Monday Volume 587 10 November 2014 No. 59

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Monday 10 November 2014

£5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1161 10 NOVEMBER 2014 1162

delayed? An answer was expected in December, but it House of Commons has been delayed to January and then to the end of January. Will he tell us when he will make a decision? Monday 10 November 2014 Mr Pickles: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not call in many applications for consideration. Last year, The House met at half-past Two o’clock we called in only about eight. The one he has mentioned has some degree of complexity, and he will understand PRAYERS that I cannot comment about the individual application until all the facts are before me.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): I strongly support the Minister’s excellent work in devolving Mr Speaker: I remind the House that tomorrow, powers to our city regions. Will he assure us that our Tuesday 11 November, is Armistice day. At 11 o’clock counties and rural areas such as those in east Hertfordshire tomorrow, I regard it as appropriate that we, and staff will have the same opportunity for these new responsibilities? working for us, should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence so that we might remember those Mr Pickles: Such areas most certainly do have the who gave their lives for their country to help preserve same opportunity. The devolution of responsibilities our democratic freedoms. Instructions will be issued to and powers to cities has been an important step forward the heads of House Departments so that those members for localism. I should like to see counties, perhaps of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence adjoining counties, and district councils coming together maydoso. with a united case, because it was that unity of purpose, which was presented to us in various deliberations, that made it easier for us to take powers out of central Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be at Oral Answers to Questions the forefront in encouraging his local councils to do exactly that.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): Last Thursday, I held an Adjournment debate on works that had been carried out by Sainsbury’s in Belgrave and Leicester, The Secretary of State was asked— which was efficiently answered by the Under-Secretary Localism of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). 1. Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): What steps When will local communities be given the powers to his Department is taking to promote localism and give hold developers to account not just for planning applications powers to local communities. [905948] but when works are being executed, because great delays are being caused by this company? The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): This Government have Mr Pickles: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth abolished Labour’s unelected regional assemblies and North (Penny Mordaunt), who is very junior and new devolved power down to local people. We have given to the job, has just briefed me on the situation. As the more power to councils over planning, housing, licensing right hon. Gentleman will understand, the local authority and public health. Some 70% of all local authorities’ should exercise the powers that it already has in these income is now raised locally. matters. There is not much point in calling for new powers if the existing ones are not used. Laura Sandys: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Worth, a village in Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): While I agree my constituency, which has just had 92% acceptance of that the devolution of powers to local authorities can be its neighbourhood plan? Does he agree that the additional a good thing, does my right hon. Friend agree that local money that has been secured for neighbourhood planning people should always be consulted before there are any will help other towns in my constituency to deliver that changes to their system of local government? empowerment to the people on the ground? Mr Pickles: Certainly. When new things are to be Mr Pickles: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in brought in, I think that it is appropriate to have a congratulating the residents of Worth. She is absolutely consultation and, in some cases, a referendum. The right that the additional £23 million that has been most important thing about localism is that it is about announced will help and encourage many more passing powers not only to councils, but to local communities across England to start neighbourhood communities. planning and to take control of future developments in their area. Nearly 10% of the population of England is Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): In my constituency now covered by a neighbourhood plan. we are currently campaigning against a planning application for a new drive-through McDonald’s. I hope that it will Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab): be rejected on the normal planning grounds of noise, Is the Secretary of State aware that localism is not much pollution and so on, but does the Minister think that help when the most important project in Coventry, the the local community should also be able to reject such Gateway project, is called in and then the decision is applications when they are very close to local schools? 1163 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1164

Mr Pickles: Of course, it is very important in that published, including improvements on the 2006 scheme— kind of discussion to have a local plan in place, and one introduced by Labour—which introduced retirement would expect a local council to be helpful to the community, age at 60, disproportionately penalised firefighters who and to developers, by setting out clearly where particular want to retire early and offered no protections on developments should take place. I hope that the hon. fitness. We have addressed those issues in the new Lady will forgive me; obviously we will consider that scheme. fairly and openly if it comes to us, because the applicant is entitled to justice. Mr Hanson: Will the Minister explain to me why my constituents who work for Welsh local authority fire Firefighters’ Pensions services have reached agreement on a fitness test and a pension plan, through a negotiated settlement and at 2. Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): What no extra cost to the taxpayer, yet my constituents who progress his Department has made on resolving the work for the Merseyside or Cheshire fire services, on the dispute over firefighters’ pensions. [905949] English side of the border, are faced with a strike because of an intransigent Minister? 11. Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): What progress his Department has made on resolving the Penny Mordaunt: What the right hon. Gentleman dispute over firefighters’ pensions. [905959] says is not correct; Wales and Northern Ireland have made no announcements on fitness. We are currently 14. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): When he next consulting on doing what Scotland has done through a plans to meet firefighters to discuss their pensions. regulation, which would offer firefighters those protections [905963] —we have to do that through a statutory instrument because we do not have one single fire authority for 18. Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): What England. In addition, we are the only nation that has set progress his Department has made on resolving the up a working group on fitness to ensure good practice dispute over firefighters’ pensions. [905969] among all our fire authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Mr Ronnie Campbell: I worked down the coal mine Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt): for 29 years, and I watched old men of 60 struggling After extensive consultation and numerous changes, the at the coal face. What must it be like for firemen of Government laid the final regulations before Parliament 60 trying to save lives from fire and flood? on 28 October. They provide one of the best schemes in the public sector. I regularly meet firefighters and will Penny Mordaunt: As I said earlier, it was Labour that continue to do so. introduced the retirement age at 60, but this is an issue that I—[Interruption.] IhavetosaythatItakegreat Pat Glass: We have just come through the longest offence, particularly at some of the paid-for advertising firefighters’ strike in 38 years. When will the Government that has been run in local newspapers, which has been stop their politically motivated and disingenuous behaviour incredibly patronising towards older workers. We need in this dispute and genuinely sit down with the Fire older workers to stay in the fire service because they Brigades Union to settle this, as the Governments of have great expertise. By offering protections on pensions Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are doing? and jobs for older workers and good practice for fire authorities to follow, we will ensure that in future they Penny Mordaunt: There has been extensive debate have the protections that Labour did not introduce. and consultation on these matters. I have dealt with any outstanding issues in the past few months, including Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) those of the transition of armed forces pension schemes (Lab): In her open letter of 24 October, the Minister into the firefighters’ pension scheme and fitness protections. thanks firefighters The regulations have now been laid, and it is evident from the questions coming from the Opposition that “for your patience in letting me work through these issues”. they do not understand the scheme. It is an excellent The regulations she has put forward were in place in scheme, and to say otherwise would be to do firefighters June 2013, so what exactly have they been patient for, a disservice. and why does not she treat them with the respect that they deserve? Alex Cunningham: In a letter to the shadow fire Minister on 5 September, the Minister stated: Penny Mordaunt: As an incoming Minister, I could “I am conscious that we will only have the ideas for the service have immediately laid the regulations, but I chose not to to meet future challenges and aspirations if firefighters are engaged do so because I felt there were some outstanding issues, and feel an ownership for the service. Trust and good morale are one major recurring theme being the many firefighters key to this.” who have previously been in the armed forces thinking How does refusing to change a single word of the that they have been disproportionately adversely affected regulation improve morale, and how does refusing to by transferring in their pensions. That is one issue I negotiate improve trust? looked at, among others. Most importantly, I also met a number of groups, including women’s groups, within Penny Mordaunt: The irony of the hon. Gentleman’s the fire service. I have trained as a firefighter and I am a question might be lost on him, but I am sure that it will serving reservist, so I know the stresses that women go not be lost on many Members of the House. There have through in order to maintain strength, in particular, in been several changes to the scheme since it was originally their fitness tests. That formed the bulk of our negotiations 1165 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1166 with the FBU. I am very happy that on the day we laid plan in line with the Government’s aspiration for community the regulations we also started a six-week consultation engagement? Does my hon. Friend agree that on putting protections for firefighters on a statutory neighbourhood plans should be given full consideration footing. by local councils at the earliest opportunity?

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Brandon Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that no community on going forward with a neighbourhood firefighter over the age of 55 faces the prospect of plan. He is absolutely right. Local authorities should having no job and that they still have a good pension? move forward to get them to the referendum stage as quickly as possible—the average at the moment is just Penny Mordaunt: As I said in previous answers, we two months. I hope that his community will benefit are consulting on putting those protections on a statutory from that as well. footing in the national framework. That will, through a single regulation, have the same effect as what Scotland has done. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): The Government have made very much of localism, particularly Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): Given that the Minister community planning. Why, then, has the Minister held has recognised that there remain severe reservations up the Gateway project in Coventry? Why cannot we about the fitness test for firefighters, is she saying that have a decision? she will pass regulations that will ensure that firefighters who fail the fitness test will not lose their jobs, because Brandon Lewis: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates there are insufficient numbers of back-office jobs in the that every planning decision that comes through the fire service to accommodate them? Department is taken on its own merits. Obviously I cannot comment on a particular application as it is Penny Mordaunt: Yes. In addition to the protections going through its process. that we are consulting on, we are the only nation that has set up a working group to ensure that there is best Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Neighbourhood practice for fire authorities to follow so that their firefighters planning and community rights are clearly welcome, so can maintain fitness. will the Minister give advice to a community that cannot exercise them because the people who are planning to Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab): In negotiations with build 3,000 houses on their doorstep are in the neighbouring the FBU, the hon. Lady said that some firefighters local authority area? might not be able to maintain operational fitness standards until the age of 60. She promised regulations to protect Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman highlights an those firefighters, she promised to address the specific issue for local authorities, and Labour’s plans, which concerns of women firefighters, and she asked the FBU would allow councils to build on other councils’ land, for detailed proposals. Now she has torn up every would create that very problem. That is why we have the promise, stopped negotiations, imposed her own regulations, duty to co-operate and planning inspectors look very and plunged the fire service into the longest and most carefully at how it is exercised. I would be very happy to avoidable strike in 36 years. Firefighters risk their lives meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue. on a daily basis. Do they not deserve better? Penny Mordaunt: I have outlined in several previous Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): answers the reason that we cannot use the regulation: Recent research by planning consultancy Turley shows we have more than one fire authority in England—we that areas of below average income have so far been less have 46. We must go through the national framework, involved in the neighbourhood planning process, with but it will be on a statutory footing. I caution the hon. just nine plans published in areas categorised as most Lady on this: we want older firefighters and women to deprived. What do the Government intend to do to stay in the fire service, and she is not helping by spreading ensure that more disadvantaged communities can participate myths about the existing scheme. in this process and that it does not become the preserve of the affluent few? Neighbourhood Planning (Community Rights) Brandon Lewis: All communities should be looking 3. Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): What assessment he to undertake neighbourhood planning. I visited Southwark has made of the level of the take-up of neighbourhood last week to see the excellent work being done there. A planning and community rights. [905950] wide range of more than 1,250 areas are undertaking neighbourhood planning. Obviously, a few are ahead of The Minister of State, Department for Communities the others and there have been 34 referendums. We have and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): Over 1,500 put in more money and are funding local areas that assets of community value have now been identified undertake neighbourhood planning and the local authorities and listed, and over 1,200 communities have taken their to support them. I encourage all areas and communities first steps towards producing a neighbourhood plan for to consider undertaking a neighbourhood plan. their area. There has been overwhelming support in the 34 local referendums held so far, and that means that Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation roughly 5.2 million people are now covered by a neighbourhood planning area. 5. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): What estimate Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): May I take this opportunity he has made of the number of children living in bed- to praise the residents of Warton in my constituency and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a who recently submitted a comprehensive neighbourhood statement. [905952] 1167 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1168

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforCommunities Henry Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): We have invested answer and for the work the Government have done on more than £500 million to prevent and tackle homelessness. reducing the burden of business rates. Will he consider Homelessness statistics reported by local councils are further reform, such as standardised billings and an published by the Department and they show that 3,670 appeals process, to reduce yet more of the burden on children were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on small businesses and community pubs such as the Charcoal 30 June. Burner in Furnace Green?

Fiona Mactaggart: Slough council made strenuous Kris Hopkins: I commend my hon. Friend on his work efforts to avoid the use of bed-and-breakfast in supporting the pub industry. As well as the £1 billion accommodation for children, and before 2010 it had package to help bills, we are considering ways in which abolished it. However, I estimate that in the past two the regime could be improved through a review of our years some 60 children have been placed in bed-and- business rates administration. We are also looking at breakfast accommodation in this area of high housing ways to speed up the appeals process, to make it more need. Will the Minister meet the Under-Secretary of transparent for businesses. State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): The problem with pubs children, to discuss how we can avoid using bed-and- in inner-city areas such as London is that the land they breakfast accommodation for children? They do not sit on is so valuable that they fall prey to property learn how to eat at a table and are often pushed out of developers who want to build houses, as has happened their homes during the day and end up in expensive to the Dutch House public house in my constituency. Is cafés. What is the Minister going to do to end this it not about time that we told developers that they are situation? not going to take away these assets, which are highly valued by local communities, just for their profits? Will Kris Hopkins: First of all, we already do meet as a the Minister take some action to ensure that we protect ministerial group. The number of homeless acceptances pubs in such a situation? has dropped by 2% this year. There are eight people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Slough and nobody Kris Hopkins: We have already put in place a community has been in those bed and breakfasts for more than six right to bid process. As well as discounts for the associated weeks. business rates, councils can use article 4 directions if they want to shape their particular community and to Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): shape how such businesses are established. The hon. Earlier this year the Minister told the House that the Gentleman is right that the pub plays a really important number of homeless families with children in bed-and- role in the community. The good news is that beer is breakfast accommodation had dropped compared with 8p cheaper as a consequence of this Government. the previous year and that that was Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): Is my hon. “a direct consequence of this Government’s intervention”.—[Official Friend aware of the serial bad behaviour by the Co-op Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 588.] in my constituency and others in the south, where it is Since then, however, the Government have released taking over pubs and converting them into shops, often figures that show that the number has, in fact, increased on very unsatisfactory sites? The Ship Inn in Cuckfield to a 10-year high. Given that the Minister took credit in my constituency is uniquely badly placed to serve as a for the fall in the numbers, will he now take responsibility Co-op. Will he look at what he can do to review the for the increase? Crucially, what is he going to do to article 4 direction scheme, and to give general instructions help those families with children? about where such shops should be sited?

Kris Hopkins: The number of families with children Mr Speaker: That was a splendidly detailed question. in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has dropped by a There was I thinking that the right hon. Gentleman was third since Labour was in power, the peak being in 2002. going to tell us about the champagne and oysters that We have put in a significant amount of money where he consumes in his community pub, but I was wrong. there are issues in councils, and we have reduced bed- and-breakfast acceptances by some 96% where we have Kris Hopkins: I commend my right hon. Friend for intervened. his support of the local pub. The article 4 direction scheme is strong, and it gives councils the opportunity Community Pubs to intervene. I know that there is a passionate campaign to support to Ship Inn. I would welcome the opportunity to meet the campaigners, and I will try to support them 6. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): What steps his where I can. Department is taking to support community pubs. [905953] Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): Other things threatening public houses include not just the issue of TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforCommunities business rates, but the cost of alcohol compared with and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): In last year’s the discounts that people get in their local shops and autumn statement we announced a £1 billion package of supermarkets. Has the Minister had any discussions business rate support, which included a £1,000 discount with his colleagues about changing the price of alcohol for small businesses with rateable values above £50,000. in this country, as has been recommended, to protect That is benefiting three out of four pubs. not just people’s health but the local village pub? 1169 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1170

Kris Hopkins: All sellers of alcohol have a responsibility firms, investment and jobs? Is not the fact that local to make sure that they promote responsible alcohol authorities now directly and locally retain half the consumption, which the Government are encouraging. business rates a strong incentive for councils to encourage There is a consultation on alcohol pricing, which is still businesses and enterprises to set up in their areas? under consideration. Kris Hopkins: Councils have a huge responsibility to Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): No one promote local businesses, whether that involves getting wants this Government to be shown to be the most the skill set right or using the discretionary powers that pro-pub Government ever more than me, but that is not we have given them. I know that businesses and councils, going to happen while this ministerial team continue to particularly Conservative councils across the country, not change the rules whereby a pub can become a are responding positively. supermarket without needing to go through the planning process. Will the new Minister with responsibility for Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome all the Government community pubs tell us that he will finally stop this have done to help high streets such as that of Deal, in scandal, which is robbing communities of pubs up and my constituency? Will Ministers condemn the Local down the country? Government Association group leader who has been going up and down the land telling councils to hike Kris Hopkins: I am afraid that I must disagree with taxes and business rates, which will devastate our high the hon. Gentleman, because nobody in the House is streets and increase the cost of food? more enthusiastic about supporting pubs than me. There are powers through an article 4 direction to protect a Kris Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his location, and there is an opportunity through the work to promote Deal high street, which has been a community right to bid to support a treasured local site. tremendous success. Most recently, Deal topped the I suggest that he works with the local council to make polls as Britain’s best coastal town as voted for by sure that he secures such assets. readers of The Daily Telegraph. The instinct of the Labour party is to tax businesses, ours is to encourage Sir Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con): and grow local businesses by offering tax breaks. Will the Minister acknowledge the contribution made to many small community pubs by independent family Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): Will brewers? Will he speak to his counterparts in the the Minister explain who sets the business rates? Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the concession achieved for them during the passage Kris Hopkins: Local authorities have been given the of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill opportunity to shape their tax base. is carried through and that they are excluded from the regulations? Affordable Housing

