improved to ensure that they are issued in proper circumstances, are based on evidence and include safeguards. Thirdly, I want to touch on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has looked at the issue in depth. I urge the Government to accept those recommendations.

I am surprised that action on these matters has been delayed. When Ministers and other Government Members were in opposition, and these issues were discussed, they objected vigorously to them. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister described the USA-UK extradition treaty as “lop-sided”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said, many eminent members of the Government were critical of the provisions and opposed them. I am surprised that changes have not been made, given that the Government have been in power for 18 months.

Sir Scott Baker is not correct when he states that the treaty has not operated unfairly. A key difficulty is that UK nationals cannot test the veracity of the evidence being used to seek their extradition. However, a US citizen facing extradition to the UK can challenge and test the evidence produced to extradite them. That is one reason why so few US citizens have been extradited to this country. They are therefore able effectively to challenge the evidence presented to them, when we are not.

Another argument, which Sir Scott Baker also uses, is that the treaty is not unfair to UK citizens, but why was there a need to negotiate a separate treaty with specific provisions with the USA? We have treaties with other countries that do not have such provisions, and those treaties require a greater burden of proof before people are extradited to those countries.

In my previous life as a prosecutor, I would toddle off to Bow Street magistrates court—it has now closed—to try to get extradition warrants. The documents I presented included information about the exact nature of the charges; the indictment had to state specifically what the offences were for which the person was being extradited. The documents also had to include the evidence being used to back the application. Furthermore, a senior member of the Crown Prosecution Service had to certify that that was proper evidence and that there was a proper case for extradition.

Finally, as soon as the person was extradited to the UK, committal proceedings had to commence immediately, and all the paperwork and evidence had to be served on the person. That ensured that somebody who was extradited to the UK was tried expeditiously. None of those guarantees is being given to UK citizens. Why are British nationals being given less favour than US citizens? It is completely wrong that the Government are still set on this course and have not changed the provisions.

On the European arrest warrant, I do not have an objection to the fact that it exists; my concern is how it is used in practice. When somebody has been extradited to another country, it often takes time to see whether the warrant has been applied wrongly, as in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). In that case, the warrant was wrongly issued in France; the authorities had not realised that the person against whom it had been issued was unaware of the fact that there had been an appeal against their acquittal and that they had been convicted. Such negligence and such errors will occur, so I ask the Government to reconsider negotiating the basis on which European arrest warrants are issued.

The state should issue much stricter rules and guidelines to courts and judges on when to issue arrest warrants. For example, the evidence should be available, the person should be dealt with and looked after properly, and there should be procedural safeguards. Those are the things that are required—as well as that the offences on which people are extradited must be serious, not minor. Also, it should be possible to withdraw arrest warrants. I understand that in Poland once a warrant has been issued it is impossible to withdraw it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but is not the real problem the completely different standards of the legal systems across the European Union, and, indeed, the Council of Europe area, which, together with the virtual automaticity of the European arrest warrant, mean that we just mask the inadequacies of the current system and many people suffer miscarriages of justice?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree, and that issue highlights the importance of how arrest warrants are implemented. Procedural safeguards must be put in place. There must be stringent requirements. Warrants must not be handed out as a matter of course, so that someone can come to court and say, “I want an arrest warrant,” without anyone looking properly into what has occurred. In our country, when police officers go to court to ask for arrest warrants, the magistrates, or the judge, look at what is presented to them and then they might agree to those things. In a nation state such as England, someone who is arrested in Watford, for example, knows that their case can be resolved quite quickly if there are procedural irregularities. Errors can be sorted out quickly. However, in a foreign country—with a foreign language, jurisdiction and everything else—it is not as easy to sort out mistakes. It may take months. That is why it is so important that warrants should be issued properly in the first place, using strict procedures.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has presented some good, practical solutions that will help British nationals. It has suggested the forum provision, which would allow British judges to decide whether an individual case should be tried in this country, or whether there is a need for extradition. The cases of Babar Ahmad and Gary McKinnon and others have been mentioned, and one interesting thing about all those people is that their alleged offences are deemed to have occurred in this country. What is wrong, therefore, with our prosecuting them? Why cannot our prosecuting authorities do it? If there is evidence, they should be prosecuted. No one says that the people concerned should not be prosecuted. We all believe that if there is evidence against someone there should be a prosecution.

From what I have been reading about the case of Babar Ahmad—he is not my constituent, and I recognise the hard work done on his behalf by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—what he did is supposed to have occurred in this country, and he has effectively spent nine years in prison. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, that is comparable to a 14-year prison sentence, whereas if what is alleged against him had been proved, it might have carried only five or six years maximum. He has thus effectively served a sentence.

The important thing in that case, and in those of Gary McKinnon and others, is that the evidence apparently being used against them was found by the British authorities. That is especially true in Babar Ahmad’s case: when he was arrested there were supposed to be allegations, information or evidence against him, which form the basis of the extradition case. If that evidence is so cogent and good, there is nothing to stop the British authorities prosecuting Babar Ahmad in England. If that is not happening, there is a reason for it, which is presumably the fact that there is insufficient evidence against him. I worked in a prosecuting authority for about 10 years, and if there was evidence we would prosecute. If there was not, we did not. In my opinion, that explains what is now happening.

I understand the sensitivities of the USA because of the problems that it has had, but those sensitivities should not mean that the liberties and rights of British nationals should be put aside for the interests of another foreign state that will not give reciprocal rights. The USA may have its own political agenda, and its own agenda as to why it wants Mr Ahmad. If the extradition goes through, Babar Ahmad will probably spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement or in high-security prisons in the USA, so his life will be destroyed. I therefore urge the Government to rethink the issue of the forum provision and allowing our judges to decide whether cases should be tried here. In cases where there is evidence against someone, our prosecuting authorities should be the ones to try them.

UK Border Force

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary consider the question of staffing levels throughout the UK Border Agency? I am talking about the effect they have in respect of enormous queues at Heathrow and other airports, which become a deterrent to legitimate travellers; the inability of that agency to respond to written inquiries from people, including MPs; and the situation where the agency apparently cannot cope with its work load.

[Mrs May]

As I made clear in my statement, this was not an issue about staffing levels; this was a pilot that was intended to help us understand whether it was possible, with different arrangements, to make more intelligence-led checks on higher-risk individuals. We have made it clear that it is going to be possible to improve the border operations through the use of greater technology—the use of e-gates is an important element in that. The hon. Gentleman refers to letters written by MPs, but I must say to him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is responsible for signing— dealing with—about 60,000 letters on immigration matters each year.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is absolutely right. In fact, moving families on can help in two ways. One is where the family are creating particular problems on an estate or in an area, and the housing association or local council can take action that can relieve the rest of the community. Another is in circumstances where in order to get a potential gang member away from the area in which the gang is involved it is necessary to move that gang member and the family. There can be a positive move as well as a negative one, so to speak.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Everybody abhors gang violence and the cultures that go with it, but does the Home Secretary recognise that some young people are attracted by a perverse sense of glamour towards gangs as an escape from overcrowded housing or as an escape from the lack of job opportunities or youth facilities? Because they cannot develop themselves in those ways, they see a gang as something worth looking at. Should we not instead invest in jobs, housing and communities as much as in all the other palliative measures that the Home Secretary has suggested?

[Mrs May]

A great many young people live in difficult circumstances but do not turn to gangs. Of course it is important for us to look at gang membership and youth violence in the round rather than arresting our way out of the problem, because it is not possible for us to arrest our way out of it. As I said earlier, young people coming out of prison who claim jobseeker’s allowance will go straight on to the Work programme. We must make a real effort to deal with problems such as unemployment, and to help those young people to find a different route through life.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the earlier part of my right hon. Friend’s speech—I was at a meeting in another part of the building. I understand what he is saying, but very few other countries go beyond 14 days for detention periods and some go much less. Why does he think that we should legislate to allow an extension to 28 days?

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend knows enough about this matter to know that we cannot draw simple comparisons between our system and other systems. Other systems sometimes appear to hold suspects for shorter periods when in fact they are held for longer periods. We have a system that reflects our own judicial culture but also recognises the fact that we face enormous threats and challenges from terrorists in this country, perhaps particularly in this city. We have had to work our way through this, but if he missed the earlier part of my speech, he will not have heard me say that I have had pause to reflect and that I have changed my mind. I think that 14 days should be the maximum in most circumstances, apart from the exceptional circumstances that I am referring to.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have any view on unadopted private roads in areas where there is a local authority parking scheme all around and where quite successful operations are currently run, with minimal levels of clamping? From now on clamping will be banned, so far more expensive systems will have to be introduced, which will cost residents a great deal of money—including council and social housing tenants in the area—but achieve nothing different from what exists now.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That issue was debated in Committee, but unfortunately the Government set their face against dealing with it and recognising that there was a problem.