Kris Hopkins: Having several small brewers in my 8. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): What constituency, I know that they make a huge contribution recent assessment he has made of the availability of to the local economy. I am more than willing to have the affordable housing in Brighton and Hove. [905955] conversation for which my right hon. Friend has asked. The Minister of State, Department for Communities Business Rates (Small Businesses) and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): Local authorities are required to develop an evidence base locally. This 7. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): How many small ensures that their local plans meet the needs for their firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Cherwell market and for affordable housing to be consistent with district council area have been affected by the reduction policies in the national planning policy framework. We in business rates. [905954] have published new guidance to local authorities on assessing housing need in their area and 340 new affordable 15. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): How many small homes have been provided in Brighton and Hove since firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Dover have 2010. been affected by the reduction in business rates. [905965] Caroline Lucas: In spite of national constraints, the Green administration in Brighton has overseen the TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforCommunities development of more than 500 affordable homes, with a and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): Our £1 billion further 230 in the pipeline, and has built the first council business rates support package includes a £1,000 discount homes in a generation. Brighton council and councils for smaller shops, pubs and restaurants. That will benefit around the country could do much more if the Government more than 300,000 premises in England, including 430 would provide direct capital grant funding. Will the in Cherwell and 580 in Dover. We are also doubling Minister reconsider that and meet my constituents to small business rate relief for a further year, which will discuss proposals we have put together in a local housing benefit about 575,000 businesses, with 385,000 businesses charter to promote fairer rents and more affordable paying no rates at all. That will help 1,100 small businesses homes? in Cherwell, and 1,300 small businesses in Dover. Brandon Lewis: There is about £2.8 billion of headroom Sir Tony Baldry: Has not the introduction of the in the housing revenue account across local authorities. business rate retention scheme given local authorities We have recognised this year that some authorities that the ability to offer business rate discounts to help attract have been building have come close to that headroom, 1171 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1172 so we made extra money available. We have already that we are doing all this to ensure that ordinary people announced some bids and will announce some more on modest incomes are not forced to pay hundreds of shortly. I encourage local authorities to bid to take up pounds more for a mansion tax. That is why the this opportunity, along with the housing guarantee Government will not introduce one. We want to reduce grants that we have been offering with housing associations the cost of living, not increase it. That is why we are to provide more affordable housing. I am proud that we helping councils to freeze council tax. have managed to deliver more than 200,000 such houses over the past couple of years. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Would the Secretary of State like to congratulate Kettering borough Local Government Pension Scheme council, of which I also have the privilege to be a member, on freezing its share of the council tax since 9. Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): 2010, maintaining all its front-line services, maintaining When his Department plans to issue a final response to its grants to local community groups and cutting car the consultation entitled “Opportunities for collaboration, parking charges? cost savings and efficiencies”; launched in May 2014, on the local government pension scheme. [905956] Mr Pickles: Every time I travel close to Kettering, I TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforCommunities find myself saying, “Thank God for Kettering borough and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): Our consultation council.” What a great, well-run council it is. It is my outlined how £660 million a year could be saved if local pleasure to say from this Dispatch Box—I think for the government pension funds were invested more efficiently. 10th time—that Kettering borough council is magnificent, We will publish a response in due course. Many funds as is its Member of Parliament. have already started to take the messages from the consultation on board. Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): But what is the additional cost to people on low incomes who now have Robert Neill: I hope that “due course” will not be too to pay for basic services that they need and who have long delayed, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right lost their council tax benefit? to recognise the significant savings that have been made to taxpayers and scheme members by the agglomeration Mr Pickles: I assume that the hon. Lady is making of vehicles. When he takes on board the consequences some kind of spending commitment on behalf of the of the consultation, will he particularly bear in mind Labour party—an unlimited one. Local schemes are the value that can be brought by collective investment put in place by local councils. We have offered them vehicles, which can achieve some 90% of those savings transitional relief to help them. It is a ludicrous argument without significant administrative upheaval and can to say that poor people and people who are struggling provide useful vehicles for wider investment? hard do not pay council tax. The problem with the hon. Lady is that she belongs to the political classes, who are Kris Hopkins: The consultation considered how some out of touch with the needs of ordinary people. £240 million could be saved by creating combined investment vehicles. It should be noted that London Social Housing borough councils have already taken that on board and some 30 councils have come together after their council meetings and have agreed to bring those funds together. 12. Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): What steps he is taking to increase the supply of social Council Tax Freeze housing. [905961]

10. Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con): What TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforCommunities assessment he has made of the effect on council tax and Local Government (Stephen Williams): We are on payers of freezing the rates of council tax. [905958] course to deliver the Government’s programme of 170,000 affordable homes by March 2015. A further £23 billion The Secretary of State for Communities and Local of investment will deliver 165,000 affordable homes Government (Mr Eric Pickles): Under Labour, council between 2015 and 2018. That will be the fastest rate of tax more than doubled. Under this Government, it has affordable house building for at least 20 years. fallen by 11% in real terms. Our council tax freeze is saving the average band D householder in England up to £1,073 over the lifetime of this Parliament. Sir Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for that positive report. Will he assure the House that the energy Maria Miller: Just like central Government, local performance of new social and affordable homes will government has had to take tough spending decisions. not be downgraded using any of the foolish loopholes Does the Secretary of State agree that councils such as in the Infrastructure Bill, and that we will get genuinely mine in Basingstoke, which have frozen council tax for zero-carbon homes in the social and affordable sector? five years, have protected front-line services such as the weekly bin collection and are now rated by their residents Stephen Williams: The Government are determined as providing even better value for money, have got those that we will. We tightened up the energy efficiency tough decisions right? standards for new house building in April and we have announced a commitment to zero-carbon homes from Mr Pickles: It is a pleasure to be associated with my 2016. It is important, however, to get smaller house right hon. Friend. I congratulate Basingstoke and Deane builders back into the market, which is why we are borough council on its excellent work. We must remember consulting on a modest exemption. 1173 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1174

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): There is The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for a chronic shortage of social housing in this country, not Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): least in my constituency. Despite that and despite the Local council tax support schemes are a matter for local cuts in the grants for building affordable homes, will the authorities. An independent review of schemes will be Minister confirm that £800 million of grants have not carried out within three years, as set out in legislation. been bid for and are sitting, unused, in the coffers of the Homes and Communities Agency? Does he blame the Mr Hepburn: The changes to council tax benefit that providers for not putting in bids because they do not see the Government have brought in are every bit as cruel the need for social housing, or does he blame Government as the evil bedroom tax and Thatcher’s poll tax. My policy, under which the amount of grant per unit has local citizens advice bureau tells me that its new referrals been cut to such a low level that providers no longer feel to food banks have gone up from two a month to 10 a able to bid for the money? week. When will the Government stop attacking the poor? Stephen Williams: In fact, the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London authority, which is Kris Hopkins: One way in which we can get people to responsible for this matter in London, have announced stop using food banks is to get them into a job, and this initial allocations of £1.3 billion under the next programme Government have delivered 1.8 million jobs for those to deliver 62,000 new affordable homes from 2015 to individuals. 2018. We will open the bidding process for the next round soon. Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): The New Policy Institute says that more than 200,000 families have been hit by both increases in council tax, due to the withdrawal Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): Is the Minister of council tax support, and the bedroom tax. Will the aware of the concerns expressed by our national park Minister make a proper assessment of that tax double authorities about the possible unintended consequences whammy on the least able to pay, and will he tell us why of introducing a threshold below which affordable housing he is so keen to increase taxes on the poorest people? would not be required under section 106 agreements? Is he aware that it could halve the ability of the authority Kris Hopkins: This Government have frozen council for the national park that I represent, Dartmoor, to tax for some five years, and in real terms it is 11% less deliver affordable housing, including social housing? than it was, which equates to a saving of more than £1,000 for an individual household. That is the Stephen Williams: Yes, I and my ministerial colleagues Government’s track record. certainly are aware of the special concerns about providing affordable homes in national parks. That is why, in the Departmental and Local Authority Budgets consultation, we have proposed a different threshold for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty 16. Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) from that for urban areas. (Lab): What level of reduction there has been in (a) his Department’s budget and (b) centrally-funded local Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): authority budgets since May 2010. [905966] May I draw the House’s attention to my interests? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for As the Minister will know from his own Department’s Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): We figures, just 100,000 new housing association and council needed to make sensible savings to address Labour’s homes have been built in the first four years of the life deficit. Local authority net current expenditure in England, of this Government. Given that their record is an excluding education, has risen from £74.7 billion in average of just 25,000 affordable homes being built over 2009-10 to £77.1 billion in 2013-14. At the time of the their four years to date, how will he miraculously deliver spending review, the budget for the core Department a further 75,000 in the Government’s last remaining was reduced to £15.9 billion, reflecting an overall saving year in office? It beggars belief that output will treble, of 68%. as he suggests. Chi Onwurah: Since this Government took office, Stephen Williams: Some people may think that it Newcastle has had its budget cut by 41% in real terms— beggars belief that a former Housing Minister can say almost half. My constituents are losing £115 per dwelling, that, given that in the 13 years for which his party was in while more affluent areas such as Surrey and Wokingham office, with a rather different economic inheritance, the are gaining up to £20 extra per dwelling despite having number of social and affordable homes fell by 420,000. less pressure on services. Will the Minister make a This will be probably the first Government in my lifetime commitment to come to Newcastle to see the effects to leave more affordable homes in stock at the end of a that his budget cuts are having on local services, and to five-year Parliament than there were before it. explain to the people of Newcastle how they are fair? Kris Hopkins: I have had the pleasure of visiting the Council Tax Benefit great city of Newcastle many times this year. It has the opportunity to invest money, support vulnerable individuals and spend further on public services by growing its 13. Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): What recent business base. As a direct consequence of this Government’s representations he has received on reform of council interventions, 6,300 businesses have gained from our tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [905962] business tax discount. 1175 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1176

Protection for Leaseholders The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): The Government 17. Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab): have already helped more than 54,000 families purchase What steps he is taking to protect leaseholders from a home in England with the support of Help to Buy nuisance legal actions initiated by their landlords. since March 2012, helping people to achieve their ambition [905967] of owning their own home. In the Winchester local authority area, 65 families have already bought through The Minister of State, Department for Communities Help to Buy. and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): Existing legislation already provides leaseholders with rights and protections. Steve Brine: Like many Members, I have spent years Furthermore, the Government fund the Leasehold Advisory listening to young people say that they can afford Service to give free advice to leaseholders who face a mortgage payments but never the deposit to get on the dispute with their landlord. housing ladder. Help to Buy nails that issue, and it is one of the most positive things this Government have Mrs Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for his response, done. Will the Minister comment on the starter homes but not enough is being done. My constituent Emma plan and say whether those two programmes will work Stewart is being pursued by her landlord over a leasehold together to give more young people a chance to live the dispute. A tribunal decision found that Ms Stewart had dream? made every effort to comply with the terms of her lease, and that her landlord had not been disadvantaged in Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has campaigned any way, yet they continue to demand payment from hard for people to aspire to own their own home, and her. That is a clear case of nuisance action and has cost the Government share that desire. The Conservatives Ms Stewart the sale of her home. Will the Minister meet have made clear that after the next election we want to me to discuss the situation and say what on earth can be deliver 100,000 extra starter homes at a 20% discount, done? giving more people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder for the first time. Brandon Lewis: I wrote to the hon. Lady about this issue a couple of weeks ago, but I am happy to meet her Topical Questions if that letter did not cover everything she needs. T1. [905938] Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): If Stormwater Drainage (Local Authorities) he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. 19. Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): What recent guidance he has given local authorities on ensuring The Secretary of State for Communities and Local adequate storm water drainage in residential areas. Government (Mr Eric Pickles): There is no place in [905970] British society for anti-Semitism, and we must stand united to resist all the pernicious ways in which it is The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for manifested. Recently, there has been an increase in Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams): anti-Semitic graffiti on public property, private homes There are strict tests in national planning policy to and in Jewish cemeteries, where gravestones have been protect people and property from flooding, including desecrated and covered in offensive graffiti. That is from storm water. We made clear in planning guidance appalling. Today, I am writing to councils, with the that we published in March that where those tests are Community Security Trust, to stress the importance of not met, new development should not be allowed. using their range of legal powers to remove such graffiti quickly, including on private property, and to report all Duncan Hames: Quite right. In the past year we have incidents to the police. That is part of a wider measure seen businesses and homes damaged by floods in Bradford to tackle anti-Semitism and promote tolerance and on Avon, Corsham, Melksham, and villages, including respect in our society. Holt. What role does the Minister expect local authorities such as Wiltshire council to play in preventing flood Bill Esterson: I welcome what the Secretary of State damage with sufficient storm water drainage? has said about tackling anti-Semitism. Stephen Williams: We obviously expect local authorities Merseyside Fire and Rescue service has faced a 35% to deal with such issues through their local plan. Some cut to its Government grant since the Government 94 local authorities act as the lead local flood authority came to power, which means that it has lost two of the and are expected to have in place a flood risk management four whole-time fire appliances serving my constituency. strategy. Of those 94, 36 local authorities have not yet What assurances can the Secretary of State give that we published or consulted on their strategy and, according will not suffer further cuts in the next spending review, to my information, Wiltshire is one of them. Perhaps as given that such cuts would inevitably lead to the loss of a diligent constituency MP, my hon. Friend will join me at least one of the fire stations in Sefton? in encouraging Wiltshire council to come forward with that plan. Mr Pickles: The project merges existing stations into three new efficient stations, while protecting front-line Help to Buy Scheme services with the introduction of an on-call arrangement on the three new sites. In addition, the new sites will be 20. Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): What the take-up shared with police and ambulance services, enabling of Help to Buy has been in (a) England and (b) Winchester further efficiencies and service contribution. That seems constituency. [905971] a very sensible way of going forward. 1177 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1178

T4. [905941] David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): T6. [905943] Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con): Last month, the Secretary of State upheld the planning Stevenage borough council has taken more than £3.5 million inspector’s decision to close the Arpley landfill in in car parking charges, preventing the regeneration of Warrington. This is of great benefit to the town and on Stevenage town centre. Thousands of local people have behalf of the residents I thank him for that. Will he joined my campaign for three hours free parking. Will confirm that landfill remains at the bottom of the the Minister agree to support my campaign and send a waste hierarchy and that in time it will be replaced strong message to Stevenage borough council to stop everywhere by incineration and recycling? ripping off local people?

The Minister of State, Department for Communities The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): My hon. Friend Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt): is absolutely right that landfill is at the bottom of the I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. He is waste hierarchy, below incineration, energy recovery quite right that this is an issue that restricts growth and recycling. Updated planning policy on waste from locally. We recognise that and have introduced restricting October this year continues the focus of moving waste the use of CCTV to enforce parking, grace periods for up the hierarchy by moving away from traditional landfill on-street parking, and have made it possible for local towards more sustainable options. people to require their local councils to review parking. I draw his attention to the Great British High Street Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab): I join the Secretary portal, which demonstrates that if local authorities of State in condemning anti-Semitic abuse. I very much reduce their parking rates they receive greater revenue. welcome the action he has taken today. T2. [905939] Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) Last year, the Secretary of State decided to extend (Lab): Responding to a Centrepoint report quoted in permitted development rights so that offices could be The Independent last week, the homelessness Minister converted to residential use without requiring planning said that the number of people sleeping rough was permission. What assessment has he made of the impact falling dramatically and claimed that it was a result of of his change on the availability of office space, in the Government’s action. Given that his Department’s particular for small and start-up businesses that are so own figures show that the level of rough sleeping has important to our economy? risen every year under this Government and is up 37% since 2010, will he repeat his claim to the House and Mr Pickles: First, may I express great sadness that take responsibility for this dramatic change in levels of the right hon. Gentleman was not on his feet yesterday rough sleeping? to defend his leader? For him to be missing seems to me to be deeply shameful. [Interruption.] Well I’m here to The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for defend Ed. Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): We did this because there was quite a lot of surplus The Government take the plight of individuals who are office accommodation. It was a necessary thing to do homeless and rough sleeping extremely seriously, which and I think it has improved a number of town centres is why we support the No Second Night Out project and by getting people new homes. In terms of offering new have invested £1 billion through homeless services and and exciting ways for people to set up new businesses, welfare reform to address the problem. Levels of the situation remains open. homelessness have dropped by 2%. Rough sleeping figures across the country are variable, but the Government take the issue extremely seriously and will continue to Hilary Benn: It seems extraordinary that the Secretary support those vulnerable individuals. of State has clearly made no effort at all to find out the impact of his decision, despite reports of small businesses T9. [905946] Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) being affected. As he will know, the Mayor of London (Con): Has the Minister seen the disturbing reports is very unhappy about what he has done. The Business from Tower Hamlets that £400,000 was given to Secretary thinks it is a really bad idea, saying that organisations that did not meet minimum standards “in south-west London large swathes of commercial property are and that council land was sold off to friends of the in the process of disappearing…there is nowhere for small firms administration? The mayor, Mr Rahman, says they to operate.” have done nothing wrong, but surely this has to be A recent Local Government Association survey found tackled—a very serious situation has arisen. in one case that 100 charities and small businesses had been given four to six weeks’ notice to quit. The right Mr Pickles: As my hon. and learned Friend will hon. Gentleman used to be a localist. He said earlier recall, I made a statement to the House last week, and that he has given more power to local communities to we are currently waiting to hear what the mayor has to take decisions on planning, so why did he decide that say in response to the report. As the House will recall, I his view on this matter would prevail over the views of asked for two specific undertakings regarding the disposal local people? of property. We have received those undertakings, and I hope to make an announcement very soon. Mr Pickles: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to defend the Leader of the T5. [905942] Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) Opposition, which again I am very shocked at. He (Lab): I draw the House’s attention to my indirect should do his homework: local schemes exist and article 4 interest, which I frequently make public in this place. exists. It is possible to decide where they go and where When will the Secretary of State act to save roughly they do not. People need housing, and where Labour £500 million of public money over 10 years by giving failed to deliver houses, we have succeeded. registered housing providers the same powers as local 1179 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1180 authorities to enter properties to carry out essential gas Mr Pickles: Liverpool is one of the highest-funded safety checks, as supported by the Association of Gas councils in the country, but it has one problem—it does Safety Managers? not collect its council tax. If it were to do so, an enormous burden would be taken off the shoulders of Brandon Lewis: I am discussing this matter with the taxpayers in Liverpool. industry, and I will continue to do so and inform the House once we have finished those conversations. Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Given the Prime Minister’s commitments earlier in the year, Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): The concrete why is it proving so difficult for the Department for councillors of Labour-led Telford and Wrekin borough Communities and Local Government and the Department council seem to be building on every bit of greenfield for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to find a and every green patch in the borough, despite its being a sustainable funding formula for the proposed Somerset semi-rural borough. What more can the planning Minister river authority? Frankly, I do not care about precedent— do to encourage this out-of-touch council to build on 13,000 acres under water is a pretty compelling precedent brownfield sites? in itself.