We believe that under the ticketing regime set out in the Bill, the motorist could still end up facing extortionate fees from rogue parking companies, which could be enforced by aggressive security staff against the driver and, if necessary, against the keeper of the vehicle. We also believe that it may still be possible to use a barrier or even a chain to block an exit to a car park, forcing individuals to pay extortionate ticket fees. We believe that rogue parking companies could threaten motorists with the bailiffs and that their credit ratings could be affected. Our amendments have wide-ranging support from the parking industry and motoring organisations. The Government’s impact assessment recognises the risk of rogue wheel-clampers becoming rogue ticketers, but the Bill is silent on what should happen in those circumstances.

Patrick Troy, the chief executive of the British Parking Association, made it clear in his evidence to the Committee that rogue clampers will just move into another form of criminality—rogue ticketing. He recognised that parking is complicated and that it is often difficult for members of the public to understand the difference between the highway and private land. In the main, motorists remain ignorant of their rights, and rogue ticketers will take advantage of this.

Edmund King of the AA said that the current arrangements for street ticketing—that is, on the highway, for which there is a good independent appeals system through the traffic penalty tribunal—are independent and accepted by motorists and the industry alike as fair and proportionate. Parking companies pay a 65p levy per penalty charge notice to pay for the system, which is fair. We should have the same ticketing provisions on appeal for those who receive tickets on private land, especially as the Government are introducing keeper liability provisions in the Bill. Without a proper, independent appeal, it is unfair and unjust that a keeper could be held liable for a ticket that he or she knows nothing about.

In his evidence to the Committee, Edmund King talked about the following situation arising:

“A company, which seems to be incredibly profitable, is carrying out private ticketing. Its website says, ‘Welcome to the ultimate recession-proof business opportunity’ which has ‘limitless earnings potential’. All the company does is…suggest…that if you have a small piece of land and wanted to make some money, you could apply to my company, and I will send you some parking notices.

You will take your digital camera and take pictures of the cars of neighbours you do not like or of anyone who parks there, and send the pictures to”

that company, which will then

“apply to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for their details, send out tickets, and if 60% pay up, which they currently do,”

it will give £10 to the landowner for each ticket and pocket the rest. He continued:

“That company claims to have 1,200 agents who ticket in that way…even though that company claims to be a member of the British Parking Association, the 1,200 people are, as far as we know, just individuals. There is no control, and our worry is that the clampers who have been making money for nothing for the past 10 years are not going to give up”.––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 145, Q419.]

Instead, they will become rogue ticketers.

Mr King also gave examples of problems in challenging the issue of a ticket, because there is at present no opportunity to do so. He cited the example of Mr B’s car, which incurred a private penalty in a Glasgow hospital car park even though Mr B and his car were in the south of France. The company involved commenced debt recovery procedures. A second case involved an AA member who had been issued with a parking charge notice by X. He had parked in the car park of a major DIY store and spent more than £1,000 in the store. It had taken him some time to choose the goods, and he received a parking charge notice from X, which stated that he had overstayed the maximum permitted time of three hours by 19 minutes. He had to pay £80, which would be reduced to £50 if he paid by a certain date.

A third example involved a Bristol driver whose car was spotted during two different visits to a fast-food outlet. The camera or operator took this to be one single visit and issued a penalty notice for 41 days’ parking. Two AA executives were also sent parking charge notices by post for infringing unclear bay marking rules in a local supermarket. Both of them challenged the parking charge notices, but they were threatened with damage to their credit rating and a visit from the bailiffs if they did not pay up.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out, we had a long debate in Committee on issues such as ticketing and clamping. Before I reply to her specific questions, let me remind the House what was said by many of the people she cited when we announced that we were going to ban wheel-clamping on private land. Edmund King, president of the AA, said:

“An outright ban on wheelclamping on private land is a victory for justice and common sense.”

The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) said:

“I just want to say that this part of the Bill is fantastic and that the Home Secretary has my full support for it.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 210.]

Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, said:

“We are extremely pleased that the government has decided to deal with the scourge of clamping and towing on private land, as a matter of urgency.”

The AA said in a press release:

“It is a momentous decision to prepare new legislation to end this scourge that has blighted the name of parking control in private parking areas for so long.”

I quoted those comments partly to remind Opposition Members that what they proposed to do was license the companies concerned—in fact, individuals have been licensed, which clearly has not worked according to the tales told by almost every Member in the House about those whose cars have been clamped and from whom money has been more or less extorted—and also to remind them that the system that we propose was wanted by Members on both sides of the House. The issue now is how to ensure that we can implement it. Licensing clamping businesses, as suggested by the Opposition, was not the answer.

We have discussed the “what ifs”—all the issues that might arise—and the potential problems if rogue clampers became rogue ticketers. In Scotland clamping was banned in 1992, very successfully. On deciding to consider the option of banning, the first thing I did was ask my officials to inquire what the repercussions and difficulties had been in Scotland, such as whether the use of barriers had been impossible and whether there were rogue clampers. I looked into those matters in 2010, which was after 18 years, and my officials came back and said there had been just a handful of letters about any problems in all that time.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Lady will have received correspondence from the Aberdeen Park Maintenance Company, which manages a private road in my constituency. It has an effective, low-cost system of controls and a minimal level of clamping. Under this legislation, however, it will not be allowed to do any clamping at all. Instead it will have to install expensive barriers and employ staff. That will cost everyone, including council and social housing tenants, a great deal of money. I realise this is a somewhat anomalous argument, but in every city there are private and unadopted roads where such issues will arise, and I would be grateful if she would share her thoughts and say what response she will give to this company.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am sure such issues will arise across the land. The way to deal with them will be through either ticketing or barriers. However, it is also possible—although this is not required—for a local authority to take over responsibility for that land and issue tickets. Such matters can be addressed in that way, therefore. I cannot give a specific response on every circumstance that might arise across the land, but in Scotland the answer was barriers or ticketing; it was not particularly complicated.

We will carefully watch how things pan out, but our proposal is our best effort to get the balance right and to make sure that we proceed without the burdens of regulating everything in the land and instead let the parking industry look after itself so there is no cost to the taxpayer if ticketing is taken forward. An appeals process will also be put in place, and I shall address the detail of that shortly.

I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, and I think we are all trying to achieve the same outcome, but we just believe that we can get there in different ways. The best way in which I can respond to new clause 15 is by reference to the Government amendments in this group, which address ticketing issues.

The Government amendments propose a number of changes to schedule 4, which makes provision for vehicle keepers to be held liable for unpaid parking charges in certain circumstances. The amendments, many of which are of a drafting or technical nature, seek to clarify the effect of the provisions in order to reduce the potential for them to be misunderstood either deliberately or inadvertently by motorists, vehicle keepers and those responsible for parking restrictions and enforcement on private land.

In Committee, the hon. Lady argued for the introduction of a statutory scheme for the regulation of parking on private land which was the same as the one we are discussing now. The Opposition were particularly concerned for there to be statutory provision in respect of signage at car parks and appeals rights. That theme is again picked up in new clause 15.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that I have to give the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer that the Minister gave, which is that obviously one Parliament cannot constrain another. I imagine that most new Governments would want to look carefully and responsibly at what are exceptional measures. We have all stated on many occasions that in an ideal world we would not need these powers. The risk is developing all the time and I would hope that any Government would keep these matters under continual review, rather than just saying that they will do it every five years. I think that that clearly sets out our position.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s answer. Does she not think that we should move in the direction of using criminal law in all cases, rather than going down this endless route of special legislation? I have been in this House long enough to have voted against most of these pieces of legislation, starting with the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. I did so because it departed from the criminal law and essentially involved the executive powers of Ministers, which I am sure she will agree is a dangerous thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That speaks volumes about how ineffective control orders and the whole panoply of tools used by the previous Government were. It also highlights why the points about the extra resources needed by the police do not really matter. If there are 1,600 or 2,000 or 3,000 people of great interest to the security services, I hope that the services are occasionally looking at them; otherwise, their interest cannot be very great. If those people are actually dangerous, resources should be available, as the extra resources to deal with a relatively small handful of people are a drop in the ocean.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about control orders, but will the TPIMs regime be any better?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. My short answer is yes; my longer answer is: by a bit. This is not the solution that I would most like to see, but it is a step in the right direction. I wish that we could go further, and perhaps the other place will be more able to achieve that than we are here. Perhaps the more enlightened Labour peers will take the hon. Gentleman’s perspective on this matter, rather than that taken by those on his Front Bench.

I move now to the subject of this group of amendments, which deal with sunset clauses. I argued in Committee that there were four reasons for having such clauses. One relates to debating the issue in question every year; another is about having a vote every year. As we have said, that method has not turned out to be very effective. It has been very much a token gesture. Although it is nice to see it in place, it has not really delivered. We still have the ability to debate this matter at any time, if some other change takes place. particularly in the light of the Government’s new approach to Back-Bench debates, Similarly, the Government could get rid of TPIMs at any time, as could any future Government. Five years is a maximum, not a minimum. The annual review has simply not been an effective tool, which is a great shame. It does not work very well, and Parliament should look at how effective it is at doing things like that.

The Government think that the review provisions are a really good thing. I would like to see them happening seriously and in detail, but the level of review that has happened under this Government cannot happen every year. It did not do so in the past, to that level. There was a quick look, and a quick renewal. That is not what we want. We want to look underneath what is happening, rather than simply taking the easy option.

I have asked the Minister and the shadow Minister whether, if either of them is in the next Government, they will ensure that a proper review is carried out. If I am in the next Government, I will do my very best to ensure that that happens—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am delighted to hear that that has support on both sides of the House; we will have to see what happens. I would do my best to ensure that there was a review that moved us closer to the position that I would like—namely, a lower-risk solution that was also better for civil liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I welcome the inquiry that is to be undertaken by my right hon. Friend’s Committee. May I ask him also to consider the fact that the country has had renewable emergency anti-terrorism legislation for 37 years, that the legislation has always been renewed six-monthly, annually or after whatever period has been specified, and that on each of those occasions we have moved further from the principles of absolute equality and transparency before the law and further towards a degree of Executive power? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time to turn the clock back in favour of openness and transparency, through the use of criminal law and criminal law alone?

[Keith Vaz]

I am sure that we shall touch on that subject. We are, of course, primarily concerned with the question of why people become radicals and what system makes them behave as they have behaved, but the way in which legislation is—in my hon. Friend's view—rushed through Parliament might well be one of our considerations.

I think it healthy for the House to have heard the comments of my hon. Friend, of the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who observed that when Parliament discusses these matters the measures concerned go through on the nod. I believe that the role of the Opposition—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) did a very good job in this regard—is to scrutinise and probe the Government, and that is exactly what happened when this Minister was the shadow Minister. Perhaps we regret not being more robust on issues of this kind when we are in opposition, but I hope that that will happen now. The five-year period for the review is probably too long; we need to consider it earlier and much more objectively, and that might be one of the issues that we can examine as the debate progresses.

I have three points to make. The first concerns the process that the Government appear to have adopted. I hope that the Minister will reassure me about something about which he did not manage to reassure me when I probed him earlier, namely the role of Lord Macdonald. I understand that Lord Macdonald was appointed by the Government to review legislation. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a distinguished lawyer, he is someone whom I think we ought to consult as we present new proposals. Has he seen the Bill, and, if so, what were his comments on it and on the changes that have been made in the last few days?

The same applies to Lord Carlile, who gave evidence that was diametrically opposed to that of Lord Macdonald. He wants to keep control orders, but, as colleagues will recall, when he appeared before the Select Committee he proposed a three-tier structure that he felt could replace them. Will the Minister enlighten the House on the process that was adopted, and confirm that there has been widespread consultation with the very people—Lord Carlile and Lord Macdonald—whom the Government believed could contribute to the discussion?

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

May I just finish the point? We have published the consolidated guidance to intelligence personnel, including on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees. The Government took early and decisive action to set up the Gibson inquiry, precisely to examine whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees so that we can better understand what happened and allow all involved closure.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I am grateful to him for allowing this point to be made. Is he concerned that the exchange of letters made by former Prime Minister Blair with a number of countries that allowed removal to those that had not signed the convention on torture should be ended? We should only ever remove people to a country that recognises the relevant sections of that convention and that would not carry out the death penalty against those people.

Metropolitan Police Service

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we do of course talk to the Metropolitan police about the resources that it has available and the way in which it chooses to police the streets of London. If I may say so, one thing that Sir Paul Stephenson did was significantly to increase the amount of time available for patrol by moving to single patrols, which has been a very important step in improving the time for which officers are actually out on the front line.

I again pay tribute to the police constable who was shot three nights ago. It is very easy for the House to forget the danger that police officers put themselves in day in and day out to keep the public safe, and we should thank them for it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In the Home Secretary’s statement, she said that she was sorry that Sir Paul Stephenson had to resign. Does that mean that she thinks he should not have resigned and that he should have carried on, despite this cloud around his head? Could she explain what her thinking behind that is, or is it crocodile tears to cover the fact that she asked him to resign?

[Mrs May]

On the last point, can I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not ask Sir Paul Stephenson to resign? As far as I am concerned, nobody asked him to resign: the decision was taken by Sir Paul Stephenson. I am sorry that he decided to resign—I have said that several times, and have made that clear. Under his leadership, the Met has done excellent work in protecting the public, and in cutting and fighting crime. He led the Met through some very difficult times. He took it over at a difficult time, and I think he has made the force operationally stronger.

Student Visas

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

That is a helpful observation from my hon. Friend. Will the Minister cover that point in his later remarks?

May I raise another transitional problem that was mentioned to me by the academic director of Sheffield international college regarding its preparatory programmes for the university? Sheffield international college provides pathways programmes. About 600 of its students each year go on to one of our universities in Sheffield. These students came to the UK with a conditional offer to proceed to the university of Sheffield if they succeeded with their language course at Sheffield international college.

They arrived in good faith but now face a change that has required a small number of them to sit additional English exams in their final term so that they can renew their visa. The new regulations require minimum levels of achievement in elements of the English language test that were not required on the students’ entry to the UK. Consequently, they find themselves in the final term of their programme working hard to try to stay in the UK to complete it rather than working hard to achieve their conditional requirements.

In addition, the new requirements came into force on 21 April, during the Easter break, and that has reduced the amount of time that some students have had to fulfil them. Earlier this week, I was contacted by Sheffield international college about four Chinese students in my constituency whose visas expired yesterday. For the past seven weeks, the college has been trying frantically to arrange for the students to sit the new tests, in different places across the country, before their visas expired. The students understand that they have to pass these new tests so that they can apply to extend their visas, but it has not been possible for them to sit the tests because the UKBA testing system has been unable to offer a sufficient number of tests. The system simply cannot match the demand that has been created by the chaos caused by the revisions of the visa requirements. In turn, that has led to three of the students at the college deciding to return to China this weekend. They have been unable to complete their course, their year of study has been wasted and potentially they will be unable to progress on to their degree programmes. How many other students are there across the country in a similar situation and what reputational damage does all that do to UK education internationally?

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

If those particular students have been asked to return to China, can my hon. Friend confirm whether they have been told that they cannot re-enter the UK for a further five years, on the basis of a failed immigration application, or will they be allowed to return to the UK when they have completed the test?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I should clarify that the students have not been asked to return to China. They decided to return to China because they have been unable to secure the tests that they now need to sit in order to proceed to university on the basis of their original offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate, and on the excellent and measured speech with which he introduced it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have spoken today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) who explained the background and the wider issues at stake. We have had some excellent contributions from both sides of the Chamber.

I want to follow up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson). In Woking, I have several private colleges with a good reputation—I do not have a publicly funded university—which make a real contribution to the life of the constituency and to their students. The Tante Marie cookery school is the largest independent cordon bleu cookery school in the UK. It was founded in 1954 by Iris Syrett, the distinguished cookery writer, and is now part-owned by Gordon Ramsay. It is an internationally renowned establishment and wants to be competitive with the world’s best cookery schools.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East, I have received feedback from legitimate private sector colleges, which believe that things are stacked against them. The rules are constantly changing, and that costs each college a lot of time and money. As my hon. Friend said, they must meet an extremely high bar to gain highly trusted sponsor status, and that includes proving that less than 2% of their overseas students drop out in the first third of the course. Most publicly funded colleges or universities would not meet that test, but they are not asked to fulfil any such criteria.

The bar is high, but my understanding and that of colleges is that, if they gain highly trusted sponsor status, their overseas students will not now be allowed to work while they are at the college, although a student studying almost exactly the same course at a publicly funded university or college would be allowed to work. That will make it very difficult for private colleges to compete with publicly funded universities, both internationally and in the UK, and to attract foreign students. A student’s ability to work during their studies has no effect on net migration, but removal of the right to work will have an impact on the number of genuine students who are interested in coming to the UK to study. If they cannot work while they are here, the UK will be a much less attractive and much more unaffordable place for them to come to study, especially as most other countries will allow them to work as well as study.

The Government’s intention is to reduce net migration and, as we have heard from my hon. Friends today, that is a laudable objective, which most people want their MPs to support and get a grip on. The best way to do that in the context of education, as we have heard from throughout the Chamber, is to crack down on the bogus colleges and to ensure that students leave when their course has finished. There is a clear difference between a student coming to the UK for the duration of a course, and someone migrating to the UK to live here. The former is undoubtedly beneficial to the UK, the student and our economy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said, what better way of spreading British values and the values of democracy, the rule of law and our cultural heritage with the rest of the world than through having genuine students come here to learn and live alongside British students in this wonderful country of ours.

I have long been an admirer of the Minister, whom, I believe, has one of the most difficult briefs in government. He approaches his task with customary tact, intelligence and verve. However, I must say that the potential unfairness of the new rules, and the way they discriminate against private colleges, even after they have achieved every level of quality assessment, will make life difficult for them. In my view, private colleges that meet all the quality criteria should have equal treatment with educational establishments in the public sector, and more equal treatment with similar colleges in other western democracies.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, in reality, students who are attracted to cookery schools such as the one he mentioned, and to most language schools, are not in competition with publicly funded universities. They are different courses and different groups of students, although I agree with him about the treatment that such colleges receive.