Brandon Lewis: We have published further guidance Mr Pickles: We have, of course, honoured our obligations to help councils to appreciate that green-belt development to the people of Somerset with £20 million having should be an absolute last resort and that brownfield already gone in and an additional £13.1 million for sites should always be used first. This summer, we made looking at the possibility of a barrier at Bridgwater. It available to councils an extra several hundred million simply comes down to this: what we are doing is trying pounds, and I encourage my hon. Friend’s council to to find something sustainable. The hon. Gentleman bid for some of that and do what it can to protect its seems to be urging me to tax people who were flooded. valuable green belt. What we are looking at is trying to get something sustainable without over-burdening the people of Somerset. T7. [905944] John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) That seems a much more sensible course to pursue. (Lab): It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has personally allowed the dispute over fire service T10. [905947] Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) pensions to drag on for three years. The Government’s (Lab): Further to the Secretary of State’s statement last own expert report says that two thirds of firefighters week on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Tower will not pass the current fitness standard at the age Hamlets and the criticism on grants and disposal of of 60, meaning they will be faced with no job and no assets in particular, it was reported at column 669 that pension after years of good service. Why has he turned the right hon. Gentleman would “send a copy” of the his back on firefigters and now dragged his new junior report “to the police”. Will he confirm that a copy will Minister away from the negotiating table? be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, too? Penny Mordaunt: As I have stated before, we have introduced protections for firefighters on a statutory Mr Pickles: It appears on our website, but I will footing and set up a working group to ensure best certainly bring the attention of the Crown Prosecution practice to enable people to maintain their fitness. We Service to it. I express no view on whether or not these have gone further still, however, and are looking at the matters are criminal. I am certainly unhappy with them, future shape of the work force to ensure that people but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution to who want to stay operational but cannot maintain make the appropriate decision. I am determined to those fitness standards have jobs to go to. ensure that Tower Hamlets has the best possible council so that public confidence can be re-established in it. Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend consider strengthening guidelines Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con): I to prevent a council from unilaterally removing heritage understand that the Secretary of State is calling in assets, including a presumption of like-for-like replacement almost all onshore wind farm applications and turning if assets need renewal? In particular, I am thinking most of them down, including those already approved about popular items of street furniture. by the planning authorities. Given the majority of the people of this country say, when polled, that they are Mr Pickles: Obviously, if my hon. Friend has something broadly in favour of onshore wind projects, will the specific in mind, I would be most interested to hear right hon. Gentleman explain his Department’s policy what he has to say, and perhaps we could have a on this matter? discussion about it today. Kris Hopkins: If my right hon. Friend will forgive T8. [905945] Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) me, I need to correct him. There have been just over (Lab/Co-op): This Government have taken away 58% 800 applications for solar and wind farms, of which of Liverpool city council’s funding, hitting Liverpool some 40 have been recovered and only four have ever harder than anywhere else, yet Liverpool is still finding been called in. innovative new ways of maintaining services, including the announcement today that all our libraries will be Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP):The continuing kept open. Will the Secretary of State finally travel to firefighters’ dispute in England is both damaging and visit Liverpool for himself to see what difference the avoidable. Will the Minister look at what has happened city could make if its funding cuts were at the national in Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Executive average? have come to an agreement with the firefighters that is 1181 Oral Answers10 NOVEMBER 2014 Oral Answers 1182 neither costly nor damaging? Will he adopt the same rate and England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the common-sense approach here as has been adopted in same transitional protections. Wales and Northern Ireland Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? have not yet made any announcements on fitness. The scheme in England is marginally different from that of Penny Mordaunt: In summary, all the schemes except the other nations and, in many respects, it is better. The that of Northern Ireland have a retirement age of 60, regulations have been laid. We must get the message while England and Scotland have the same faster accrual across to firefighters to remain part of that scheme. 1183 10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1184

EU Budget (Surcharge) Britain. The whole episode reminds us of the reform that we need in Europe—reform that Government Members 3.34 pm believe should be put to a vote of the people of Britain. Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)(Urgent Ed Balls: If this is such a good deal, why did the Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Chancellor not offer to make a statement? Why was he he will make a statement to clarify his agreement on the dragged to the House this afternoon? Talk about smoke European Union budget surcharge. and mirrors, Mr Speaker—I can barely see you through The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne): the Chancellor’s fog and bluster! Last month the previous European Commission presented Is not the truth that the Chancellor failed to reduce Britain with a bill for £1.7 billion, which it insisted must our contribution by a single penny? All he is doing is be paid by 1 December. The Prime Minister spoke for simply counting the rebate that was due anyway—a British taxpayers when he said that that was completely rebate that was never in doubt—in an attempt to fool unacceptable, and we set about getting a better deal. people into thinking that the bill has been halved. His Following intensive discussions with the new Commission so-called victory is nothing more than a con trick. and at the ECOFIN meeting last week, we have achieved The Chancellor claims that the rebate was somehow such a deal. I can tell the House that we have halved the in doubt, but that claim has been contradicted by Bill, have delayed the Bill, will pay no interest on the everyone else. The EU Budget Commissioner was very Bill, and have changed the rules of the European Union clear when he said, on 27 October, in a statement on the so that such unacceptable behaviour never happens backdated gross national income revisions, again. “the UK will benefit from the UK rebate for the additional Let me briefly give the House the details. At the payments”. European Council last month, the Prime Minister made On Friday, having been asked whether the rebate was in it clear to the Barroso Commission that while annual doubt, the Vice-President of the Commission replied, adjustments to contributions were a regular part of EU “No, absolutely not.” membership, a sudden and unprecedented demand for On Friday, the Treasury was telling journalists that a £1.7 billion payment on 1 December was unacceptable. the Government had legal advice that the UK rebate He secured the agreement of all 28 Heads of Government somehow might not apply. If the legal advice exists, the that it should be discussed by the Finance Ministers as a Chancellor should publish it. Mr Barroso’s spokesperson, matter of urgency. That meeting took place last Friday, Mr Mark Gray, has directly contradicted the Treasury’s and followed two weeks of intensive and constructive claims, saying: discussions with the new Budget Commissioner, Vice- President Georgieva, and other member states. “Commission position on this clear at European Council—rebate was never in doubt”. As a result of those discussions, we achieved unanimous The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan agrees. He said— agreement that, first, expecting payment on 1 December [Interruption.] was indeed unacceptable. The budget rules will therefore be rewritten to allow for a delay in any payment. In Britain’s case, that means that we will pay nothing this Mr Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the year, and will instead make payments in two instalments Chamber. I wish to hear the views of Mr Daniel Hannan. in July and September, in the second half of next year. Let us hear them. Secondly, the suggestion that we might have to pay interest charges was rejected, and it was agreed unanimously Ed Balls: I’ll tell you what Mr Hannan said. He said: that no interest would be charged on the delayed payments. “it’s not credible to claim that it was ever in doubt”. Thirdly, in our discussion with the new European The Dutch Finance Minister said that of course this Commission, it was agreed that a full rebate would “mechanism of the rebate will also apply” apply to the British payment, that the rebate would be specific, that it would be in addition to any other rebate on the new contribution: that we might expect next year, and that, for the first “So it’s not as if the British have been given a discount today.” time ever, it would be paid at the same time as any The Austrian Finance Minister said that money owed. “the amount cannot be put in question”, It had not been not clear that we would receive a and the Irish Finance Minister confirmed rebate, let alone such a large one. No one in the House had suggested that we would. Only my right hon. Friend “the UK will pay the whole amount.” the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) They are queuing up to contradict the Chancellor. had even asked a question about it. Indeed, it was only Let me ask the Chancellor this: can he name a single confirmed that we would receive a rebate, and a large Finance Minister who is willing to go along with his one, by Vice-President Georgieva on 6 November, last desperate attempts to pull the wool over people’s eyes? Thursday evening. This means that Britain’s payments And it is worse. The Financial Times reported: have been halved, from £1.7 billion to about £850 million. “Officials involved in the closed-door negotiations between Finally, all member states agreed with us that the finance ministers said Mr Osborne did not complain about the entire episode had been unacceptable, and a deal was overall bill.” therefore reached to make a permanent change in European He didn’t even complain about the overall bill, Mr Speaker! law so that this would never happen again. I have here the minutes of Friday’s ECOFIN meeting: In the face of this budget challenge, we have far 21 pages, and not a single reference in those exceeded the expectations and predictions that preceded 21 pages to the UK rebate or the amount Britain owes Friday’s meeting. We have achieved a real result for being reduced. 1185 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1186

Is it not now clear that the Chancellor totally failed course. In the meantime, will he give us further details to get a better deal for the taxpayer? He did not reduce to assure us that such demands will not be made on us Britain’s backdated bill by a single penny. The British or any other country again? people don’t like being taken for fools, and his attempts to fool them have totally unravelled. Mr Osborne: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for what has been announced. There was agreement around Mr Osborne: No, the British people do not like being the table that we should permanently change the EU taken for fools which is why the shadow Chancellor is in budget rules. We shall have to consult the European opposition. The shadow Chancellor is one of those Parliament on that, but it does not have a veto. We people who is wise neither after the event nor before the should change those rules so that if there is an exceptionally event. How do we know that? Because he wrote an large payment or adjustment in future, as there was this article in The Guardian last Friday. It appeared alongside time, member states cannot be bounced with a bill like another article called “Labour is doomed” by one of his this. There was strong support around the table for that colleagues, and in his article he set out four tests that I change. had to pass. The first test, he said, was that we needed a coalition of support, and he asked me about that again Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): On today. We had unanimous support around the ECOFIN the UK rebate, will the Chancellor give us the name of table for the deal that was agreed. The second test he set just one European Finance Minister who changed their me before the ECOFIN council was that we needed the mind after listening to him? support of Germany. Well, we went to Berlin and the German Finance Minister was central to the deal that Mr Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman should know, we did. Thirdly, in this article, he said: the rebate involves a discussion between member states “The Prime Minister should be clear about whether he intends and the European Commission, which is why we were to take the EU Commission to the European Court of Justice if discussing with the Commission, in parallel, the size of they insist on the deadline of 1 December.” the British rebate. Frankly, any question from Labour Well, we do not have a deadline of 1 December any Members about the rebate is a bit rich, given that they more, because we did not challenge the law; we changed gave up half of it. the law. So three tests passed, and here is the fourth and final Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): My right hon. Friend test the shadow Chancellor set us: he said that the is to be congratulated on getting rid of these punitive interest rates on any delayed payments should be fair. interest rates. I hope that he will refer the new rules that Well, I disagree. I do not think we should pay any were decided at ECOFIN last Friday to my Committee interest at all, and we are not, but what is revealing so that we can scrutinise them properly. Is there any about this fourth test is the number he himself gave for sound reason for our making any payment at all if those the fines Britain might face. He said: rules do not deal with the problem of other member “Britain could face a…fine of £114,000 a day.” states including their black economy in the statistical Does he confirm that that is what he said in the article: base that they use when putting forward their proposals? £114,000 a day? [Interruption.] Well, he has given himself That greatly affects the whole basis on which the calculations away because £114,000 a day happens to be the EU are made. penal interest on £1.7 billion, so the shadow Chancellor, who stands before us today and says he always knew the Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend raises an important rebate would apply, is the same shadow Chancellor who point about the quality of the statistics. It was raised by on Friday said we would paying £1.7 billion. the European Court of Auditors last week; it was also And of course the word “rebate” never appeared made forcefully by the Dutch Finance Minister at ECOFIN. once in that article or, indeed, in any intervention from The key point is that we can examine the numbers, and the Labour party on this issue. This whole question if there are errors we will get money repaid to us at the from the shadow Chancellor today is based on the end of next year. absurd charade that he would stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe, but he gave away billions of pounds Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab): of the rebate, he signed us up to billions of pounds of Can the Chancellor explain why the EU Commissioner eurozone bail-out, and he still refuses to give the British said on 27 October that the UK would benefit in any people a say on our future in Europe. May I suggest to event from the rebate that was due? Also—this is at the him that he should leave the strong leadership in Europe heart of the problem—what evidence does the right to us, and he should get on with throwing over the weak hon. Gentleman have to suggest to the House, other leadership in the Labour party? than in a gross act of deception worthy more of Goebbels than of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer— Hon. Members: More! Hon. Members: Withdraw! Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): This is almost like Budget day. Was it not crass insensitivity on the Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman part of the Commission to make such a demand on is not accusing any member of the Government of several countries in this way? The Government have engaging in deception. If he is, he must withdraw that negotiated an interest-free deferment and a reduction in term. the sum outstanding, and exactly what those are worth is something that the Treasury Committee will want to Mr Robinson: I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker; examine with the Chancellor in public session in due it was meant in a light-hearted manner. 1187 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1188

Mr Speaker: We are grateful. in Europe. She, of course, is one of a growing number of Labour MPs who join us in wanting to see that Mr Osborne: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman referendum—I hope she can persuade the Labour Front- asked questions that had been prepared by the shadow Bench team. Chancellor, but I have never before seen those questions being handed over in the Chamber. Nor do I think his Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): Does the embellishment of the question added much to it. If the Chancellor agree that whatever deal he had obtained rebate was always going to apply, and to such an extent, last Friday—even if he had come back bearing sackfuls why did neither he nor any other Labour Member raise of tribute in gold—it was wholly predictable that hard-line the matter? Why was it not mentioned in the shadow Eurosceptics would immediately say that this was robbery Chancellor’s article in The Guardian? The shadow by Brussels and that the shadow Chancellor would Chancellor says that the outcome was obvious, but the immediately claim that, in some mysterious way, he estimate of a £114,000 fine was based on a number of— could have produced some superior outcome for this country? Would the Chancellor accept my congratulations Ed Balls indicated dissent. on a surprisingly good result that he achieved at that meeting, which I strongly suspect was a friendly discussion Mr Osborne: He says no, but the penal rate is 2% between 28 Finance Ministers and a Commissioner on above base, and 2% above base per day on a £1.7 billion a technical subject, and did not resemble the gunfight at charge is £114,000. Is that just an amazing coincidence? the O. K. Corral, which is how everybody has to present European Council meetings and the debates we have on Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): I these subjects in this House? congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the deal last Friday. He was good enough to recall that, two Mr Osborne: I thank my right hon. and learned weeks ago in the Chamber, I said that the rebate should Friend for his support; he is not always fulsome in his apply to the additional demand on the UK’s contributions. support of our European policies, so that is particularly Despite the shadow Chancellor’s assertions just now, appreciated. He is right that around the table were other the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about the members states that had been hit by this very large rebate two weeks ago; he said nothing until my right payment—the Dutch, the Italians, the Greeks and others— hon. Friend actually secured it. Will my right hon. and therefore there was a lot of sympathy for trying to Friend confirm that the rebate will still apply to UK net change the rules. In parallel, as he would know, there is contributions in future years, as it would have done a discussion with the Commission about the British before? [Interruption.] rebate, which is properly a matter for the discussion with the Commission rather than ECOFIN. Mr Osborne: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wants to leave, Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Does the because we were just talking about the presence of the Chancellor accept that, whatever is said about the rebate, Labour leader. As the hon. Gentleman said at the this substantial bill for the United Kingdom still represents weekend: an EU penalty for stronger economic performance? “‘I never believed the answer to Labour’s problems was to Does he not think that there are better ways to spend show people more of Ed Miliband.” £850 million than handing it over, albeit next year, to My right hon. Friend the Member for South the European Union? Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) is right; on 27 October, he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about Mr Osborne: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the position of the rebate. The Prime Minister said it that the European Union could spend the money far was: better than it does through reform—that is the reform “One of the important questions that needs to be asked and we are seeking to achieve. Of course membership of the properly answered”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, European Union does mean adjustments to the payments c. 30.] each year, and sometimes Britain has been a beneficiary He said that that is what we are seeking to do. So my of them—indeed, when the shadow Chancellor put the right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire country into recession we received a tiny bit of money is right to have asked the question—of course nobody back from the EU. That is one of the regular features of from the Labour party did—and that is why we were membership but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it engaged in the intensive discussions to nail down the demonstrates why we need further reform in Europe. rebate. Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): The last time Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Does the Chancellor not the shadow Chancellor mentioned the EU rebate in this agree that this whole fiasco just shows that we are House appears to have been in 2005. Does the Chancellor paying far, far too much to the European Union, that agree that, if the shadow Chancellor really thought the we should be seeking ways of getting back control of bill we were being presented with by the Commission our country, our own borders and our own system of was £800 million out, it is curious that he did not find justice, and that the sooner we get a referendum, the time to mention it before this week? better? Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right Mr Osborne: I completely agree with the hon. Lady, about that. Of course the only involvement the shadow which is why I made the point at the end of my remarks Chancellor has ever had with the rebate is giving away that the whole episode demonstrated why we needed reform half of it. 1189 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1190

Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): The rules that Mr Osborne: Sadly not is the short answer to my hon. determined this payment were agreed in May, without Friend’s question. The Prime Minister we should credit discussion. The UK participated fully in those discussions, for the rebate is Margaret Thatcher. and had two formal opportunities to respond but did not do so—indeed, there was not a single signal from Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): May I try to help the UK that there was a problem until late October. Is the Chancellor? He is in danger of becoming illiterate the truth not that this performance by the UK Government as well as innumerate. The word “result”, which he used has less to do with payments to Europe and more about once today and three times last week, can mean a win, a pandering to the open wound of anti-Europeanism loss or a draw or, as in this case, a confidence trick. from the Members who sit behind the Chancellor? Mr Osborne: I take it as a win for Britain. Again, I do Mr Osborne: If the separatists had had their way, not want to follow lessons from Labour MPs about how Scotland would not be in the European Union. But I to negotiate in Europe when they gave up much of the make this point: Commission Vice-President Georgieva rebate, signed us into the eurozone bail-outs, gave up confirmed in the press conference afterwards that there many of our vetoes over many years and refused to give was no way that member states could have known the the British people a say in referendums in key treaties. net figure until 17 October, which was when the official meeting took place in Brussels. That has also been Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Does my right confirmed by the Dutch Prime Minister and the President hon. Friend know who my constituents believe is most of the European Commission. Again, this is one of in need of this money, the UK or the EU? those examples in which the shadow Chancellor says that he knew better than the rest of us, but those Heads of Government confirm that Britain could have known Mr Osborne: At a time when budgets are tough, I only in late October. completely understand why people want the maximum amount of money possible to be spent at home, but the Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con): Does my truth is that we have been able to get a reduction in right hon. Friend agree that not only is this a superb the EU budget because of the tough negotiations of the deal for the UK, but if the people vote for a Conservative British Prime Minister. That is what we are able to Government in May 2015, the people will have a vote in achieve by standing up for Britain’s interests in Europe. a referendum about it? Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Will the Chancellor Mr Osborne: As my hon. Friend says, the key point is help us better to understand what he is presenting as a that we are offering the people of Britain a vote on the masterful feat by telling us: what he did not know; when membership of the European Union, which we will and for how long he did not know it; and why he did not then seek to reform. Interestingly, it is not only the hon. know it? Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who has made her point on Europe, but the last Labour Chancellor, who Mr Osborne: It was not clear that this exceptional says he now supports a referendum on Europe. It would demand for a payment would have the British rebate applied be interesting to see what the shadow Chancellor really or indeed to what extent the rebate would be applied. thinks. The amount was confirmed to us only last Thursday evening. Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I am still trying to find a serious commentator who did not Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Is the Chancellor think that the rebate would apply to the British contribution. surprised by the number of EU budget experts who All this banter covers the fact that the Chancellor has now seem to be appearing on the Opposition Benches? not made any progress in reforming the system that led Does he, like me, wonder where they all were when to this completely absurd demand, which made Britain former Chancellors were happily signing off flawed EU pay and France and Germany receive money. accounts or giving away our rebate?

Mr Osborne: I agree that this was a totally unacceptable Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; they approach from the previous European Commission. To gave into all Europe’s demands and handed over more be fair to the new budget Commissioner, she has engaged and more British taxpayers’ money. They were neither constructively and got the rules changed so that it does wise before this event, nor particularly wise after it. not happen again. On the hon. Lady’s comment about finding a serious commentator who thought the rebate might not apply, I know the shadow Chancellor is not a Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): Can the Chancellor serious commentator but he did not at any point raise confirm that when the EU budget is reconciled, it will this issue. The calculation on interest payments that he show that the surcharge to the UK was paid in full, that used in The Guardian on Friday was based on the it will show quite separately that there was a rebate that assumption that we would pay £1.7 billion—that is how was applied, and that therefore his attempts to link the he came up with the number that he used to make his two are simply nonsense? point. As a result, he did not expect the rebate to be applied or to be applied at this rate. Mr Osborne: What we achieved was the simultaneous application of the rebate, so we will pay only £850 million. Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): The shadow Chancellor says that this reduction is entirely down to Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): I congratulate the rebate. So, if Tony Blair had not given away half the my right hon. Friend on maintaining the application of rebate, would we have got a 100% reduction? the UK rebate in a way that the Opposition utterly 1191 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1192

[Mr Robin Walker] deficit and about immigration, and now they forget about the rebate. It reminds everyone why the British failed to do when they were in power. Would he have public are quite clear that they are unfit for government. been strengthened in that position had he maintained a euro preparations unit in the Treasury? Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Regardless of whether the bill has been rebated, does the Chancellor Mr Osborne: The first and kindest cut of all was not recognise that for many UK citizens facing cuts in closing down the euro preparations unit, which I discovered public services, £850 million extra going to a body which in the Treasury on coming to office. has not had its accounts signed off for 19 years, wastes billions through fraud and spends money on vanity projects, Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): is not good value and that they object to it? I know that the Chancellor did not want to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell Mr Osborne: I completely understand the anger and and Wishaw (Mr Roy), but I will try again. Can he frustration felt by all our constituents at the way money please name one EU Finance Minister who supports his is spent by the European Union. That is why we are version of events? seeking reform and why both the hon. Gentleman and I would like to see the British people asked for their Mr Osborne: All 28 countries, and therefore 27 other consent in a referendum. Finance Ministers, agreed to our plan, and the plan put forward by other member states, to change the rules so that we do not have to pay on 1 December, to enable us Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Was my right hon. to delay payment, to ensure that no interest will be paid Friend surprised to see the shadow Chancellor in his during that delay, to ensure that any errors in the place here today? My reading of the Daily Mirror was accounts will be rectified and that we will be compensated that the shadow Chancellor was going to make a speech for them next year, and to ensure that this never happens in support of the Leader of the Opposition—I apologise again. We got that coalition of support around the table. to the House; I misread that. The shadow Chancellor is The discussions on the rebate, as I am sure the hon. going to be making a speech in support of the Leader of Lady knows, happen between the UK and the European the Opposition in the next fortnight. Commission. Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful, but the question Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): After all the suffered from the disadvantage of being irrelevant to to-ing and fro-ing over who should pay what, would not the matter under discussion, so we will move on to the best way to thank our European friends be to show someone who has a relevant question to ask. them how to make savings in the cost of Brussels so that the costs paid by each country becomes more affordable, Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Confirmation both for us and for their shrinking economies? that the rebate will be applied is clearly to be welcomed, but the blunt truth is that this country faces a bill Mr Osborne: We want to achieve reform in Europe. £850 million larger than it faced two weeks previously. The hon. Gentleman mentions Brussels, and I suggest Given that we now pay more than £10 billion a year as that they could make a start by staying there and not our membership fee for this organisation, my constituents going to Strasbourg. in Kettering feel that the bill is too large. Will the Chancellor confirm that a majority Conservative Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): Government will renegotiate the membership fee after Some ¤1 billion is still an exceptional surcharge on this the next election? country’s finances. Will the Chancellor put his deal to a binding vote in this House? Mr Osborne: As I say, I understand the frustration that many people feel about the way their money—hard- Mr Osborne: We have the normal scrutiny methods. earned taxpayers’ money—is spent in Europe. That is Indeed, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and I why we are seeking a reform of Britain’s relationship have already discussed my happily answering questions with Europe and a reform of the way Europe works for from members of the Committee, and of course my all its citizens, and why we are seeking to put that to the hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) British people in a referendum. With reference to my has his Committee as well. right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), it is good to see the shadow Chancellor here, Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con): breaking off from the Balls family pastime of undermining Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worrying that the Leader of the Opposition. the shadow Chancellor forgot to mention the rebate before today? Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): The Chancellor read out make a detailed calculation of exactly how much less to us the Prime Minister’s response to the right hon. Britain would have to pay had Labour not given away Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) about the rebate in the first place? the rebate, but can he explain why, in all that feigned anger, the Prime Minister did not explain about the Mr Osborne: Of course, giving away the rebate cost rebate? Was it because the Chancellor had not shared Britain billions a year. My hon. and learned Friend is that knowledge with the Prime Minister, or was it right to draw attention to the pattern of forgetfulness because the pair of them were in it together, ready to on the Opposition Front Bench. They forget about the pull out a white rabbit last Friday? 1193 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1194

Mr Osborne: I am not sure what a white rabbit has to with are of the opinion that we will pay no less than we do with it, but it was not clear that the rebate would would have done if we had paid the full £1.7 billion on 1 apply. That is precisely why we were engaged in intensive December and then received our rebate? discussions with the European Commission, and it is why, universally in this House and in the media, people Mr Osborne: As I have already said, it was not clear were talking about a figure of £1.7 billion. It was not that the rebate would apply, which is why the shadow clear, but we achieved the application of the rebate, and Chancellor, in his article in The Guardian, uses a number as a result the bill is £850 million. that assumes that we are going to pay £1.7 billion. That is what he thought we were going to pay, but we Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con): negotiated hard and had intensive discussions, and as a I think I am missing something here. Can my right hon. result we have got this result for Britain. Friend confirm that the only reason we are discussing the payment of an EU surcharge at all is because of the stunningly impressive handling of the economy by my Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): right hon. Friend? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was the UK’s leadership in Europe that resulted in the deal being Mr Osborne: My right hon. Friend is very kind. One struck that has enabled all nine countries that were of the reasons why this surcharge, as he puts it, has being surcharged by the EU to delay their payment arisen is because of the strong UK economic performance until 1 September next year? Does he agree that such relative to the continent of Europe. We should not be leadership in Europe bodes well for our renegotiations happy about the poor performance of the European next year, after the Conservative party has won the next continent. We want the European continent to be general election? performing better. Mr Osborne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): Has Of course, we needed the agreement of all the member not Britain had the rebate for a very long time? Can states for this budget deal. Any one of them could have someone therefore tell me why the Chancellor has only blocked the deal, but we got the support of all the other just found out how it works? He was taken by surprise 27 member states, not just to delay the payment and by the £1.7 billion bill in the first place, and now he have no interest applied but permanently to change the belatedly discovers the rebate. How can the House have rules. any confidence that the Chancellor knows what is going on? Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): For the Mr Osborne: The House can have confidence that fourth time, I think, in this House, may I press the this Government fight for Britain’s interests in Europe, Chancellor to tell us which Foreign Minister or which because we have cut the EU budget, got us out of those Commission official agrees with his interpretation of disastrous eurozone bail-outs that the Labour Government the rebate? put us into, and had the rebate applied—a rebate which, of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party wanted to get rid Mr Osborne: As I say, it required the agreement of all of. 28 member states to get the budget deal at ECOFIN. The discussion on the British rebate was a discussion Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con): Given the fact that the had with the Commission. The Commission confirmed shadow Chancellor and almost everyone on the Opposition that the rebate would apply, and apply in the amount it Front Bench with him has been completely absent from did, only on Thursday night. The hon. Gentleman also the airwaves in the past few days in support of their serves on the Treasury Committee. If he, like every leader, one would have thought that they had ample other Labour Member, was so wise about the number, opportunity to proffer advice on the rebate. I did not why were they not saying this beforehand? Not a single hear it. Did my right hon. Friend hear it privately from Labour MP, either in the Chamber of the House of them? Commons or on the media, said anything other than that we would be paying £1.7 billion. They are trying to Mr Osborne: I do not want to discourage members of be wise after the event, and they have been found out. the Opposition Front-Bench team from taking to the airwaves and criticising their leader, because it is very good. It is only after the event that we hear that they Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Does the think he is useless. They did not tell us that beforehand. Chancellor agree that one additional way to help the My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition did not raise EU budget would be to clamp down on corporate tax the issue—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor calls evasion in places such as Luxembourg? me to the House of Commons, he has nothing to say for himself and he has no answer to the fact that his own Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right that we need article reveals that he thought we were going to be fair tax arrangements. The European Commission is paying £1.7 billion. It just confirms that he is not up to looking at that through some of its state aid action on the job. particular tax deals done in some member states. However, we do not want to move to a common tax policy across Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): I think the Chancellor Europe whereby there is a single corporation tax rate should calm down when it comes to leadership and and the like. I am in favour of competitive business loyalty. Why did we have a by-election last month that taxes, but competitive business taxes that are fairly his party lost to the UK Independence party and why paid. That is the policy that we pursue in the UK and do we have another one this month? Will he confirm that we are seeking international agreement on and that the ECOFIN Ministers he discussed the rebate making a lot of progress on. 1195 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1196

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Since Mr Osborne: As I have already explained, the negotiation the Council meeting on Friday, the Finance Ministers of and discussion on the rebate are had with the European Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands have all said that Commission. The full amount, which was universally the UK will still pay the full amount. Is the Chancellor discussed in this House beforehand and by the shadow seriously arguing that they are wrong, and if so, can he Chancellor in The Guardian, was £1.7 billion. As a point to a single measure that will cut the overall bill for result of our negotiation and intensive discussion, we the UK taxpayer over the next two years? will be paying £850 million. Mr Osborne: We were presented with a bill for £1.7 billion and we are going to pay about £850 million, so in my David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): I am pleased that book that is a cut. my right hon. Friend has secured a change in the way that the surcharge formulas are calculated. Can he Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con): May confirm that the UK will never be penalised in this way I congratulate the Chancellor on the excellent deal that again for a strong economic performance? he has achieved in Europe? As a better woman than me once said, there is no such thing as Government money, Mr Osborne: We will never face such a large payment only taxpayers’ money. Does he agree that the people or such an unexpected period of time in which to pay, who benefit from this negotiation are hard-working which is why we are getting permanent changes to the British taxpayers? budget rules. That requires the consent of all member states, and we have that. Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, this is not the Government’s money: it is the people’s money— taxpayers’ money. People work very hard to earn money Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East and then they pay taxes on it, and it is the policy of the Cleveland) (Lab): The UK’s deficit at the moment is the Conservative party to keep taxes as low as possible. worst in the European Union. Will the Chancellor be selling that as a result as well? Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): Given that the relationship between GDP and the European Union Mr Osborne: Some of us remember inheriting a budget was understood before this series of events, and budget deficit of 11.5% from the previous Labour yet the Government appeared to be asleep at the wheel, Government. It has fallen by more than a third. We will what was the reason for their reluctance in getting their get the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility act together properly in the first place? Was it the in December. Chancellor’s unwillingness to fess up to the Prime Minister or to stand up to his Back Benchers? Ed Balls: It’s going up! Mr Osborne: I am not sure it was worth waiting 45 minutes for that question. The Prime Minister of the Mr Osborne: Let us get it on the record that the Netherlands, the President of the European Commission shadow Chancellor says that the budget deficit is going and the vice-president of the European Commission up. We will wait for the forecasts at the beginning of with responsibility for the budget all said that it was not December and see who is right. clear until late October what the amount would be. That is why, the moment we found out, we got it on the European Council agenda, and the European Council Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): I congratulate agreed that it would be discussed at ECOFIN. my right hon. Friend on this deal, but the situation adds to the frustration that many of my constituents have with Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): This the EU. Does that not show that we need to renegotiate weekend marked the 19th year in which the European such matters and then give people in my constituency, Union has failed to sign off its accounts. Does that not my right hon. Friend’s constituency and constituencies make the case for a referendum and reform compelling? across the country an in/out referendum so that they The harsh binary truth is that during this parliamentary can decide whether they want to stay in the EU? Session the only Members who have pushed that agenda are sitting on this side of the House. Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Nuneaton and across the country will have Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We their chance to vote on whether Britain stays in the are pushing the case for reform in Europe while the European Union. I want to see reform in Europe and I Opposition want no reform in Europe. The people of want to put that reform to the British people. The only Wolverhampton and elsewhere in the country have a way the British people will have that say is if they vote very clear choice at the election. If they vote Labour, for my hon. Friend and other Conservative Members. they will pay more to Europe; there will be no reform in Europe; Europe will continue to hold back the British economy because it is unreformed; and, of course, they Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): My constituents will have no say. If they vote for the Conservative party, would have expected the Chancellor to negotiate the they will get a say on Britain’s future in Europe. best possible deal on a rebate. They would also have expected him to negotiate down the surcharge. Is it not Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): The Irish Finance the case that he has not done the latter at all? It is not a Minister has said: penny less than it would have been and the accounts will “My understanding is that the UK will pay the whole amount”. show that the figure is still £1.7 billion. Is the Chancellor seriously saying that the Irish Finance Minister is wrong? Heather Wheeler: You would have paid the whole lot! 1197 EU Budget (Surcharge)10 NOVEMBER 2014 EU Budget (Surcharge) 1198

Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point reverse the decline in living standards over which he has that the hon. Lady would have paid the whole lot. We presided. What they do not want is a Chancellor who are paying £850 million because of the application of tries to pull the wool over their eyes after failing to the rebate. negotiate with our partners, while making false promises and claims about a budget rebate that was always going Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): I to happen. congratulate the Chancellor on halving the recent EU demand in record time. I wish he had just continued a Mr Osborne: As I have said, we worked with the little longer, because with his skills he might have got us other member states to achieve the deal at ECOFIN. a net refund. Does he agree that for those for whom this We needed the agreement of the other member states on result is not enough, nothing would ever have been the delay, paying no interest and the permanent change enough? Does he also agree that, however distasteful we in the rules. It is always good to get lectures from might find it, while we are in a club we have to abide by Labour Members about working with and supporting the rules, and that only a future Conservative Government colleagues, so we look forward to the shadow Chancellor’s will give the people a say—and a chance to leave the speech supporting his leader in the next couple of club—in a referendum in 2017? weeks. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods, and I know that he is a man true to his word. Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the reform we seek in Europe is reform to make sure that Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con): Much of this the money that British taxpayers pay is well spent. discussion has centred on the rebate, but has my right Indeed, we want to make sure that the money of all hon. Friend done any calculations of the value of the European citizens is well spent in Europe. He is absolutely forgone interest that would be paid as a result of the right that the only way to get that reform is with a extension of the date for this payment from 1 December Conservative Government, and then the British people to the middle of next year? can decide in a referendum. Mr Osborne: Of course, the shadow Chancellor estimated Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Will the Chancellor that it would cost £114,000 a year, which is the EU name one European Commission official who asserted penal rate on £1.7 billion. If interest had been charged to him, or will he release correspondence from the even on the rebateable amount, it would of course have European Commission indicating, that the rebate did been about half that figure. not apply in this case? Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): May I congratulate Mr Osborne: As I have already said, the rebate and its my right hon. Friend on getting half the money back? size were only confirmed to us by the European That is certainly a step in the right direction. However, Commission—by the vice-president for the budget—last does it not show that one economic cap does not fit all Thursday night. in the EU, and never ever will? Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. That is why David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): Roughly previous Conservative Governments achieved things speaking, the previous Government gave away 20% of such as the opt-out from the single currency, even our rebate. Based on that logic, they have just cost us a though the previous Labour Government toyed with further 20% of £1.7 billion. Does the Chancellor agree the idea of joining the single currency, which reveals— that they have just cost us another £340 million? The Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household (Greg Mr Osborne: My hon. Friend underestimates what Hands): It is still their policy. the previous Labour Government cost us. They actually cost us billions of pounds a year in the rebate that they Mr Osborne: The Government Deputy Chief Whip gave away. That is yet another reason why the idea that reminds us that it is still official Labour policy to join they could fight for our interests in Europe is obviously the single currency. My hon. Friend the Member for false: we saw what they did when they were in office. South Dorset (Richard Drax) is right that different economic models and different economic policies are Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): My constituents appropriate for different countries, but I would make want a Chancellor who will work with our European the broad point that freer markets and lower taxes seem partners to create well-paid jobs for ordinary people to to help most countries. 1199 10 NOVEMBER 2014 1200

Speaker’s Statement Points of Order

4.24 pm 4.26 pm Mr Speaker: Before we come to the main business, I Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) have a statement to make on the handling of it. Several (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker— hon. and right hon. Members have asked me to rule on the scope of each of the two motions today relating to the protocol 36 opt-in regulations. It might be of assistance Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): We to Members intending to take part in the debates if I do haven’t started. so now. On the business of the House motion, any debate should focus on the time to be allocated to the Mr Speaker: Order. That was an exceptionally ignorant subsequent debate and the putting of the question at its observation from a sedentary position by the hon. conclusion. Members will have to exercise some ingenuity Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). If if they wish to raise other matters, such as the absence he would sit quietly and listen, instead of pontificating of an opportunity for the House to express an opinion from ignorance, he might one of these days learn something. or to vote on all or any of the related matters not contained in the regulations. Such remarks must Yvette Cooper: Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that demonstrate a reasonable connection with the business the motion on the Order Paper refers to the criminal of the House proposition before the House. justice and data protection regulations, which, as you On the substantive motion to approve the regulations, have said, include 11 measures, none of which is the which I understand transpose into UK law 10 of the European arrest warrant? Will you therefore confirm 35 measures the Government have decided that the UK that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant should rejoin, I will be prepared to offer some latitude today? in permitting reference to the merits or otherwise of rejoining those related measures not requiring transposition Mr Speaker: I can. Members can interpret all they and therefore not in the regulations, as listed in the like, but there will not today be a vote on the specific Government’s explanatory memorandum on the regulations. matter of membership of the European arrest warrant. I ask hon. and right hon. Members to lighten the burden That is the reality. on the Chair by holding in their minds the actual question before the House. The Chair and the House Several hon. Members rose— can deal only with what is on the Order Paper. Mr Speaker: I will come to other Members, as these are important matters that have considerably and understandably exercised hon. and right hon. Members, but first I call Yvette Cooper on that point of order.

Yvette Cooper: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your response, which is very clear. The Home Secretary wrote to me on 9 November and said that she wanted to be absolutely clear that Monday’s debate and vote in the House of Commons would be a debate and vote on the whole package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant. Will you therefore confirm that that is not correct?

Mr Speaker: I stand by what I have said. The House will understand that in doing so I do not act entirely alone and certainly I do not do so without studying the matters and taking the advice of disinterested experts. That is what I have done, because that is my responsibility. The Home Secretary, of course, can offer her own take on the matter and doubtless she will do so. I have advanced the position in what I believe to be factual terms, unadorned but benefiting from expert advice.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On 29 October, the Prime Minister said: “I am not delaying having a vote on it”— that is, the European arrest warrant—and: “There will be a vote on it.” He went on to say that “we are going to have a vote, we going to have it before the Rochester by-election”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.] 1201 Points of Order10 NOVEMBER 2014 Points of Order 1202

Have you had any indication from the Leader of the House Nine hon. Members wrote to me, presumably whether there will be an emergency business statement independently of each other because I do not think that so that we can facilitate a vote on the European arrest Members are in the habit of sharing their letters to the warrant rather than on everything but the European Speaker with each other, to indicate that they intended arrest warrant? to speak in the debate on the European arrest warrant. They obviously all thought the same thing. I will let the Mr Speaker: There are two answers to the hon. Lady. hon. Gentleman into a secret: I, too, thought that we First, I have had no indication whatever that a Minister would be debating and voting on the European arrest intends to make an emergency statement to the House. warrant. However, I ask him to bear it in mind that I am Secondly, I do not think that it is for me to seek to just the Speaker. Government Whips sometimes have interpret the comments of the Prime Minister. It would another language altogether, which only they understand. be presumptuous of me to do so and would require probably a degree of sophistication that I do not claim Yvette Cooper: Further to that point of order, that the Chair possesses. Mr Speaker. Given the confusion and secrecy that there has clearly been, the difference between your clear Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): Further to advice to us and the Home Secretary’s letter to me, and that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you accept that it the fact that the Home Secretary is sitting here, do you is likely that the issues that Members will wish to raise not think that this is a great opportunity for her to in the course of today’s debate, on whichever side of the stand at the Dispatch Box and make a point of order to argument, will be very similar for all of the 35 measures clarify the position—are we voting on the European that the Government propose to opt back into and the arrest warrant or not? more than 100 measures they are opting out of? Although I accept your ruling on the technical meaning of the Mr Speaker: It is open to the Home Secretary to do vote at the end, will you allow a broad interpretation of so. She may feel that she wants to set out her thoughts what is relevant to the debate, because at the root of it is in the debate, and she is welcome to do that. the competence of the EU in these issues and the use that is made in this country of the 35 measures that the In all courtesy, I must come to the point of order Government are seeking to opt into? from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Mr Speaker: I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I have known for 20 years, that I do Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): Further not feel entirely confident in anticipating what, as he to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your puts it, is likely to be said. However, I am probably not helpful reply to my inquiry on this matter. Is it not right blessed with the degree of prescience that he possesses. that debates are, on most days, in the hands of the He possesses great prescience. I have indicated an intention Government? They are perfectly capable of putting to offer some latitude to Members of the House, because down clear motions that people will understand. If they I think that that is what Members, in these rather want a vote on the arrest warrant, they can have one. imperfectly configured circumstances, would expect. Does this not seem to you, as it does to me, to be I was asked the specific question, “Is the vote on the procedural prestidigitation to persuade people that they European arrest warrant?”The simple and straightforward are voting on something on which they are not really answer—I, like the public, believe in straightforward voting? Would it not be better if the Government were dealings—is no, it is not. That is the end of it. to put down a clear motion on some future day that we could vote on properly? Several hon. Members rose— Mr Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that all Mr Speaker: I will take further points of order, but sorts of things might be better, as he puts it, but as I we cannot deal with these matters indefinitely. Let us said in my statement, the Chair and the House can deal hear from a knight from Lincolnshire. only with what is on the Order Paper. I understand, because it has been communicated to me by several Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Further to Members, that there is considerable irritation on this that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am completely confused matter. I absolutely understand that, but what I am now. I read in all my Sunday newspapers that we would trying to do, operating within the limits of the powers be debating the European arrest warrant today and that of the Chair, is to facilitate the will of the House. I have we would have a vote. Apparently, there was going to be only a partial ability to do that—I cannot create a vote a rebellion, but I know nothing about that. Apparently, for which provision has not been made—but the House we are not now voting on the European arrest warrant. will want to debate what the House wants to debate. In What are we voting on? future, it would be better if these matters were handled in a way that is straightforward, and if the hon. Gentleman’s Mr Speaker: The answer is that we are voting on the appetite for the honouring of commitments were to be regulations, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has met. studied comprehensively.When he says that he is confused, I find it hard to credit. He is a sophisticated barrister Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Further to and has served in the House for 31 years and five that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you months—[Interruption.] Yes, and a day. He has served for you excellent clarification so far. Will you confirm in the House for 31 years, five months and a day, so I my understanding that the mighty issue of opting in cannot believe that he is confused about anything. and giving away major powers from this House is also 1203 Points of Order10 NOVEMBER 2014 Points of Order 1204

[Mr John Redwood] I cannot really go further than I have gone today. The handling of matters in the future, as ordinarily, is in the not on the Order Paper, so the House cannot vote for or hands of the business managers. In the best, pragmatic against that massive opt-in and surrender of power British tradition, what we must do is work with what we today? have before the House today and, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, do our best. Mr Speaker: I think it is probably safest for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I leave that for him to Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): On a interpret. I do not want to embarrass him, but he has an point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the House is intellect truly frightening, so I am quite sure he can most indebted to you for your ruling. It is being said interpret these matters to his own satisfaction. that tonight’s vote will be a proxy for a vote on the European arrest warrant. Is there anything in Standing Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Further to that point Orders to allow a vote on one issue to be treated as a of order, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you will allow proxy for a vote on another? some latitude in the debate later on, because I always Mr Speaker: It is not for me to interpret individual like it when you allow a certain amount of latitude in votes. The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is anything the House. in the Standing Orders about how a vote on one matter The Home Secretary wrote to the shadow Home can be considered to be a proxy for another, and the Secretary saying: straightforward, factual answer—as I think he knows—is “The Government has been clear throughout that Parliament that no, there is not. I am not aware that anybody is should have the opportunity to vote on the final package— suggesting that there should be, but do not give them which includes the arrest warrant— ideas. “before we formally notify Europe of our desire to remain bound by it.” Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it clear that We may debate whatever we want, but what really the debate is about 10 powers being transposed, excluding matters is what we have voted for and what, in the end, the European arrest warrant. Can you make clear that goes into law and is resolved by virtue of what we have in the event that the House votes down that motion, the voted on. Can you make it clear that the Government Government will still be free to go forward with the 35 have been extremely unwise to proceed in this way, and measures they want, without reference to the House? that legal uncertainty will remain unless we are absolutely clear that by virtue of what we are voting on this Mr Speaker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is doing afternoon, we will not be notifying the European Union his best, but he is getting a bit beyond himself. I have of joining the European arrest warrant? said that the debate is about the regulations. I have been very fair and quite fulsome in my responses to colleagues’ Mr Speaker: All we can do today is have a debate, inquiries, to try to give straight answers. We should and after that debate Members will have either to vote probably leave it there— for or against the regulations or decide to abstain upon them. What motions might or might not be put forward Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab) rose— on a subsequent occasion, either to satisfy Members’ appetite or for the purposes of the clarity that the hon. Mr Speaker: Except, of course, that I cannot refuse Gentleman hankers after, is another matter. That, of to take a point of order from somebody who first course, is in the hands of the usual channels. entered the House in 1966. I think I have given a fairly clear indication that this Mr Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think has been a rather sorry saga and that the House should there is general agreement that what has emerged from not be put in this position. Most of us think that a these points of order has not in any way improved the commitment made is a commitment that should be reputation of the House of Commons. You said a few honoured, and we should try to operate according to moments ago that we should know precisely what we sensible standards rather than trying to slip things are debating, and that the public outside certainly will through by some sort of artifice. It may be the sort of not. Do you therefore feel that there is a case for the thing that some people think is very clever, but people sitting to be suspended for a short period in order—given outside the House expect straightforward dealing, and the usual way in which these matters are looked on they are frankly contemptuous—I use the word advisedly by the usual channels—for us to have clarification before —of what is not straight dealing. Let us try to learn the debate begins? I emphasise that the reputation of from this experience and do better. the House of Commons is not so high that we should go through this farce. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I always not simply rule that this is an utter and absolute shambles? treat what he says with great seriousness and respect. Have you any explanation of how we have got to this The reason I do not think we should travel that route is sorry state? first that we are where we are and, as I have said, I think pragmatically that we should deal with the circumstances Mr Speaker: I have expressed my own thoughts to the that exist. Secondly, a business of the House motion will House on how we should proceed, and I have tried to be give people the chance to say their piece on the allocation very fair and candid about the matter. Whatever opinion of time and, with latitude, more widely on the handling people have about these matters, they will express it, of these matters—matters to which I think we should and that is nothing to do with the Chair. now progress. 1205 10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1206

Business of the House (Today) The whole reason for this business motion, and the whole reason we have the suspension of Standing Orders 4.42 pm and the extra time for the debate, is because the Home Secretary told us that this would be a debate on 35 measures, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice including the European arrest warrant. That is what (Chris Grayling): I beg to move, this business motion is supposed to achieve, but it is a That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 joke. Instead, we have a vote on 11 regulations—regulations (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), we support and will vote for—that do not include the debate on the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating European arrest warrant. This is what the motion states: to Criminal Law may continue until 10.00pm, at which time the Speaker shall put the Question, if it has not already been decided. “That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol Having listened carefully to the strictures in your No. 36) Regulations 2014…be approved.” initial statement, Mr Speaker, I will keep my remarks What do the draft regulations say? Not the 35 measures brief to leave time for the full debate and the latitude the Government want to opt back into; just 11 good that, as you expressed, would be permissible. The points sensible measures, none of which is the European arrest that have been raised on the European arrest warrant warrant. We have today a business motion on a false will be addressed by the Home Secretary in her speech. I premise. This is what the Committee Chairs have said: also want to explain to the House why I will not be able “The motion to be considered by the House of Commons concerns to support the Home Secretary in the main debate a Statutory Instrument…which is only intended to complete the today. In my capacity as Lord Chancellor I have to implementation, in UK law, of 10 of the 35 measures the Government speak at the lord mayor’s banquet tonight, and will not proposes to rejoin. It has no direct relevance to the European be able to take part in that debate.—[Interruption.] Arrest Warrant, the most contentious of the 35 measures, or to UK participation in EU Agencies such as Europol or Eurojust.” Mr Speaker: Order. The lord mayor’s banquet will That is what they said at the end of last week. That is have the joyous benefit of hearing the Secretary of why I wrote to the Home Secretary at the end of last State, which is right and proper. For the time being, week to ask her to clarify the matter for the House. That however, the House should have the joyous benefit of is why she then wrote to me and said that this included hearing from the right hon. Gentleman. It was in some the whole package of 35 measures. danger of not having that opportunity because of excessive kerfuffle. Let us hear from the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister promised us a vote, and that is what the business motion should achieve. The Leader of Chris Grayling: The Government have brought forward the Opposition asked him: this debate so that the House can consider legislation to “A vital tool…is the European arrest warrant. Why is the ensure that domestic law is compliant with a package of Prime Minister delaying having a vote on it?” 35 measures that the Government seek to rejoin. The The Prime Minister said: motion is to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny by extending “I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote today’s debate beyond that of a normal statutory on it.” instrument. I want to be clear that the debate and vote will be taken as a vote on the whole package of 35 measures The Leader of the Opposition offered our help. He said: as a whole, and I urge the House to support this business “We will give him the time for a vote on the European arrest motion. warrant, and we will help him to get it through.” The Prime Minister said again, 4.44 pm “we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Rochester by-election”.——[Official Report, 29 October 2014; (Lab): What a shambles! What complete chaos! The Vol. 587, c. 301.] Justice Secretary is scuttling away and will not even stay So where is it? Instead, the Home Secretary forgot to for the debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member put it in the motion. for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) suggested we suspend the sitting to allow the House to come back with a more Why does the Home Secretary want to play into the sensible business motion. We will happily suspend the hands of those who might challenge the European House. It would allow the Justice Secretary to go for his arrest warrant in the courts by not having a straightforward dinner and come back again, and we could then vote vote? Why not just put the three words “European later on a more sensible measure. arrest warrant” on the Order Paper and allow us a vote? The Justice Secretary stood there and I heard him say Yes, some Back Benchers would vote against it, but that this was a vote on the whole package of 35 measures. Labour would vote for it and support the Home Secretary That is in direct contradiction to your ruling and your because we think it is the right thing to do. Why not let advice to this House, Mr Speaker. We were told that the Parliament have the vote it was promised? business motion today would give us a proper debate. We have just had three quarters of an hour of the The Whips are scuttling away to try to do some quick Chancellor trying his smoke and mirrors trick, but the dealing to sort out the mess and chaos that the Home Home Secretary has gone one step further with a Secretary has left the House in today. This was supposed disappearing magic trick! One minute the European to be a proper debate on the European arrest warrant—the arrest warrant is there, the next minute it is gone. One motion will allow no such thing. minute you see it, the next it disappears. It’s her Paul The Home Secretary told me, in a letter I received Daniels act! Unfortunately, she has sent the Justice this weekend, that Secretary to be her glamorous assistant Debbie McGee “Monday’s vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures and to come and present it to the House! She thinks …and in this case a whole day is being made available for the they’ll like it—not a lot, but she thinks they’ll like it! debate rather than the usual 90 minutes.” [Laughter.] The business motion is a complete joke. 1207 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1208