[Jonathan Lord]

I am grateful for that intervention. As I said earlier, there are many different private colleges in my constituency—I gave one interesting example of a college of which I am particularly proud. I believe that both publicly funded colleges and universities, and private colleges, have a great deal to contribute, and genuine students should be encouraged to come to the UK to study.

I tried to delineate the difference in the way that private colleges have to perform against different and difficult rules. Even when they receive the status of highly trusted sponsor, they find that other rules have been introduced and that, because of the lack of a level playing field, it is difficult for them to attract genuine foreign students to come to this country.

I have heard representations from some good private colleges that genuinely feel that they are going to be bankrupted. A lot of colleges will be bankrupted, but it will be the good and bad together. That cannot be fair to the colleges, to potential students, or to UK plc. I urge the Minister to look carefully at that issue and ensure that our private colleges—in particular the good ones that have highly trusted sponsor status—are treated properly and allowed to continue with the excellent work that they have done over many years for those foreign students who gain so much from coming to study in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I shall be brief so that the Minister has sufficient time to reply to the debate. I apologise to the House for missing part of the debate. It was the Government’s fault. I was forced to go to the Ministry of Justice to hand in a petition about legal aid; if the Government had not cut legal aid, I would have been here for the entire debate. The Minister may care to mention that to his colleagues.

I welcome the debate. I also welcome the introduction by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. All of us represent private sector institutions, which have now fulfilled the requirements put upon them by the previous Government, and that is welcome, or publicly funded universities—in my case, London Metropolitan university. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) that none of us is in favour of bogus colleges.

I was often deeply concerned about the way in which overseas students would come to this country and be hoodwinked into going to crummy colleges that did nothing for them, but which certainly exploited them. That did this country more damage than anything else, because those students felt that they had been brought here under false pretences—as indeed they had. They did not succeed in learning much and were often relieved of a great deal of money, only to be disappointed with the performance of the educational institutions. I do not have a problem with the fact that we have a tough regime for the private sector and language schools; we should be clear that they are genuinely offering an education for overseas students. However, what is proposed seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to what is being said about immigration, and it conflates immigration issues with issues about people’s right and need to study. It is damaging the reputation of this country and it is damaging the aspirations of students from other countries.

At some point, most MPs have been on delegations abroad on behalf of Parliament or other organisations. Everywhere we go, we come across people saying, “I studied in Newcastle”—or in Manchester, Birmingham or London—and that they benefited from it and enjoyed it. They are well disposed towards many things about our country—literature, science, engineering, transport systems or whatever it happens to be—and good will is built up as a result. We cannot calculate that good will, but we all know that it exists.

Now, when I go to other countries and talk to younger people about the possibility of studying in Britain, they say, “It’s expensive”—it is expensive—“it’s difficult to get a visa, and the immigration service and the entry system to this country have a very bad reputation.” People do not enjoy the experience, as non-EU nationals, of trying to come through Heathrow, Gatwick, or anywhere else, particularly if they come from Bangladesh, Africa or Latin American countries. They do not like the way in which they are interviewed, or the intrusive questioning that goes with it. A balance has to be drawn, and I am not convinced that we have it correct. I know that this is not related to education, but many tourists that visit Europe leave out Britain. They do not wish to go through the visa business of coming here, so they restrict their tour to France, Germany and the Netherlands.

I represent a constituency that includes London Metropolitan university. It has a huge diversity of students and a great diversity of courses, which I hope it will be able to maintain, but that is for another day. It needs overseas students. The student body needs overseas students. The university has built commendably close relationships with higher education institutions in Russia and Ukraine, as well as in other parts of the world, and it has many overseas students. The overseas students benefit from the quality of the education that they receive and from the experience of being in London, but our students at London Met—mainly local adult students—benefit enormously from their interaction with students from entirely different backgrounds. It is not a one-way street; it is very much a two-way street that is of enormous benefit to our students and to our economy.

I hope that in his response to the debate the Minister will recognise the economic value, the social value and the educational value of overseas students, and not stick with the arbitrary date of 21 April for the application of any new requirements. I hope, too, that he will recognise that there is a huge body of united opinion among private sector institutions as well as the publicly funded universities, and among Members across the House, that this country should be a centre for higher education. We all want our universities to benefit from overseas students. Our country has benefited greatly from them—in research, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) pointed out, and also in their good will towards this country when they return home. That is something that we can change quickly and I hope that we will.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In my right hon. Friend’s years in the Home Office, in which he must have been involved in many discussions about anti-terrorism legislation, how much consideration was given to the implementation of the criminal law in open court rather than the creation of a series of special courts, special measures and all the suspicion that surrounds them?

[Paul Goggins]

Considerable consideration was always given to those issues. As the Home Secretary said earlier, prosecutions should always be brought where possible. Those who engage in terrorist activity should feel the full force of the law and where possible—where the evidence is there—they should be convicted and go to prison for a very long time. The problem is that sometimes the evidence and information that the Home Secretary and other Ministers have is not enough to secure a prosecution because much of it is protected or secret information that could not, of itself, sustain a successful prosecution. That is the territory we are dealing with, but I assure my hon. Friend that that consideration was always at the foremost of Minister’s minds at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was saying that international terrorists would rush off and use it and reveal all their sources and contacts to the authorities monitoring the measure. I shall make the point again: I do not think that the provisions as set out reflect the sophistication with which international terrorists operate.

My third difficulty relates not to the Bill but to a wider issue that is significant to the powers in the Bill—the whole business of rules on the disclosure of evidence. I welcome the fact that under the Bill there will still be closed hearings which can continue as before under control orders. That is needed, because if a judge is going to review the material or hear an appeal from a particular individual, he must consider the information available to the Home Secretary when she made the initial application. If some, if not all, of that information has to be protected, that must be done in a closed hearing. Special advocates will still be needed. The gist of the case must be provided to the individual.

As we recognise, however, the AF judgment makes it increasingly difficult to protect what in the interests of public safety and national security must remain secret information. That issue caused problems for the previous Government, and it has caused problems for this Government. It has ramifications for our relations with international partners with whom we share important information and intelligence. I applaud the fact that the Government are seeking to address that problem and deal with it in the Green Paper. May I tell all Front Benchers that we should do everything we can to resolve the issue, because if we do not do so the TPIM system will simply not work, as there will be an ever stronger demand that information that should remain secret is revealed in open court to the individual concerned? It is important that we resolve that issue so that we know what can be disclosed and what can be protected.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he not accept that there is a major concern about anti-terrorism legislation with special courts and special advocates, and in which information is withheld from the defendant? The barrister acting on behalf of the defendant is not allowed to reveal to them the nature of the evidence or the case against them. Therein lies a road to something very, very dangerous in a democracy that prides itself on open prosecutions and open justice, and thereby a much wider acceptance of the judicial system and the rule of law.

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend again makes his point with great care. Of course, these are exceptional powers that should be used sparingly. We have all this apparatus in relation to control orders to ensure that the suspect’s interests can be protected. That is why we have special advocates who can consider the information and argue on behalf of the suspect. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cambridge wish to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which is a very sound one. I hope, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he responds, that because counter-terrorism legislation is so essential, the Government will want to keep it under review, and that if, in future years, there is a need to adjust the measures, appropriate adjustments will be made.

What are the other objections to TPIMs? There is the question of whether there is any difference between reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion. It is my view that the Bill presents a higher evidential hurdle. The courts are aware of that, and they know the difference between those two. That difference is significant.

I acknowledge that TPIMs maintain a system of Executive-imposed measures that do not lie comfortably inside the judicial system. The Bill imposes measures that restrict freedom and human rights. As hon. Members know, those measures include but are not limited to overnight curfews, restrictions on travel, exclusion from certain places and buildings, and restrictions on electronic devices. It has been argued by the Opposition and by Liberty that these measures simply reflect the most offensive aspects of the control order system, but I do not think that that is the case. Clearly, in relation to relocation, internal exile, which the Soviet Union would have been very comfortable with, has gone.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Gentleman not have some concerns about the successive non-debate of this issue by Parliament and the fact that a defendant with a two-year TPIM might never know why it was imposed and never have the evidence given to them? All they know is that they have a barrister who does know but is not allowed to tell them and that the judge knows but is not allowed to tell the barrister. Therefore, a circle of secrecy surrounds something that has a major impact on a person’s life, is career-changing, and so on. Is that really right in a liberal democracy?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman might not be surprised to know that I agree with much of what he says. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has an opportunity to speak, he might echo that very same point. That is why the Bill is clearly an improvement on what is in place now, but has scope for further improvement. I am sure that we will return to that in this place and perhaps in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am aware that there have been cases where that has been the outcome.

I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up that matter when he replies. I also hope that this will give him an opportunity to update us on intercept evidence. I understand the difficulties in balancing the operational requirements with the legal requirements and in balancing the scale of benefits with the associated costs, but I hope that he will update the House.

I referred to prosecutions in relation to surveillance evidence. It might be helpful to specify a time frame within which a prosecution must be brought. There may be some scope for moving on that in future debates.