[Yvette Cooper] Mr Speaker, you were clear that this was not a vote on the EAW, but the Lord Chancellor, when he moved She should withdraw it and come back with more the business motion, told the House that we were voting sensible proposals. on the full package of 35 measures, so that voting for We will vote for the regulations, but we will vote the motion would allow the Government to inform the against this business motion, because it is a joke, a European Commission that we had opted back into the complete nonsense. It does not provide Parliament with 35 measures. Mr Speaker, I prefer to accept your ruling the vote we need on the European arrest warrant, but is that this is about the 10 regulations, not the EAW. The simply because the Government are scared of a rebellion. Select Committee was clear that the House should have They want to say one thing to one group of people and the opportunity to vote on the EAW separately, because another thing to another group. They are not being we felt that it was controversial and had huge implications straight with the House. The Home Secretary knows for the British people. The position of the European she is playing fast and loose with very serious measures Scrutiny Committee is that we should vote on each of on tackling crime and national security. It is irresponsible, the 35 measures. I am not against that idea; I just do not and it is playing fast and loose with Parliament as well. I think we can do that tonight. We will need additional urge her and the Justice Secretary to rethink, ditch this time to do so. business motion, come back with something more sensible I share all the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone and let us vote on the measures this country needs. (Sir William Cash). This is a shambolic attempt to get a vote on an issue of fundamental importance to the British people. I hope the motion will be withdrawn to 4.50 pm give us an opportunity to vote on these measures. Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): This is a disgraceful way of going about a very important matter. It is 4.54 pm tainted with chicanery. It is not the way that Parliament Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): From should be treated. Right from the very beginning of this time to time during my career here, the procedures of issue, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home the House have stood in the way of its intention. Often Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee have on these occasions, the matters have been resolved on complained about the lack of transparency and consultation the basis of, I suppose, allowing a more mature and the manner in which the Home Secretary has been consideration, and with the Treasury Bench seeking the treating the House. It is completely unbelievable that opportunity to take with it all the disparate opinions she should come to the House and, presumably, try to within the House, making it clear that nothing is being argue—as we shall discover in due course—that this is done that thwarts the will of the House to discuss a about the EAW when it clearly is not. matter of such significance as the one under consideration If the motion were a Bill, it would be dealt with in today. Would it not therefore be appropriate for the separate clauses and parts, all of which could be amended, Treasury Bench to take the opportunity of having more but this motion is unamendable. That has not yet been mature consideration and to withdraw this motion, properly considered. This is being done to avoid a real proposing instead one that would meet the aspirations decision being taken today, as was promised to us by the of those who either support or oppose— Prime Minister only a few weeks ago, and by the Home Secretary in the article in The Sunday Telegraph and in Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): the letter that the shadow Home Secretary referred to. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way? This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings, and that is a reason in itself to vote against the business Sir Menzies Campbell: I cannot give way. motion, as I shall be doing. I could give many other reasons for doing so, but it is fundamentally about a Pete Wishart rose— lack of transparency and honesty in going about issues we need to deal with. Sir Menzies Campbell: I am not an expert on procedure, Mr Speaker, but I understand what is happening here. The Secretary of State for the Home Department Several hon. Members rose— (Mrs Theresa May) indicated dissent. Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen intently to Sir William Cash: I am sorry that the Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope I have not is shaking her head, because she knows perfectly well misunderstood him, but he certainly is able to give way that this is a trick and an attempt to get round the if he wishes to do so, although he is not obliged to do reality of what is facing us: this is not just about law and so. order, but about the European Court of Justice and the opportunities being created to bypass this House and Sir Menzies Campbell: We learn something new every our own courts. It is a disgrace. day, Mr Speaker. Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. and 4.53 pm learned Gentleman. He can have his way: all he needs to Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to do is to encourage his fellow Liberal Members to vote follow the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. against the business motion. If it is defeated, the I co-signed a letter with him and the Chair of the Government will have to go away, think again and Justice Select Committee over the weekend to express present something sensible so that we can all debate our concern about how this legislation is being put what we want to debate. He should get the Liberals to through the House. vote against the business motion. 1209 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1210

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. unveiled would not be allowed in this country. The Government agreed to that at the time, and have done Sir Menzies Campbell rose— nothing subsequently. The Government let the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill go through, and have done Mr Speaker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman nothing since. We cannot have a Government who will forgive me, I will take the point of order from the conclude, arbitrarily, “The House has decided one thing, Secretary of State for Justice. but we choose to believe that it means exactly the opposite.” Chris Grayling: It might help the House to know that, as I explained in my remarks, tonight’s motion extends the normal 90-minute debate to one that lasts all evening. 5pm Should it be defeated, there would simply be a 90-minute debate. Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Many of us thought that we would have an opportunity today to Sir Menzies Campbell: That, Mr Speaker, is also my debate the very weighty question of whether this country understanding. It is equally my understanding that should opt back into 35 important measures relating to there is considerable unrest in the House about this criminal justice, and put it under European Court of matter. Surely in those circumstances, the best thing for Justice and European Union control. We looked forward the Government to do is to go away and think about to a debate and a vote on that high principle, which how best to allow us to express its view on these matters. includes the important and contentious European arrest Otherwise, we will have a bad-tempered, fractious and warrant, but also a number of other measures that inconclusive debate. How can that possibly be in the constitute the building blocks for a system in which our interests either of the House or indeed of the public? criminal justice would be conducted primarily under the central control of the European Union rather than that of the United Kingdom. 4.57 pm We welcome the Government’s wish to engage and to Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): The right hon. and allow us a reasonable length of time in which to debate learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies those matters, followed by a concluding vote at 10 pm, Campbell) spoke very wisely. He is absolutely right to but you, Mr Speaker, have told us, very wisely and say that the way we do our business in this House is just helpfully, that that is not what the business motion says, as important as the business we transact. That is why we and, through you, I urge Ministers to consider amending have rules that govern our proceedings. For centuries we it. As I understand the position, you would probably be have believed in this country that we govern by consent, sympathetic if they wished to do so. We could debate not by arbitrary decisions made solely by the Government. their regulations for 90 minutes, and during the remaining We govern by consent, not by proxy motions that are time, until 10 pm, we could debate the much wider reinterpreted by the Government. That is why it is issues of substance. We could discuss whether we wish important that the way we do our business, especially to opt into all those measures and what we think of the on a matter that affects the imprisonment and extradition European arrest warrant. Some believe it to be the of British nationals and nationals of other countries biggest of all the measures, which is in itself debatable. I coming back to this country—a matter of essential think that justice would then be seen to be done by the importance to people’s personal liberty—should be debated wider public. properly, openly and transparently on a proper motion I hope, Mr Speaker, that I am not taking liberties by that, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) suggesting to Ministers, through you, that a simple said, should be amendable. The motion should not be amendment to the business motion might provide a way advanced to the House by proxy or by some subsidiary out of this dilemma, and enable the House properly to means; it must be open and clear. consider the wider constitutional issues. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister stated quite categorically in this Chamber, and elsewhere in Mr Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for letters, that they would ensure that there was a proper what he has said. Let me simply say, for the convenience vote on the matter of the European arrest warrant. and awareness of the House, that the Home Secretary Mr Speaker, you have said today that this will not be a will wind up the debate on the business motion in order vote on the European arrest warrant, yet the Justice to clarify the Government’s position. I hope that the Secretary, who should know better, has told us that he right hon. Gentleman regards that as helpful. In the will reinterpret the message as meaning that this is a spirit of fairness and propriety, the Opposition Front vote on the European arrest warrant. I simply say to the Bench will also have a wind-up speaker, who I believe Government that for the sake of legal certainty—so will be the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). that lawyers will not be paid vast quantities of money to debate in extradition courts whether the law has changed and whether it applies—it is essential that they withdraw Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): It looks like it, the motion, and that they should have tabled a proper Mr Speaker. motion in the first place. It is no good the Government coming here and Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): On a point saying, “The House may pass one thing, but we will of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for the interpret it to mean exactly the opposite.” The House suggestion that you have just made. Would it not be agreed unanimously that the rules should be changed in even more convenient to the House if the Home Secretary relation to Magnitsky, and that anyone who had been did that now? We could then curtail this debate, and get involved in his murder or in the corruption that he had on with it. 1211 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1212

Mr Speaker: That is very cheeky indeed. Other Members 5.6 pm might wish to speak in the debate. It is not only Front Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): If Benchers who have a right to speak. Other Members I remember correctly, Maine’s “Ancient law” makes the might wish to express themselves as well. I am sure that observation that justice lies in the interstices of procedure. the hon. and learned Gentleman was, as always, trying That rubric has survived through our history since it to be helpful, but let us hear from a couple of other was set and there is a truth in it. Today we are confronted Members. with a motion that is incomprehensible, and with an understanding that seems sly and that is actually a Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): On a point of means of trying to incline the public to believe other order, Mr Speaker. I am one of those who were waiting than what is so. to speak, but I would happily forgo my place in the At the heart of this is a misconception about what queue if the Home Secretary could be allowed to tell the this House represents. We must be straight with ourselves House in a little more detail whether we are voting on if we continue to allow the Executive to control—so the European arrest warrant or not. completely and absolutely now—the Standing Orders of this House. This can be no joy for Labour, because Mr Speaker: That is very generous of the hon. Labour also started a Modernisation Committee that Gentleman, and I think that it will be taken by the was determined to take over the Standing Orders. My House in that spirit, but Members must have their head. overlong time in this House of Commons has led me to If they wish to demonstrate generosity similar to that of understand that the growth of Executive arrogance is the hon. Gentleman, they can, and if they do not, they unsupportable. We say that we are disconnected from will not. the public outside and the issues outside, and that is because we are meaningless when we are confronted in the House with no motion and no real ability to discuss 5.4 pm the very issue that moves many people in this country. What is the purpose of this House if the Administration— Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): There are and a Conservative Administration at that, whose members many differences over the European arrest warrant, as had to suffer all the years of a huge new Labour there are bound to be. They are legitimate differences, majority—have not learned something, namely. that and it is important for us to debate the subject and vote there has to be tolerance in this House and there has to accordingly. I believe that there is a unanimous view be an ability to debate in this House? that there should be a debate on the actual issue of the This is what so angers one. This is what brings this European arrest warrant. When I received the Whip, Chamber into disrepute. We are not able to discuss the like other Members, I was utterly surprised by Monday’s substance of what we stand for here, and that is wrong. business, in which there was not one mention of a I therefore think we should be talking out this motion debate on the European arrest warrant. Ministers clearly until the end of time, until the Government come back consider that they were clever, and that they would with a proper motion before this House. contain and minimise a vote against what is being proposed. I can understand that, and it is not unique to 5.9 pm this Government, but what is unfortunate, and what is a form of deception, is to bring a motion before the Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): In my 31 years in House for debate which is basically about the European this Chamber I have never seen the nonsense we have arrest warrant but to avoid those three words. got this afternoon ever happen under any Government. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that if we are confused If it is without precedent, Mr Speaker, could we perhaps and if we do not like it, what about people outside? retire for half an hour or so, so the Government can put There are people who pay close attention to what we are down a motion that is intelligible and that they could doing, who are interested in the work of Parliament, understand as well, so we can make a decision in a and who believed that today we were going to debate meaningful and proper way? the European arrest warrant; and they will see the exchanges that have occurred, and which have lasted Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is over an hour, about whether or not the actual issue was quite clear that the Government Whips and those on to be debated today in the House of Commons. I the Treasury Bench have concocted some sort of conclusion therefore put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the way to to this utter shambles. May we not hear, right now, from resolve this issue is for the Treasury Bench to make it the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary or the Chief clear that there should be a debate today on an appropriate Whip? Let us get this over and done with. For goodness’ manuscript motion on the issue of the European arrest sake, there are people watching this who will be appalled warrant. at what is going on in the House. Put an end to it now! Let us decide one way or the other whether we are in Mr Speaker: I understand what people are saying, favour of it, instead of all this muddying the water—this but procedure does allow other colleagues to speak and desire to deceive, this desire to give the opposite impression I do not want to deprive them of that opportunity if —so that at the end of the day when the vote occurs the they still wish to contribute. Government can say that there has been hardly any opposition from their own side. That is not the way to 5.10 pm proceed. It is a way that only brings the reputation of this House into disrepute, which is all the more reason Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): This why we should proceed in a different way from that really is a sorry day for the Government. The motion to which the Government have suggested. allocate time was tabled on the basis either of error or 1213 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1214 of falsehood. The Whip went round to Conservative Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is shocked by this, as are the Members of Parliament and said that today’s motion Scottish nationalists, who think that this is a poor way would be on regulations including those on the European of behaving. arrest warrant. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons. He Mr Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware of the irony has a brain the size of a planet. He is of the highest that as we approach the 800th anniversary celebration quality and the most honourable gentleman one could of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the rights we have find. I cannot believe that he would make a basic error taken from those previous generations should be at the of this kind. heart of this debate but they are not going to be debated We have Whips scuttling around the House saying today? that a vote will be taken tonight that will be indicative of what the House of Commons thinks about the Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend; European arrest warrant. That is a procedural absurdity. we should be having the time to debate the issues that It is legislative legerdemain. The Government cannot really matter, not obscurities. conceivably decide that one vote is indicative of another. What might they decide next? Perhaps that a vote to cut Martin Horwood: I would not want the hon. Gentleman taxes would indicate that we wanted to increase them, to leave the Liberal Democrats out of his list. Those of or that a vote in favour of longer prison sentences us who support the European arrest warrant would would indicate that we wanted to cut them? This is the really value the opportunity to argue in favour of it and way of tyranny, because it takes away the right of the to vote in favour of it; we want to get the hashtag House of Commons to hold the Executive to account. “Toriessoftoncrime” trending on Twitter and we want to have a real debate. We want that opportunity as well. Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): We have heard I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on a wide range political views, but I think that everyone matters European, but on this one I do. here today is unanimous in believing that we came here expecting to vote on a decision to opt in to 35 measures Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to my hon. and that that vote would affect that decision one way or Friend for making that point, because I hope it brings the other. Before we all get too worked up and decide home to those on the Treasury Bench the deep discontent. that this is the biggest threat to parliamentary democracy I was saying earlier how deeply grateful I am to you, since the gunpowder plot, may I suggest that we allow Mr Speaker, that you are protecting the rights of the the Home Secretary to explain how the Government are legislature against the Executive by clarifying the terms going to give us the debate and the vote that we all of this debate. As I look down from here at the Treasury want, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Bench, I want to see something that is solid, but I am North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I do not worried that it is made of increasingly crooked wood. always see eye to eye and might not vote in the same We want to have it re-solidified and we want this motion way? withdrawn.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. and learned Friend Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): makes a point that is, as always, worth listening to, but On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said on a he is in error. This matter needs to be debated thoroughly, couple of occasions, in response to Members of this because it is my contention that this is not accidental. A House, that you will not call the Home Secretary until letter was sent to the shadow Home Secretary, the right later on because others wish to speak. Is there anything hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to prevent her from speaking before the end of the (Yvette Cooper), saying that we would have a vote. The debate? Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury said to this House that there would be a vote. The Lord High Mr Speaker: It would be normal for the Home Secretary Chancellor and the Home Secretary sent a letter to the to speak either at the beginning or at the end of the debate. European Scrutiny Committee promising us that there A most courteous approach was made to me on her would be a vote on the European arrest warrant and all behalf suggesting that it might be helpful to the House the other opt-ins and opt-outs. Now that we come to it, if she were to wind up the debate, and I agreed to that however, it is proposed that there will be a vote, after request. It is not that I am seeking to delay the Home extra debating time, on a number of relatively obscure Secretary for one moment; it is that there is provision measures that require statutory instruments, and that for others to speak. When they have finished doing so, that will be intended to determine the view of the the Home Secretary can and will speak, and we will House. That is not proper parliamentary procedure; it is look forward to that. I think it would be a bit odd if I an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedure. suddenly interrupted the flow of the debate now, when I often disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend other Members are seeking to contribute, but I will take the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—and with others, one further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman. including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—on European matters, but this debate today is of a degree Mr Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. worse than our disagreements. Our disagreements are I quite accept that it is not normal procedure, but at the polite and they reflect our fiercely held views, which we moment we are debating something we know not what. discuss in an upright and, I hope, proper fashion. This We do not know whether the Government are going to approach and this motion are fundamentally underhand. change the motion or stay with this motion. My stance That is why there is such anger, not only on the Conservative on this matter is entirely different depending on which Benches and among Eurosceptics. The Chairman of the of those two outcomes it is. Therefore, it might be useful Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for for the House to know rather earlier than usual. 1215 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1216