I come now to a couple of subjects that I suspect will not necessarily boost my popularity in certain quarters, but having advocated the importance of voting rights for some prisoners my popularity might not be in the ascendant in any case. It is important to treat in a civilised way those who may wish to inflict death or injury on us in order to expose their barbaric nature. That is why we need clear safeguards for those who are extradited to the UK. If people have suffered torture abroad and are subsequently moved to the UK, on their arrival the UK Government have an important role in assessing any health or mental health implications that should be taken on board. There is also the ongoing issue with regard to the role of the control order review group, which the Government will ensure continues in operation under TPIMs, in reviewing the mental health of people subject to control orders and now to TPIMs. It has that role at present, but from the discussions that I have had with those who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed it does not seem to be working very effectively.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about people who may have been subject to torture in other jurisdictions. This is a controversial issue, but does he agree that we should not deport people to a jurisdiction that has not signed the UN convention on torture, and that they should remain here until such time as that jurisdiction signs it, rather than the unfortunate arrangements that were made with a number of countries in the past?

[Tom Brake]

That is a difficult point to address. I know that there are concerns about how watertight memorandums of understanding are, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. It is a tough call. I am at risk of making policy on the hoof if I give an instant response. It is a difficult issue and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will say whether the UK Government are making progress in drawing up memorandums of understanding with other countries where we believe that the safeguards are sufficient to allow that.

There are some issues around how people subject to TPIMs are dealt with, and what sort of assessment is made, particularly of their mental health, and any torture that they may have experienced in the countries that they come from.

I will support the Government on Second Reading. The Bill is better than its predecessor. Its measures are more targeted, less damaging to individuals subject to TPIMs and more observant of human rights. But it is not perfect and can be improved, and I hope that it will be during its passage here and in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I should first apologise to the House for missing the Home Secretary’s introductory speech, but I have been present for the rest of the debate. I welcome this opportunity to discuss anti-terrorism law. I think I am the only Member currently in the Chamber who has been here long enough to have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was seen at the time as the low point in the attack on civil liberties. Oh that we were only discussing such an Act these days!

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who spoke of the effect of internment in Ireland and other places. When a state decides to take away the liberties of large numbers of people, the consequences are felt for a very long time. He talked about what happened in Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, but we can look back to the wholly irrational way in which British Jewish people were interned in 1940 at the start of the second world war. That was entirely counter-productive and an idiotic thing to do. There were also long-term effects on the attitudes of Japanese Americans to US society from the disgusting way in which they were put in concentration camps in California in 1942 because they were automatically assumed to be supporters of the Japanese in the war. If anyone had bothered to think about that, they might have asked why those people were living in the USA in the first place. The consequences of such actions go on for a very long time.

I am not suggesting that the Bill is equivalent to those measures, because it is not. It is much smaller and specifically targeted, but I have, nevertheless, some fundamental issues with it. Most states take unto themselves a power to override the judicial system in some way—most have some special security law or courts, or whatever. Without going into the whole history of this matter in Britain, the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was a response to the Birmingham pub bombings. The first person arrested under the Act was one of the Guildford Four, who spent 18 years proving his innocence and who was finally released as a result. That Act was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000, which preceded the dreadful events of 2001.

I remember spending all night in the Chamber at that time discussing what we would do to beef up our counter-terrorism measures. At every stage, the argument was to go further away from open criminal courts and further in the direction of special courts and special measures, with lower levels of evidence gathering. We have now ended up with the obnoxious silent court mentality. The barrister probably knows the nature of the case against the individual whom he is supposed to represent, and the judge and the prosecution certainly know, but the defendant is not allowed to know and his barrister is not allowed to tell him. That is a dangerous road to go down. Anyone who has met someone who has been the subject of a control order or some kind of restriction will know that they are for ever changed by the experience. In some cases, they are subsequently prosecuted. In others, they are not: the control order is lifted, they disappear, and that is that. The corrosive effect on them, their families, their lives and their community is very serious, and we should be extremely careful about introducing legislation that gives courts the power effectively to act in secret, and the security services the power to present evidence that is heard in secret and used to punish people, when the security services are never publicly accountable for what they do. I understand that there are all kinds of dangers involved in all sorts of things, but if we legislate to allow an arm of the state to operate covertly with no public accountability for what it does, therein lies enormous danger.

The very least we can do is examine the Bill in great detail in Committee and, above all, ensure that the legislation is subject to regular parliamentary review. It is our duty as elected Members of a free Parliament in a free society to hold the Government, and the agencies of the Government and the state, to account. It is not good enough to pass this legislation saying that we will return to it and debate the issue again as and when a future Government feel it appropriate to introduce another form of counter-terrorism legislation. As well as the obvious parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees, questions, Adjournment debates and all the other tools that are available to us to hold the Government to account, there ought to be a regular parliamentary debate and review of the whole arrangement on a six-monthly or yearly basis. The PTA was renewed on a six-monthly basis throughout its entire existence.

[Steve Baker]

I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Looking around the Chamber, I see that there is almost no one here. Does he agree that in the status quo, given the level of interest in this subject and the nature of the whipping system, regular parliamentary scrutiny of this matter would actually amount to very little?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have always had an interesting relationship with the whipping system in Parliament. We are here as MPs to represent the constituents who have been good enough to send us here, and we are here to answer for ourselves. We must be prepared to ask these questions and to take part in these debates. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am extremely disappointed that there are so few Members here tonight. I suspect that it is because word has gone round, by text message from the Whips on both sides, that there is not going to be a vote. Most of our colleagues are probably either enjoying themselves on the Terrace or have gone home, when they should be in here debating this Bill. We could say the same for almost any piece of legislation that goes through the House.

I mentioned in an intervention the fundamental question of international jurisdiction. If someone comes to this country from a jurisdiction in which they have been tortured, irrationally imprisoned or abused, or if it is likely that they would suffer such a fate if they went back, we have a clear duty of protection to them under international law. Under the procedures of anti-terror legislation, someone who is suspected of terrorist activity or of harbouring plans for such activity can be detained virtually indefinitely under immigration law. Under the memorandums of understanding that were made between the previous Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, and a number of Governments, such people can be returned to jurisdictions that have not signed the United Nations convention on torture.

I have a real problem with that. If we support the principles of international law and the international jurisdiction of conventions such as that one, we should carry them out to the fullest extent. We should not deport people to places where there is no protection of their rights under treaties that we have taken for ourselves. Just as when someone goes to prison, when an individual is accused of being a terrorist or of planning a terrorist activity, they do not stop being an individual and they do not lose all their rights. They do not stop being a citizen at that point.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman’s point about our deportation of people to countries that could torture them. Does he agree that it is a serious omission in the Bill that the bail conditions imposed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will be able to remain at the levels set out in the control orders that are being lessened by the Bill? Should not that omission be corrected?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed so; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That matter should be looked at in great detail in Committee. I hope that the Bill will be greatly changed in Committee and that we will hear about those changes on Report. I hope we will move away from the principle of control orders and the conditions that he rightly says are associated with them. I understand that Liberty, whose briefing on this matter I have neither read nor seen, for which I apologise, describes these measures as “low-fat” control orders that have been dressed up to resemble something that they are not.

I represent a mixed, inner-city community constituency, as do many other colleagues, and I am very proud to represent that area. The events of 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-led war on terror, the axis of evil speech and similar things have had an enormous effect on community relations. They have also generated a degree of Islamophobia within our society and continue to do so, which is a very serious matter. The anti-terrorism legislation and the arguments surrounding the Prevent strategy, like so many other things, play into that agenda.

My borough suffered on 7/7: more people from my borough died than from any other borough—it was a dreadful, awful, terrible day. I do not believe, however, that counter-terrorism legislation that goes around the principle of the use of the criminal law or goes around the norms of parliamentary democracy and open justice will stop those things happening again. That whole process does not make us more safe; ultimately, it puts our society at greater risk and makes it more vulnerable.

Although we are debating a change in the legislation and the Bill is presented as being the end of control orders, the reality is that we are being presented with a different form of control orders. I look forward to the Committee asserting itself when the details of the Bill are debated and improving it a great deal by removing the whole principle of control orders.

Once we give away our powers to secret courts or give away accountability to secret services—I accept that only 48 control orders have been put in place—we are crossing a very big line. We should be very careful about doing that. Our job as Members of Parliament is to ask the awkward question; our job as MPs is to put very awkward questions to those employed by the state to look after law and order and protect us. Above all, our task is to ensure that our liberties are safe, our democracy is safe and that individuals will not be detained irrationally for a very long time on the basis of hearsay evidence that would simply not stand up in a criminal court. That is a bad thing for a democracy; it is a bad thing for us to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I apologise, but I will not as I have a lot to get through in the five minutes remaining to me.

We are committed to prosecuting or deporting terrorists wherever possible, and our starting point will always be that terrorists should be behind bars; the rule of law and getting people to face criminal prosecution before the courts is where we want to be. That is very much our preferred option and I would certainly like to assure all hon. Members of that. It is widely accepted across the House, however, that there are and will be for the foreseeable future a very small number of highly dangerous individuals whom we can neither successfully prosecute nor deport. No responsible Government could allow such individuals to go freely about their terrorist activity.