Mr Speaker: I can see the force of that proposition. If Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD) rose— other Members are prepared to exercise a self-denying ordinance and to hear from the Home Secretary, they Mr Hanson: I will give way in a moment. can do so. It would be normal to allow the shadow If we do that and the programme motion is defeated, Minister, who, in any case, wants to speak if at all only we will, as the Lord Chancellor has said, be in a very briefly, to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman position to debate this motion for one and a half hours still wish to contribute? [Interruption.] He appears to this evening. That is probably sufficient to debate the be exercising a self-denying ordinance and I have a 11 measures that are down before the House today. Let sense that colleagues would like to hear from the Home us defeat that programme motion, and use the 90 minutes Secretary in winding up the debate. [Interruption.] In on the 11 measures. Let the Home Secretary go away that case, I call Mr David Hanson. from this House, listen to what people have said from all parts of the House, bring back a formal motion to 5.18 pm debate the other measures, including the European arrest warrant, and let people, such as the right hon. Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Thank you, Member for Wokingham who takes a different view Mr Speaker. I just want to focus the Home Secretary’s from me—[Interruption.] mind, if I may. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con) Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he says that every Member indicated assent. came here tonight expecting to be debating 35 measures; Members in all parts of this House believed that to be Mr Hanson: I see the Chairman of the 1922 Committee the case over the weekend. I also find myself in agreement nodding his head. Let those Members have that debate. with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Let them exercise their vote and let this House express Rees-Mogg) when he says that this business is being its will before 1 December on what we should do. This is done in an underhand way, because all Members of this a problem of the Home Secretary’s own making. She House expected to come here this evening to debate this needs to sort it out, and sort it out now. matter and the issue of the European arrest warrant. Strangely, I also find myself in agreement with the 5.21 pm Home Secretary, in that I am led to believe that she The Secretary of State for the Home Department wants to debate and vote on the European arrest warrant. (Mrs Theresa May): I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the Let me let you into a secret, Mr Speaker: so do we. We opportunity to speak on the business motion. would like to vote on the European arrest warrant and to give the Home Secretary our support, and I believe The Lisbon treaty, which was negotiated by the previous the Liberal Democrats would like to support her, too. Labour Government and which included within it the We happen to take a view that murderers, child opportunity for the United Kingdom to opt out of pornographers, bank robbers and fraudsters should be around 130 justice and home affairs measures and then brought to justice in this House—[Laughter.] And to decide whether to opt back in to a number of perhaps elsewhere. measures, did not require any vote to be brought before this House of Commons to undertake those decisions. I disagree strongly with the right hon. Member for This Government believe that that was wrong, which is Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and the hon. Members for why we have brought a number of debates before this Stone (Sir William Cash), for Aldridge-Brownhills House on these matters. There is also no legislative (Sir Richard Shepherd), for North East Somerset (Jacob requirement for us to bring before the House this package Rees-Mogg) and, I suspect, the right hon. Member for of 35 justice and home affairs measures. Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). They do not want to sign up to the European arrest warrant for Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) rose— reasons that we need to debate. I thought that today was about that debate. Over the weekend, I was expecting to Mrs May: No, I will not give way. Members have have that debate today, as I am sure did all Members of been calling for me to stand up and speak, and that is this House. It now appears that that is not going to exactly what I am doing. happen. Let me offer the Home Secretary a way out. There is no legislative requirement for us to bring this package of 35 measures to this House for Members to Mr Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman might wish consider and vote on. There is a legislative requirement to correct the record. I can assure him that we, like him, for us to transpose certain measures into UK legislation. wish nasty people to be locked up after proper prosecution. The normal way of doing that is upstairs in a Standing The argument is over who has the ultimate control over Committee, on a one-and-a-half hour debate on a our criminal justice system to do so. negative statutory instrument, after 1 December and after the decision by this Government to opt in to a Mr Hanson: Well, let us have that argument. First, let certain number of measures had been taken. me offer the Home Secretary a way out. For the purposes of today’s debate, we will vote against the programme Sir William Cash rose— motion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) Yvette Cooper rose— has said. I invite those Members who are dissatisfied with today’s proceedings and—dare I say it—the Liberal Mrs May: No, I say to my hon. Friend and to the Democrats who do not hold Government positions, to right hon. Lady that I have been asked to explain the join us in that. Government’s position, and that is what I intend to do. 1217 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1218

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): On a Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am clear that it point of order, Mr Speaker. This House agreed that the is possible in the debate on the regulations to discuss Home Secretary should speak so that she would right those measures that are not listed in the regulations, something that we all knew was wrong. This is simply a and that is certainly what I and other Members intend scoundrel’s defence. This is wrong. to do. The Government are very clear that what we are debating in the next debate is the regulations that transpose Mr Speaker: No, no, no. The Home Secretary is into legislation those measures that need to be transposed. entitled to say—and she will say—what she thinks, and the House must hear that. Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab): Will the Home Secretary give way? Mrs May: I have made it clear that there was no requirement under the Lisbon treaty or any legislative Mrs May: No. requirement to bring the package of 35 measures to this The European arrest warrant is not on that list because House. it does not need to be transposed into legislation, because that has already been done. However, the Government Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary seems to think are clear that the vote that will take place on the that the House should be grateful for what we have got, regulations will be the vote that determines whether or but she and the Prime Minister promised that there not we opt into these measures. [Interruption.] would be a vote on the European arrest warrant. Will she now admit that, with the motion she has put before Sir Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. the House today, she has broken that promise? As we are talking about the liberties of the subject, this is a very important matter. You have absolutely said in Mrs May: If the right hon. Lady will just let me terms that the vote tonight is not about the European continue, I will explain further to the House. As I have arrest warrant. The Home Secretary seems to be intimating said, there is no requirement to bring any vote to the that we are indeed making an indicative vote tonight on House. There is a requirement to transpose into UK the European arrest warrant. The House of Commons, legislation certain of the 35 measures that we will opt in a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, back into. That would normally have been done through needs to know what it is voting on, and we need advice the negative statutory instrument procedure in an hour- from you and the Home Secretary. and-a-half debate upstairs in a Committee, not on the Floor of the House. That would normally have been Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman done after 1 December, so after the date on which the for his point or order. What Members think is indicative Government had chosen to opt back in, and indeed is a matter for them. Indeed, if a Minister in Her after we had exercised our opt-in. We did not think that Majesty’s Government chooses to argue that something that was right either, which is why we have brought is indicative, that is a matter for that Minister. As a before the House an affirmative measure on a statutory matter of fact, I was simply trying to be clear with the instrument that shows the House the legislative requirements House, as I think was the Home Secretary in her previous that will need to be made. paragraph, to be fair, that tonight’s vote—I have been However, I have been very clear, the Government asked regularly what the vote is about—is on the regulations. have been very clear, and indeed you, Mr Speaker, have The vote is not—I repeat, not—on the European arrest been very clear—I am grateful for the clarification in warrant. your statement—that the debate we will be having on the motion on the regulations will be wide-ranging and, Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fact, I was indeed, will include a debate on the European arrest attempting to be as clear as you have been that the vote warrant. I say to Members of the House that it is my on the next motion will be a vote on the regulations, intention to speak about the European arrest warrant which includes those measures in the package of 35 that when that debate takes place. I also say to right hon. we wish to opt back into which require to be transposed and hon. Members that if they vote against this— into UK legislation. But the Government are clear that [Interruption.] we will be bound by that vote, and if this House chooses not to transpose those measures and votes against the Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I regulations, it will be voting against the Government am not sure that the Home Secretary was listening opting into all the measures, including the European earlier when you said that the European arrest warrant arrest warrant. can only be mentioned peripherally in the main debate, My final point is this: we have the option now of a because she has just said that she intends to speak about vote on the business motion. The decision for Members it. It might be helpful if you reiterated your earlier of the House is whether to vote against that business advice, in case she had not been listening. motion and have one and a half hours for debate on all these matters, or to vote in favour of the business Mr Speaker: I think that I referred to the requirement motion and have four and a half hours for debate. I for Members to deploy some ingenuity, and I gave quite trust they will take the latter option. a full explanation of the situation as I saw it. I do not recall using the word “peripherally”—I hesitate to argue Yvette Cooper: Mr Speaker, you pointed out how with the hon. Gentleman, who is always very precise in unusual it was for the Government also to reply to his use of words—but I think that the substance of debates on a business motion, but is it not normal in a what I was getting at was clear. Let us now hear what reply to respond to the points that have been made in the Home Secretary has to say. the debate? In the debate it was clear that the Home 1219 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1220

[Yvette Cooper] Hands, rh Greg Nokes, Caroline Harper, Mr Mark Norman, Jesse Secretary promised a debate on the European arrest Harrington, Richard O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen warrant and promised a vote on it, and she has not Harris, Rebecca Ollerenshaw, Eric given it. Do you agree that that is not a reply to a Harvey, Sir Nick Opperman, Guy business motion debate? Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Osborne, rh Mr George Hayes, rh Mr John Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Heald, Sir Oliver Paice, rh Sir James Mr Speaker: I think I have set out the position clearly Hemming, John Parish, Neil and there is nothing at this stage for me to add, but Henderson, Gordon Patel, Priti Members will form their own view. That is the fairest Hendry, Charles Pawsey, Mark thing I can say—Members will form their own view. Hinds, Damian Penning, rh Mike I think I am right in saying that the Home Secretary Hoban, Mr Mark Penrose, John has concluded her speech. Hollingbery, George Perry, Claire Hopkins, Kris Phillips, Stephen Mrs May: Indeed, Mr Speaker. Howell, John Pickles, rh Mr Eric Hughes, rh Simon Pincher, Christopher Question put. Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Poulter, Dr Daniel The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 242. Hunter, Mark Prisk, Mr Mark Huppert, Dr Julian Pritchard, Mark Division No. 77] [5.31 pm Hurd, Mr Nick Pugh, John James, Margot Robathan, rh Mr Andrew AYES Javid, rh Sajid Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Aldous, Peter Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Jenrick, Robert Rogerson, Dan Andrew, Stuart Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Johnson, Gareth Rudd, Amber Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Doyle-Price, Jackie Jones, Andrew Russell, Sir Bob Baldry, rh Sir Tony Duncan, rh Sir Alan Jones, Mr Marcus Rutley, David Baldwin, Harriett Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Kawczynski, Daniel Sandys, Laura Barker, rh Gregory Dunne, Mr Philip Kirby, Simon Scott, Mr Lee Benyon, Richard Ellis, Michael Lamb, rh Norman Selous, Andrew Beresford, Sir Paul Ellison, Jane Lancaster, Mark Shapps, rh Grant Bingham, Andrew Ellwood, Mr Tobias Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Sharma, Alok Binley, Mr Brian Elphicke, Charlie Latham, Pauline Shelbrooke, Alec Blackman, Bob Eustice, George Laws, rh Mr David Simpson, Mr Keith Blackwood, Nicola Evans, Graham Leadsom, Andrea Skidmore, Chris Blunt, Crispin Evennett, Mr David Lee, Jessica Smith, Chloe Boles, Nick Fabricant, Michael Leech, Mr John Smith, Henry Bottomley, Sir Peter Fallon, rh Michael Lefroy, Jeremy Smith, Julian Bradley, Karen Farron, Tim Lewis, Brandon Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Bray, Angie Featherstone, rh Lynne Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Soubry, Anna Brazier, Mr Julian Field, Mark Lidington, rh Mr David Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Brine, Steve Foster, rh Mr Don Lloyd, Stephen Spencer, Mr Mark Brokenshire, James Fox,rhDrLiam Lopresti, Jack Stanley, rh Sir John Brooke, rh Annette Francois, rh Mr Mark Luff, Sir Peter Stephenson, Andrew Browne, Mr Jeremy Freeman, George Lumley, Karen Stewart, Iain Bruce, Fiona Freer, Mike Macleod, Mary Streeter, Mr Gary Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Fullbrook, Lorraine Maude, rh Mr Francis Stride, Mel Buckland, Mr Robert Fuller, Richard May, rh Mrs Theresa Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Burley, Mr Aidan Garnier, Sir Edward Maynard, Paul Sturdy, Julian Burns, rh Mr Simon Garnier, Mark McIntosh, Miss Anne Swales, Ian Burstow, rh Paul Gauke, Mr David McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Burt, rh Alistair George, Andrew McPartland, Stephen Swinson, Jo Burt, Lorely Gibb, Mr Nick McVey, rh Esther Swire, rh Mr Hugo Byles, Dan Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Menzies, Mark Syms, Mr Robert Cable, rh Vince Glen, John Metcalfe, Stephen Teather, Sarah Cairns, Alun Goodwill, Mr Robert Miller, rh Maria Thornton, Mike Cameron, rh Mr David Gove, rh Michael Milton, Anne Thurso, rh John Carmichael, Neil Graham, Richard Moore, rh Michael Timpson, Mr Edward Chishti, Rehman Grant, Mrs Helen Mordaunt, Penny Tomlinson, Justin Clark, rh Greg Grayling, rh Chris Morgan, rh Nicky Turner, Mr Andrew Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Green, rh Damian Morris, David Tyrie, Mr Andrew Clegg, rh Mr Nick Greening, rh Justine Morris, James Uppal, Paul Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Mosley, Stephen Vaizey, Mr Edward Coffey, Dr Thérèse Griffiths, Andrew Mowat, David Vara, Mr Shailesh Collins, Damian Gummer, Ben Mulholland, Greg Vickers, Martin Colvile, Oliver Gyimah, Mr Sam Mundell, rh David Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Crockart, Mike Hague, rh Mr William Munt, Tessa Walker, Mr Robin Crouch, Tracey Halfon, Robert Murray, Sheryll Wallace, Mr Ben Davey, rh Mr Edward Hames, Duncan Murrison, Dr Andrew Ward, Mr David Davies, David T. C. Hammond, Stephen Neill, Robert Weatherley, Mike (Monmouth) Hancock, rh Matthew Newmark, Mr Brooks Webb, rh Steve Dinenage, Caroline Hancock, Mr Mike Newton, Sarah Wharton, James 1221 Business of the House (Today)10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business of the House (Today) 1222