Other steps should be advanced and we need to take them forward. That is why the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark about post-charge questioning is so relevant. That is why the Government intend to make the necessary PACE—Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code changes after a statutory consultation before the summer recess.

Points were made about plea bargaining, and the review of counter-terrorism powers said that further work would be undertaken to ensure that full use is made of the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to increase the evidence and intelligence dividend from defendants and prisoners in terrorism cases.

Intercept evidence was also raised. The lawful interception of communications plays a critical role in tackling serious crime and protecting the British public. Almost all the highest priority counter-terrorist operations and many other serious crime investigations involve the use of intercept. Hon. Members will be aware from the written ministerial statement of 26 January of the ongoing work of the advisory group of Privy Councillors. We will report back on their work in due course.

Mention was made of the special advocates and the disclosure of secret information. The Green Paper is being worked on and we are very cognisant of the issues relevant to it as well as of the many cases relating to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the use of secret information in that context. We are considering these issues and the key concerns that have been flagged up, and we will come forward with the Green Paper in due course. I should add the assurance that we will continue to make progress on the issue of deportation. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned the assurances required on that issue, and we take our international obligations extremely seriously when it comes to assessing the pertinent issues.

Let me quickly address the point made about safety and security by the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). The Government believe that the package of TPIM restrictions strikes the right balance between protecting the public and protecting the rights of individuals who have not necessarily been charged with any offence. The director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he considers the changes as providing an acceptable balance between the needs of security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.

Difficult issues arise here, and we are very cognisant of them, while remaining focused on the need to deal with the small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, yet who despite our best efforts cannot be prosecuted. That is why I say, regrettably, that the measures in the Bill are required to deal with this continuing threat in a more targeted and more tightly defined way. That is what we believe is appropriate; that is what we believe is necessary; that is what I think best reflects the needs of this country in giving that continued assurance. This Bill gives effect to those objectives. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

terrorism prevention and investigation measures Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 July.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

terrorism prevention and investigation measures bill (money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I do not think that the peace campaigners in Parliament square are vagrants or dossers; they are performing a basic democratic service. If they were vagrants or dossers, other legislation, which is used on a regular basis across the country, is available to address that problem. Spending parliamentary time specifically to target half a dozen people who are trying to express their democratic wishes demonstrates to the outside world that we might not have our priorities right.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of my hon. Friend’s contribution. He will be aware that a great deal of parliamentary time has been spent discussing Parliament square over the years, all of which has been unsuccessful from the point of view of those who want to clear it of all signs of protest. Is he aware that in the United States, there has been a peace camp outside the White House for some 15 years, and that there have been peace camps outside the Australian Parliament and other places? Is it not part of something that we should be proud of, namely the democratic tradition?

[John McDonnell]

It is exactly that. Before my hon. Friend arrived, I mentioned that it is a traditional form of expressing democratic views. Rather than banning or impeding it, we should celebrate it. It is as simple as that.

This matter is linked to fundamental human rights. In the Human Rights Act 1998, we adopted those human rights specifically in legislation, but we accepted that they are qualified and can be limited. I accept that, but any limit has to be proportionate and for a legitimate aim. We have to be clear what harm is being inflicted as a result of an individual’s activities if we are going to restrict their fundamental rights. That is the problem with this debate and the debate under the previous Government. There has been no clarification of exactly what harm is being done outside Parliament that requires such disproportionate legislation. As far as I can see, there is no legitimate aim in the proposals of this Government, just as there was not in those of the previous Government.

The issue of security was raised by the previous Government and in the Public Bill Committee. People will remember the ludicrous debate that was held last time around when we were all worried that members of al-Qaeda would hide behind the banners erected by Brian Haw. That was actually suggested in this Chamber. I remember the last IRA attack in London because it nearly hit us when I was in my office. It came from a Transit van that fired missiles, which landed near No. 10. The police officer made it very clear in Committee that the peace campaigners out there have allowed their tents to be searched whenever they have been asked. There is no security risk.

The other issue is whether there is a threat to public order or any form of violent behaviour associated with the peace camp. As far as I am aware, none of the peace campers, including Brian Haw, has been prosecuted for violent behaviour. That issue has not been raised to promote this legislation.

The main objection is therefore the aesthetic one. People do not like the look of a few tents and campaigners outside Parliament. I do not accept that people’s aesthetic judgments can be used to undermine someone’s basic human rights of free speech, association and assembly. And anyway, the protest won the Turner prize, so there are different judgments here about aesthetics. However, I do not want to get hon. Members going about the Turner prize. It reduces the argument ad absurdum that we regularly spend a few hours in Parliament on an aesthetic judgment because some peace campaigners outside Parliament annoy a small, or perhaps even a large, number of Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has an exceptionally valid point, which has to be addressed reasonably. Wherever in the country we find that constructions have been erected that people find objectionable, we use planning legislation to deal with them. That legislation already exists. The other people who have joined Brian Haw are mostly peace protestors, and others have come along in support of other causes. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, we had the Tamils come along when the war in Sri Lanka was going on. They camped there for a week, and it would have been heart-rending to try to shift them when they were seeking to influence us to intervene to seek peace, which we did. We helped as best we could to prevent further disaster in Sri Lanka. It is all a matter of reasonable judgment and trying to ensure that we protect basic human rights. The grounds for incursions on human rights cannot just be about the aesthetic displeasure of a number of Members of the House. That is why repealing the previous Government’s legislation was extremely important.

In the debate on that legislation, and I believe in Committee on the Bill, the question was asked whether allowing one group of people to protest precluded others from turning up to protest. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, to which I pay tribute for the support it has given us on the issue, has made it clear that there has been no evidence of other people saying that they cannot protest, or of a backlog of protestors unable to get to Parliament square.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on that point. I can recall at least two demonstrations in the square that Brian Haw and others possibly did not support. One was when a pig, Winston, was kept there for some months by a pig breeders association, until Winston became too big for the square and had to move on to pastures new. There was also the pro-hunting lobby, for which I do not think Brian Haw had a huge amount of sympathy. Nevertheless, the pro-hunting lobby and the peace campaigners managed to co-exist for quite a long time. That proves that democracy can work even in Parliament square.

[John McDonnell]

There was a worrying consequence of one of those cases—I think Winston got eaten, as a form of capital punishment introduced as a result of what happened. However, a range of protests have taken place in Parliament square unhindered by Brian Haw and the other protestors. If there were a specific harm caused, and one protestor or group of protestors was preventing others from protesting, we should legislate on that specifically rather than have the blanket approach in the Bill.

The amendments are fairly extensive and are in three basic batches. The first begins with amendment 162, and suggests scrapping the previous scheme and preventing the new scheme from being introduced. The proposal is based on the commitments that both coalition parties made before the election, and the argument is the same: this Government’s proposals disproportionately target protests and protesters, just as the previous Government’s measures did. The amendments would remove the powers to harass peaceful protesters. It is very straightforward: there is enough legislation on the books already to prevent protests in Parliament square that we feel impede the operation of Parliament or in any way cause disorder. In effect, the amendments would remove the restriction on protests in Parliament square overall.

The second of three batches of amendments begins with amendment 171. They propose a reasonable, and a more appropriate and proportionate, alternative. Basically, amendment 171 would introduce an injunction process, whereby people concerned about prohibited activity within the square could apply to the High Court for an injunction. It defines “prohibited activity” not as tents or the use of loudhailers, but specifically as something that

“may result in serious public disorder or serious damage to property; or…where the purpose of the activity is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act that they have a right not to do.”

Existing public order legislation can already deal with security concerns and violence within the square, but if hon. Members want specific powers, the amendment would give people the opportunity to seek an injunction, which would be imposed by the High Court if it reasonably believed that a prohibited activity or serious disorder was being planned or had taken place. Basically, that would introduce due process into the act of preventing people from undertaking protests within the square when that could result in public harm. The harm on the basis of which someone’s human rights can be restrained and constrained is thereby defined. Amendment 174 would in addition reduce the overall penalty to level 3, which attracts a £1,000 penalty, rather than the current £5,000 penalty.

Our next batch of amendments—the batch of last resort—addresses who will implement the legislation. As I said, at the moment, the existing legislation and the Bill put an unmanageable burden on police officers. At the same time, the Bill introduces local authority officers into what could be very difficult and dangerous waters.

I propose that if a police officer is to take such decisions, it should be a senior police officer rather than a constable. We should remember that the decision will be to direct someone that they cannot protest in a certain way, and that they must give over their loudhailers, sleeping equipment or whatever. The officer will also have the ability to use force to take such things and arrest people, which is an extensive power that could cause unnecessary conflict. That should be done by a senior officer.

Amendment 185 would mean that if an officer is to arrest someone, that officer should at least be a police constable—I do not believe that that should be the role of a local authority officer. The Bill introduces a vulnerability to local authority officers, who are not trained to undertake such work, and who are not capable of exercising the judgment that police officers exercise. Police officers are trained to make judgments instantaneously on whether someone is committing an offence, and on balancing human rights and an individual’s behaviour. A series of linked amendments would mean that a court could prohibit someone for only seven days rather than 90, although I can understand why certain Labour Whips do not want that for some of us.

As I said, amendment 174, which is in this batch, seeks to reduce the scale of the fine from £5,000 to £1,000—from level 5 to level 3. It is a matter of judgment, but I feel that the fine of £5,000 is so heavy that it will intimidate anyone seeking to organise a protest on the square or even thinking of applying for a licence, because something could go wrong and they would then be held liable. Rather than risk people thinking twice and therefore not coming along to protest legitimately, we should err on the side of caution before deterring people from such activity.

The amendments would define the powers on court conviction much more clearly to avoid the individual summary offence. They also address issues involving the forfeiture of any items. There is a danger that, under the wide and vague power given to police officers at the moment, police officers can take goods from people in a summary way without there being recourse to the courts.

I have rattled through the amendments, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak. [Interruption.] Well, I think they do. Certainly, members of the Committee will want to speak. However, the issue before us sets a test for individual Governments. It relates not only to major issues, but to smaller ones such as this. It is a test of whether Governments are, as they say they are, truly liberal and committed to human rights, and whether they really want to be reforming Governments. This might seem like a minor issue for the House to be addressing—I do not think that we should be wasting our time, and we should not be introducing this sort of legislation—but it is an important test on which the Government will be judged.

In opposition, the Conservative party agreed that this legislation was outrageous and illiberal, and it promised before the election that it would scrap it and support the right of peaceful protest, which I supported as well. Now the Government have introduced proposals that vary very little from the existing regime. In fact, they will become equally contradictory. As a result of this small matter, I believe judgments will be made on the illiberality of the coalition Government, and on their competence too. If this measure is implemented, and individual officers seek to enforce it, it will produce conflict. It will demonstrate an illiberality of mind and the oppressive nature of the Government’s approach.

On that basis, it would be wrong to legislate in this way. I appeal to the traditions not only of my own side but of the Liberals in respect of the right to protest and to freedom of speech, and those of the Conservative party in respect of individualism. I think Disraeli said that man is great when he is motivated by his passions. Those people out there are motivated by a passion for peace and against war. We should not do anything to impede the expression of their views, but that is what this legislation does, and that is why I urge the Government either to withdraw the provisions or support at least elements of my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

The hon. Gentleman might not be quite as much of a royalist and a monarchist as I am, but he will appreciate that that is not what I am saying. However, there was a focus on trying for this thing, although the wheels of the law take a while to turn—there are a number of lawyers in the House, including, either side of me in the Chamber, some rather more distinguished lawyers than I ever was in my brief legal career. I understand that there will be no further legal proceedings on the matter until considerably after 29 April.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It occurs to me that the people in Parliament square might actually be awaiting the royal wedding and have got themselves a good place from which to see it. They have got there early. We should commend them for their enterprise in being there so far ahead of the date.

[Mr Field]

I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the Evening Standard discovers a secondary market for the tents that are already erected, let alone any new ones that go up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

Indeed, one has heard those words before. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is a relative newcomer to the House, but I fear that we have been having this debate for many years. As we all know, the workability, or otherwise, of legislation often does not become apparent until well after an Act has been placed on the statute book.

It is essential that we do our best, and we must protect the right to protest. I appreciate that Parliament square is a special place for protest, and I would be very loth to see the perhaps spurious ground of security being used to prevent legitimate, high-profile protest on days when debates were taking place in the House of Commons on high-profile legislation. This encampment, however, does disturb some local residents. That certainly happened when the Tamils were here in great numbers in 2009, and many residents wrote to me to say that their sleep was being disturbed.

We need to strike a balance. Either we have to solve this problem or we have to move on, because there is now a sense that we are powerless. Parliament and all the authorities are becoming a laughing stock. This should be a tremendous site for millions of tourists to visit from across the globe. Parliament is the most iconic building in the United Kingdom, and having that eyesore here is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the very valid comments that have been made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I also hope that we will move hastily towards getting a workable provision on to the statute book to ensure that that eyesore becomes a thing of the past.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for the measured way in which he has represented his constituents in the debate. He is fortunate to represent this constituency, but he also recognises that this area is a centre of national life and that there are bound to be demonstrations here. One should thank him for that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for tabling the amendment and for his consistency in standing up for civil liberties and the right to protest. We have debated Parliament square on many occasions. Indeed, a Select Committee once took it upon itself to examine the issue, and the former Member for Macclesfield, Sir Nicholas Winterton, invited me to give evidence. The Committee sat in due deliberation for several weeks discussing Parliament square. I gave my evidence, and the former Member for Macclesfield questioned me at some length. I think the House is beginning to get the flavour of the occasion. A report was duly prepared and legislation was duly proposed. That legislation was duly carried, and duly challenged in the courts.

The Herculean parliamentary effort to remove Brian Haw and non-existent protestors from Parliament square succeeded in being passed into law—and the only person unaffected by it was Brian Haw, because he successfully challenged the legislation on the basis that he was a pre-existing resident of Parliament square. One has to pay tribute to Brian Haw for making legal history by doing nothing more than taking up residence in Parliament square. Parliament made itself look a total ass during the whole process, sitting in all due majesty, but having no effect whatever on what Parliament wanted to achieve. We should thank Brian Haw for that. I know he has not been well recently, and I am sure all Members will join me in wishing him well in his recovery. He has shown courage, principle and determination. Not everybody agrees with him, but I think we have to respect it when somebody is prepared to give up such a long period of their life for a cause. Let us all respect it and admire it.

We should also recognise something about the importance of this building and this area of London. The previous Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had a plan for reducing traffic in Trafalgar square. He succeeded by closing the north side to through traffic and wanted to carry out a similar plan for Parliament square. I am not sure which side of Parliament square was due to be closed, but we should think about this. I feel constantly sorry for the number of visitors arriving to see Parliament. Because of the size of the building, the difficulty of ensuring its security and so forth, the number of people who get in is much smaller than the number who would like to get in. I realise that we are slowly changing that, which is welcome, but most people have to spend most of their time fighting traffic lights and motor traffic simply to see the building. We should invite the Mayor to revisit the whole question of traffic planning, traffic layout, widening pavements and reducing traffic through the square so that everyone can see a very fine and very beautiful building, and enjoy the experience. It is possible to spend some time seeing other national assemblies and Parliaments around the world without having to dodge traffic—I am thinking of the United States, Sweden and a number of other places.

History often turns on itself on these occasions. This country is very good at the incorporatist view of history, as I put it. It is ironic, and many visitors do not always appreciate it, that Oliver Cromwell has a statue outside Parliament, while further up the road is a statue of Charles I and, indeed, not so far away, one of Charles II. They are all part of our history, and they should all be remembered and commemorated for what they did. Many people are vilified for their protests, yet commemorated later. Why do we have a plaque in St Stephen’s entrance to Marjory Hume, who chained herself to a statue there? The statue was damaged during the removal of her chains, when she was there demanding votes for women. Downstairs we have a plaque to Emily Wilding Davison, who locked herself in the broom cupboard to protest about the census of 1911 and in support of voting rights for women. Many other examples of people who have participated in protest outside this building and in this area have become part of our history and part of the road towards what one hopes will be a more democratic society.

Attitudes have changed quite a lot. The Sessional Orders used to be enforced extremely rigorously so that whenever the House was sitting no procession was allowed within a mile of Parliament. The police then relented slightly and changed their attitude. As I recall it, the first time they relented was when General Pinochet was in this country—detained in luxury in Virginia Water. “El Pikete”, as it was known, the Chilean picket that dogged him all the time, had a candle-lit event overnight in Parliament square. It was approved by the police and was an iconic and memorable event; it was part of our history that Pinochet was here. The Stop the War protest took over the square on 18 March 2003. When we debated Trident, the CND protest was here, and others have drawn attention to protests by Tamils, by pig farmers, by the Countryside Alliance and by the pro-hunting lobby—all kinds of people have demonstrated in Parliament square. We are a national Parliament. We are supposed to be the focus of political debate. I think that we make ourselves look more than a little ridiculous if we go to enormous lengths to stop people demonstrating outside Parliament. It is part of a democratic tradition, and it is part of our life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

May I clarify what I said? I did not say that there should be no protests, but the permanence of the encampment means that all the paraphernalia of the barricades is there permanently, which is clearly not compatible with a world heritage site under UNESCO rules. I was trying to draw a contrast between that and large-scale demonstrations on, perhaps, half a dozen days a year relating to debates that are taking place in the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I was not trying to put words into the hon. Member’s mouth. The agreement of the police to the anti-Pinochet demonstration some years ago showed sensitivity, intelligence and involvement on their part. If we approach the issue in a co-operative way, recognising the right to protest, rather than immediately reaching for the law and the barricades and confiscating equipment, we may proceed a bit further down the road.

[John McDonnell]

The problem with the Bill is that it addresses the issue of protesters sleeping in the square overnight, but does not adequately address the concept of permanence. The peace protesters say, “We are not here permanently; we are just here while the country is at war. Cease the wars and we will depart.”

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is a fair point. It does no harm for Members who come into and go out of the building every day to be reminded that we are involved in wars. I do not think that we should be, but others disagree. In any event, we need to be reminded of the decisions we have taken and of why we have taken them, and there is a constant reminder out there.

British television shows what some people consider to be shocking scenes in Westminster on the occasion of the state opening of Parliament, but other people around the world say to me, “Thank God that you live in a democracy where protest is allowed even on a day like that.” The Queen goes past in the gilded coach, and we see Brian Haw behind her. I think he once gave her a wave, actually. That is an example of protest in a democracy.

Other countries have experienced significant protests, such as Mexico. After the 2006 election, the result of which was hotly disputed, 1 million people occupied the centre of Mexico City for weeks on end in encampments. The mayor of Mexico city decided that it was impossible to move them, and that it would be wrong to do so because they were mounting a legitimate protest. Had he tried to move them, the consequences would probably have been pretty serious and severe.

Democracy is never simple or straightforward, and our image is never straightforward. We do not live on a chocolate box cover or in a postcard environment. We live in a working parliamentary building, and that working parliamentary building ought to be the centre of our democracy. The centre of our democracy is the right to support, the right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to campaign. It is a very powerful tradition.

This House is full of powerful traditions. I think of Charles Bradlaugh and the way he stood up for what he believed, and Tony Benn standing up on the issue of hereditary peerages, and so many others. They are part of our life and our history. We will make ourselves look very silly if we simply stop people taking part in such protests, because if we deny them the right to protest here, they will protest somewhere else; we will move the law somewhere else and make ourselves look even more ridiculous. We should be a bit grown up about this and accept that diversity and differences of view are good things. That is what makes a democracy vibrant and real.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members who have spoken on this topic so far. I absolutely respect the stance of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the passion with which he has spoken on these issues over so many years, and the spirit in which he moved his amendments. I had some sympathy for him, especially after the past 13 years, when he appealed to the Liberal vision of freedom and said that he could not appeal to his own party’s tradition on that.

It is also a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who clearly knows about these topics, and who perhaps represents in his constituency more historic buildings than I do in Cambridge, which I envy slightly. [Interruption.] It is close, however, as he says.

It was great that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) paid tribute to one of my predecessors as Member for Cambridge, Oliver Cromwell, who was probably one of the greatest political reformers the House has ever had. I am not saying I agree with everything he did, but as he is one of my predecessors, I feel I should speak up for him.

Peaceful protest plays a critical role in our country, and I hope that everybody agrees that we should encourage and respect it—I hope we all share that spirit. It is good that the Government are undoing some of the worst things the previous Government did in this area. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the speed of the changes and his wish that they would move faster. I am grateful for the progress that has been made however, and I will continue to try to unwind even faster all the problems that have arisen.

I am not as persuaded as some of the Members who served on the Public Bill Committee—both Government and Opposition—that the encampment in Parliament square is a problem. I do not share the concerns about it being an eyesore; although it is not something I particularly like to see, it does not bother me. We also had a discussion about the effect on tourism, and I do not share that concern to the same extent as some other Members.

I am delighted that the Government are repealing sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We said we would do that when we came into government—both coalition parties were clear on that. The key question is: should there be any lesser replacement for those provisions? The Metropolitan police have made their attitude to peaceful protest very clear. I have been pressing them on this in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the pleasure of serving. They are very clear that their role is not to prevent peaceful protest, and it is not even to allow peaceful protest; Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens was very clear that their role is to facilitate peaceful protest. That is absolutely right. The job of the police is to make it easier for such protests to take place. That does not mean I agree with all the protests—I happen to disagree absolutely with a number of them—but the role of the police must be to try to make it easier for them to happen.

The key question was put very clearly by the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti—she is always very clear—when she asked: what is the harm? I should declare an interest: I used to be on the national council of Liberty, so I am perhaps biased in my opinion of her, but I am sure that other hon. Members would join me in paying tribute to her efforts over so many years in that cause. We need to address the question: what is the harm? We should be having only those controls appropriate to that harm. I do not agree with the level of assessment of harm put forward by some people so I understand the separate blocks of amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, although I hope he is not going to put them all to the vote, because that would take a long time and some of us were hoping to get home to do some constituency work tonight.

The idea of having no constraints is unlikely to attract support—that is a shame, but I have accepted that that is the case—so the debate has been about the practicality of how to work out something that interferes as little as possible with the right to peaceful protest, which I take extremely seriously. We discussed a number of aspects of that in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I shall say only that I am surprised that it took so long for that point to be made. I prefaced my contribution by saying that I was going to discuss legitimate protest, so I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I want to discuss spontaneity. It is vital that we enable people who wish to do so to rise up in anger, frustration and exasperation and express their view loudly and lawfully in the minimum amount of time. If there was a problem with the previous legislation it was that the preparation time for protest was rather lengthy if people followed the measures sequentially. The Government’s proposals will ease that, which is why I am a big supporter, but it is right and proper to enable people who have read the papers one morning metaphorically to bang on the gates the next morning. If we prevent them from doing so we will fall into the trap to which most speakers have referred of setting one set of rules for our country while condemning those in other countries who adopt a different procedure on protests.

I have referred to the two occasions on which protests in which I was involved went wrong. The first took place in 2004, and there was a legitimate presence of angry protesters as well as of police to ensure the safety of the community. The protesters came that day with every intention of being peaceful, and the police policed the event with every intention of its remaining peaceful. However, Members who have taken part in a protest know that it is a potent and often high-temperature environment, and it does not take much to spark something that leads to a sequence of events which, in our case, led to 425 complaints from members of the public, about 60 people being treated in hospital for serious head injuries, a number of arrests, and an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that lasted nearly a year, cost a fortune and regrettably resulted in a number of Metropolitan policemen being recommended for disciplinary action or worse. That was a thoroughly unsatisfactory conclusion to what should have been a perfectly legitimate protest.

We could debate the cause for hours, but I will suggest one particular reason why it ended up in that unsavoury position. Both parties were the victims of legal rigidity. In the case of the protesters, there was arguably not enough flexibility to enable nearly 20,000 people at one stage to engage in reasonable protest. From the police’s point of view, the confines or boundaries were set too tightly to enable them to adapt and adjust their policing as the protest unfolded over the day. When the IPCC report was eventually published, it focused on three things including, first, a complete breakdown of communications for technical reasons between the police and the protesters. That is not an issue for the Government—it is an issue for protesters and police in future—but the second and third reasons are important.

The IPCC confirmed without any doubt that the lack of loudspeaker equipment in the south-east corner of Parliament square led to an inability by the organisers and the police to communicate with a crowd that was contained and angry, which led to unfortunate downstream consequences. That happened because there was confusion about whether Westminster city council, I think, would allow us to have loudspeakers lest we contravene noise abatement conditions. In the circumstances, the police, in my humble opinion, should have had the operational ability to insist on having equipment on site that could have prevented that incident from arising in the first place.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. During one of the Tamil demonstrations that I attended with a number of colleagues from the House, loudspeakers were not allowed for the demonstration. People needed to be moved, because there was a crush in one corner, and the police lent us loud hailers so that we could address the crowd. One could argue that that is breaking the law, but it was sensible and practical. We just need to be a bit more sensible, because there is a safety issue about being unable to communicate with a loud crowd.

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The point I am trying to make is that in such circumstances the police should not be encumbered in any way by having to refer to a local authority, some guidelines or a piece of statute. They should be able to make decisions that protect public safety and the interests of this building and of the demonstrators as an event unfolds. It was the inability to do that on the day in September 2004 that led directly to the unfortunate consequences I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Field]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

I will take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend seems to be drawing a distinction between demonstrations outside Parliament and elsewhere. Does he recall that a number of MPs, including me, were arrested outside South Africa house in 1984? The police decided to prosecute us, bizarrely, for behaviour that was offensive to a foreign mission, to which we happily pleaded guilty, given that the protest was against the apartheid regime in South Africa. The court found us innocent on the basis that we had a moral right to protest. As a result, there was a permanent picket outside South Africa house, despite many objections by the then South African embassy. That played its small part in ending apartheid. Surely my right hon. Friend recognises that the right to permanent protest is enshrined in judicial precedent in this country.

[Mr MacShane]

Yes; if one goes to the Chinese embassy in Portland place, the Falun Gong are always there. I am not talking about the other streets of London, and I am not talking about Downing street; I am talking exclusively about the law-making building of our nation, which requires slightly different consideration. I do not see that as the political class dividing itself from the population. I want more protest. However, that is different from saying that one particular issue can stay there for ever. One could be flippant and say that we could have a rota of issues. There could be a right-wing protest, when the fascists, the British National party and the UK Independence party can all come and make their little points.

I think that we are conspiring—perhaps that is an exaggerated word—to devalue the centrality of democratically elected legislatures when we allow protest and noise. Of course it is not preventing anybody from getting in, although hon. Members were prevented from coming in by the foxhunting protest.