Wheeler, Heather Wright, Simon Hopkins, Kelvin Perkins, Toby White, Chris Yeo, Mr Tim Horwood, Martin Phillipson, Bridget Whittingdale, Mr John Zahawi, Nadhim Hosie, Stewart Pound, Stephen Williams, Stephen Howarth, rh Mr George Powell, Lucy Williamson, Gavin Tellers for the Ayes: James, Mrs Siân C. Raab, Mr Dominic Willott, Jenny Tom Brake and Jamieson, Cathy Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Wright, rh Jeremy Gavin Barwell Jarvis, Dan Redwood, rh Mr John Jenkin, Mr Bernard Reed, Mr Steve NOES Johnson, Diana Rees-Mogg, Jacob Jones, Mr Kevan Reevell, Simon Abbott, Ms Diane Danczuk, Simon Jones, Susan Elan Reeves, Rachel Abrahams, Debbie David, Wayne Kane, Mike Reynolds, Emma Afriyie, Adam Davies, Geraint Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Reynolds, Jonathan Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Davies, Philip Keeley, Barbara Ritchie, Ms Margaret Alexander, Heidi Davis, rh Mr David Kelly, Chris Robertson, Angus Ali, Rushanara de Bois, Nick Kendall, Liz Robertson, John Allen, Mr Graham De Piero, Gloria Khan, rh Sadiq Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Ashworth, Jonathan Docherty, Thomas Lammy, rh Mr David Rotheram, Steve Austin, Ian Doran, Mr Frank Lavery, Ian Roy, Mr Frank Bailey, Mr Adrian Doughty, Stephen Lazarowicz, Mark Ruane, Chris Bain, Mr William Dowd, Jim Leigh, Sir Edward Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Baker, Steve Doyle, Gemma Leslie, Chris Sanders, Mr Adrian Balls, rh Ed Drax, Richard Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Sarwar, Anas Banks, Gordon Dromey, Jack Lewis, Mr Ivan Sawford, Andy Barclay, Stephen Dugher, Michael Lewis, Dr Julian Seabeck, Alison Barron, rh Kevin Durkan, Mark Lilley, rh Mr Peter Shepherd, Sir Richard Bayley, Hugh Eagle, Ms Angela Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Sheridan, Jim Begg, Dame Anne Eagle, Maria Love, Mr Andrew Shuker, Gavin Benn, rh Hilary Edwards, Jonathan Lucas, Caroline Skinner, Mr Dennis Berger, Luciana Efford, Clive Lucas, Ian Slaughter, Mr Andy Betts, Mr Clive Elliott, Julie Mahmood, Shabana Smith, Angela Blackman-Woods, Roberta Ellman, Mrs Louise Malhotra, Seema Smith, Nick Blears, rh Hazel Engel, Natascha Mann, John Smith, Owen Blomfield, Paul Esterson, Bill Marsden, Mr Gordon Spellar, rh Mr John Blunt, Crispin Farrelly, Paul McCabe, Steve Stewart, Bob Bone, Mr Peter Fitzpatrick, Jim McCann, Mr Michael Straw, rh Mr Jack Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Flello, Robert McCarthy, Kerry Stringer, Graham Brady, Mr Graham Flint, rh Caroline McCartney, Jason Brennan, Kevin Flynn, Paul Stuart, Ms Gisela McDonald, Andy Stuart, Mr Graham Bridgen, Andrew Fovargue, Yvonne McDonnell, John Tami, Mark Brown, Lyn Francis, Dr Hywel McFadden, rh Mr Pat Thomas, Mr Gareth Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Gapes, Mike McGovern, Jim Timms, rh Stephen Bryant, Chris Gardiner, Barry McGuire, rh Mrs Anne Trickett, Jon Burden, Richard Gilmore, Sheila McInnes, Liz Burnham, rh Andy Glass, Pat McKechin, Ann Turner, Karl Byrne, rh Mr Liam Glindon, Mrs Mary McKenzie, Mr Iain Twigg, Derek Campbell, rh Mr Alan Goldsmith, Zac McKinnell, Catherine Twigg, Stephen Campbell, Mr Ronnie Goodman, Helen Miliband, rh Edward Umunna, Mr Chuka Carswell, Douglas Gray, Mr James Miller, Andrew Vaz, rh Keith Cash, Sir William Greenwood, Lilian Mills, Nigel Walley, Joan Champion, Sarah Griffith, Nia Mitchell, Austin Watts, Mr Dave Chapman, Jenny Hamilton, Mr David Moon, Mrs Madeleine Weir, Mr Mike Chope, Mr Christopher Hamilton, Fabian Morden, Jessica Whitehead, Dr Alan Clarke, rh Mr Tom Hanson, rh Mr David Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Wiggin, Bill Clwyd, rh Ann Harman, rh Ms Harriet Morris, Anne Marie Williamson, Chris Coaker, Vernon Harris, Mr Tom Morris, Grahame M. Wilson, Sammy Connarty, Michael Havard, Mr Dai (Easington) Winnick, Mr David Cooper, Rosie Healey, rh John Munn, Meg Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Cooper, rh Yvette Heath, Mr David Murphy, rh Paul Crausby, Mr David Heaton-Harris, Chris Wishart, Pete Nandy, Lisa Wollaston, Dr Sarah Creagh, Mary Hepburn, Mr Stephen Nash, Pamela Woodcock, John Creasy, Stella Hermon, Lady Nuttall, Mr David Wright, Mr Iain Cruddas, Jon Heyes, David Onwurah, Chi Cryer, John Hilling, Julie Owen, Albert Tellers for the Noes: Cunningham, Alex Hodge, rh Margaret Pearce, Teresa Tom Blenkinsop and Cunningham, Mr Jim Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Percy, Andrew Phil Wilson Curran, Margaret Hoey, Kate Dakin, Nic Hollobone, Mr Philip Question accordingly agreed to. 1223 10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1224

Criminal Law Mrs May: No. I can tell the right hon. Lady that I would certainly not stand at the Dispatch Box and [Relevant documents: Nineteenth Report from the European disagree with the Speaker’s ruling. The Speaker’s rulings Scrutiny Committee, Documents considered by the Committee are about what happens in this Chamber and what votes on 5 November 2014, HC 219-xviii; Seventeenth Report are on. In fact, the words I have just said agree with the from the European Scrutiny Committee, The UK’s block Speaker’s ruling—that the vote will be on the regulations opt-out decision: summary and update Report, HC 762; on the Order Paper. We have tabled the motion because Twenty-first Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, we believe it right that the House, in debating and Session 2013-14, The UK’s block opt-out of pre-Lisbon considering the package of measures that we want to criminal law and policing measures, HC 683, and the opt back in to, sees very clearly what legislation is Government Response, HC 978; Ninth Report from the necessary to transpose certain measures. Home Affairs Committee, Session 2013-14, Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK’s Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): But the opt-in decision, HC 615, and the Government Response, Speaker has said in terms that we are not voting on the HC 954; Eighth Report from the Justice Committee, European arrest warrant. Is the Home Secretary now Session 2013-14, Ministry of Justice measures in the arguing that by voting for the regulations tonight we are JHA block opt-out, HC 605, and the Government Response, joining the European arrest warrant? HC 972; First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees, Session 2013-14, Mrs May: I have been very clear that the formal vote The Government’s response to the Committee’s Reports before the House is on the regulations. I have also been on the 2014 block opt-out decision, HC 1177.] clear that the Government—I will come on to explain our timetable, which has some relevance to this matter— 5.45 pm want to opt back in to measures that are in a package. If the House votes against transposing some of those The Secretary of State for the Home Department measures into UK legislation, it is effectively voting (Mrs Theresa May): I beg to move, against our package of measures. On that basis, we can That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol speak about all the measures within the package of No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 35 measures. 3 November, be approved. Protocol 36 is the part of the Lisbon treaty that Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): relates to the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the policing Why did the Home Secretary not just include the European and criminal justice measures that were adopted before arrest warrant in tonight’s motion? the treaty came into force. The opt-out provisions are unique to the United Kingdom, and were negotiated by Mrs May: I have explained that the statutory instrument the previous Administration. Under the terms of transposes those measures that require legislation. I protocol 36, the UK had to decide before the end of repeat—I am happy to speak about this again later—that May 2014 whether it wished to opt out of all the police we are not required to transpose the European arrest and criminal justice measures—some 130 in all—that warrant into UK legislation because it is already in UK predate the Lisbon treaty. The opt-out had to be exercised legislation, in the Extradition Act 2003. en masse; we could not simply leave the measures that We had an opportunity to exercise the opt-out, and we did not like. we did so. We have brought back more than 100 powers from Brussels. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I want the Home Secretary to be very clear, and give a yes or no answer. Will the Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Will the House get the chance in the next couple of weeks to Home Secretary give way? vote on the European arrest warrant? Mrs May: I will make some progress, because the Mrs May: The House is getting a chance today to time for the debate is now more limited and I know that debate the European arrest warrant. The House has many hon. Members wish to speak. been clear that it wished to have such a debate. We were As the Prime Minister says, we have overseen the very clear during the debate on the business motion that biggest return of powers since this country joined the regulations are before the House, and the House will EU, but we have always been clear that we wanted to vote on those regulations. I have also been very clear remain part of a smaller number of measures that give about the Government’s position. We have brought our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical those particular regulations before the House because help in the fight against crime. This Government and they are the only ones that we need to transpose into this party will never put politics before the protection of UK legislation. I will come on to comment on the the British public and that is why we are seeking to European arrest warrant. As I said earlier, I am very remain part of a package of 35 measures that help us to clear that the vote today relates to whether or not the tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe. UK opts back in to the package of measures that we have negotiated. The package comes together; it is not Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the an a la carte menu from which one can pick and choose. Home Secretary confirm that in the event the House votes down these 11 measures, she will still be free to Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) opt in to the European arrest warrant and, what is (Lab): Is the Home Secretary telling the House that she more, she will still be free to move forward with those disagrees with the ruling made by the Speaker—yes or 11 measures through other parliamentary means? That no? is the case, is it not? 1225 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1226

Mrs May: We have been very clear that we have Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Given that the brought before the House tonight those measures that Home Secretary wrote yesterday in The Sunday Times are required to be transposed into UK legislation. We that the European arrest warrant and 34 other measures have also been clear that in the Government’s view, a were in the package proposed by the Government, and vote against those regulations is a vote against the given that she knew that the European arrest warrant package of 35 measures. I have been very clear that the was one of the most controversial of those measures, 35 measures hang together. Even though only a small will she explain why she has included those issues in the number require transposing into legislation, they are a regulations that we are discussing today but left out the package of measures and not a pick and mix. European arrest warrant?

Several hon. Members rose— Mrs May: It has been made clear that it is possible to discuss the other measures in our debate today, and I Mrs May: I am going to make some progress. have explained why the regulations include only certain The package is the product of careful deliberation in measures—those required to be transposed into UK this House and beyond. It follows consultation with the legislation. police, the Crown Prosecution Service, our security and My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge intelligence agencies, the devolved Administrations and (Dr Huppert) was right to refer to the package of 35 the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the Government of measures being the product of tough negotiations in Gibraltar, victims’ groups and many more. It has been Europe. In July, when we last gave Government time for scrutinised by Committees in both Houses of Parliament a debate on the issue, I informed the House that good and the Justice Secretary, and I, along with other Ministers, progress had been made in negotiations with the European have appeared before those Committees to give evidence Commission and other member states and that we were on the Government’s approach. We have also published close to reaching an in-principle agreement. The matter two Command Papers on the issue. had been discussed at the General Affairs Council in June, but some member states had expressed technical Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I am pleased reservations. I published Command Paper 8897, which that we will, I hope, opt in to a range of these measures. included the full list of measures discussed at the General As the Home Secretary says, this has taken a huge Affairs Council and impact assessments of each of amount of time, effort and negotiations with Europe. those measures. I had hoped to be able to return the How much benefit is there, given that most of the matter to Parliament for consideration before the summer measures to which we are not opting in have expired? recess, but the reservations expressed by other member states meant it was not possible to do so. In September, two of those member states lifted their reserves and I Mrs May: There is considerable benefit, and I point am pleased to be able to inform the House that on my hon. Friend towards the measures on minimum Friday Spain, the one remaining member state blocking standards for the justice system—there are about 20, I the deal, formally lifted its reservation in Brussels. think. It is not the view of the Government, and it is certainly not the view of the Conservative party, that we I believe that the deal we have negotiated in Europe should be part of the European justice system that and that we are bringing before the House today is a some people think some of Europe wishes to introduce. good one for the United Kingdom. It includes important Coming out of the minimum standards measures was tools such as SIS II, the second-generation Schengen an important part of ensuring that we did not go in that information system, which the United Kingdom is direction. scheduled to join shortly. That will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): My right hon. Friend serious crimes such as rape and murder. mentioned the scrutiny process, but, as she well knows, all three Select Committees—the European Scrutiny The package of measures we have negotiated includes Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and Europol, which does excellent work under its British the Select Committee on Justice—have said that there director, Rob Wainwright, to tackle cross-border crimes. has not been proper consultation with Parliament on these Three weeks ago, for example, Europol played a key matters. What has happened today amply demonstrates role in Operation Trivium, a UK-wide operation led our concerns and nothing has emerged to change our by West Midlands police that saw police forces from view. Will my right hon. Friend explain how on earth all 14 European countries jointly targeting foreign criminals this has happened? in the UK. Senior officers from across Europe came together at the control centre in Edgbaston to witness Mrs May: I am aware of the views expressed to this the operation in action and Europol provided a mobile House by my hon. Friend and by the Chairmen of the unit to co-ordinate activities on the ground. In the first Justice and the Home Affairs Committees. I remind my 48 hours of the operation, more than 700 suspected hon. Friend that I, the Justice Secretary and other criminals were arrested and a further 950 were handed Ministers have appeared in front of the Select Committees on-the-spot fines for minor offences, cautioned or of this House, of the European Scrutiny Committee summonsed to court. They included a 51-year-old Polish and of Committees of the House of Lords on a number man arrested on suspicion of involvement in a fraud of of occasions on the subject of these measures. We have more than £11,000. also held a number of debates on the Floor of the Europol also played a key part in tackling the horsemeat House and varying views have been expressed from scandal that so appalled this House and the British both sides of the House about the measures that have public last year, as did Eurojust, another of the measures been proposed. in our package. 1227 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1228

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): The Home Secretary relevant European jurisdictions, evidence was obtained keeps talking about a package of measures, but, of of the existence of an international conspiracy to blackmail course, this is not a package of measures but things that the suppliers and customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences she has bundled up into a package. As she appears to be which was used in the UK trial. making up parliamentary procedure as she goes along, will she explain how on earth those people who agree Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con): with some of the measures but not others should vote I ought to declare an interest because my wife is a judge this evening? who deals with European arrest warrants on a regular basis. The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight Mrs May: I described them as a package because that of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense. was what was open to us under the terms of the Lisbon Please will my right hon. Friend stick to her guns, treaty negotiated by the previous Labour Government. because I do not want this country to become a haven We have to opt back in to a group of measures. There for foreign criminals? are measures in the package that interrelate. For example, the European supervision order relates to the European arrest warrant. We cannot simply pick and choose Mrs May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for individual measures; many of them interrelate and should his comments. I assure him that I will refer to a number of be considered together. measures that will ensure that there is judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant and proper consideration Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind): The Home Secretary of such cases in the United Kingdom. He is absolutely made but a fleeting reference to consultation with the right about another thing. The Government have negotiated devolved institutions, but since Northern Ireland is the this package and are bringing it to the House because only part of the United Kingdom to share a land we believe that these measures are necessary to ensure frontier with another EU member state, will she take that we can continue the job of keeping people safe and the opportunity to put on the record that the Justice bringing criminals to justice. Minister in Northern Ireland, David Ford, and the I will outline some of the other vital measures in the Assembly support the measures before us this evening? package of 35 measures. However, I said earlier that I would say a little about the timing of today’s debate, Mrs May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising which I think is relevant to the consideration that that point. The Justice Minister in Northern Ireland Members have given to the motion. Now that the final supports the measures, as does the Justice Minister in reservation has been lifted on our deal, which, as I said, the Republic of Ireland, Frances Fitzgerald, who has happened on Friday, we must allow for discussion at a made very clear the consequences if the House rejects Council in Brussels before the month is out. Very few the measures and if the Government do not opt in appropriate options remain. We must add items to the to them. agenda of a Council 16 days in advance to guarantee Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The Home their inclusion. That means that we do not have long to Secretary may recall that she and I stood on the same complete our domestic processes. To avoid an operational Conservative manifesto, which said very clearly that a gap for our police and law enforcement agencies, we Conservative Government would reassert the “ultimate must complete the entire process before 1 December. authority” of the House of Commons over important That involves formally notifying Brussels about the matters and repatriate powers in criminal justice. Does measures that we wish to remain part of. she not see the danger that if we opt back in to 35 measures, without having any legislation to assert our primacy, Sir William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give our criminal justice system can be entirely controlled way? It is important. from Brussels? Mrs May: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me Mrs May: I will refer later to the jurisdiction of the for just one moment. He will know that I am usually European Court of Justice and what that means in very generous in giving way to him during debates on relation to the measures before us. This is a simple European matters, even though I sometimes disagree decision about whether we want to be part of practical with the points that he makes. However, the point that I law and order measures that make a difference to the am about to make is important too. ability of our law enforcement agencies to catch criminals. If we do not complete the entire process before 1 The support and co-ordination provided by Eurojust December, including notifying Brussels of the measures were invaluable to the UK’s law enforcement agencies that we wish to remain part of, we will have an operational and prosecutors during the fraud investigation that gap, which I believe would be a real problem for our followed the revelation of the horsemeat scandal. Eurojust police and law enforcement agencies. We must be ready was extremely proactive and offered immediate assistance to transpose those measures fully into our domestic law. to the prosecutors in our Crown Prosecution Service, That is why it is important that we hold votes in this and provided vital information on investigations that House and the other place, and complete the necessary were being carried out right across Europe. legislative steps as soon as possible—hence the motion Several hon. Members rose— before us.

Mrs May: I will make a little progress before I take Sir William Cash: In the light of what has happened more interventions. so far and the fact that we do not have the opportunity The assistance of Eurojust has proved instrumental to vote on the European arrest warrant, as Mr Speaker in the prosecution of animal rights extremists in the has indicated, will the Home Secretary confirm that we UK. Through its facilitation of meetings between the will have an opportunity to do so, as was promised not 1229 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1230 only by her, but by the Prime Minister? We have not had affairs measures. It has concluded third-country agreements such a vote. Will she guarantee that we will have one with the EU because it has no other way to participate after a proper debate on the matter? in those measures. By contrast, protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty sets out Mrs May: I have set out quite clearly the Government’s the process by which the UK can opt out of and rejoin view on the motion before the House and the debate justice and home affairs measures. There is no precedent that we are having. I will attempt to make progress, for an international agreement between the EU and a because I want to get on to some of the other issues, member state that already has the ability to participate including the European arrest warrant. I recognise the in EU measures by specific means. The European degree of interest in that and the concern that remains Commission argues that protocol 36 provides adequate among some hon. Members. That is why I wish to have provision and renders a third-country agreement time to speak about that particular measure. unnecessary. Riding roughshod over that would involve walking away from a very good deal for the UK and Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Will the risk damaging our support for future negotiations in Home Secretary give way? Europe. Even if we could persuade the European Union, it would take years to thrash out, guaranteeing a lengthy Mrs May: I will give way once more and then I will operational gap in the fight against crime and a risk to make progress. the British public that would be unacceptable. Finally, I hope hon. Members will heed the Danish Steve Rotheram: Following on from what the hon. example in full. Every agreement that Denmark has made Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, when the separately with the European Union has required Denmark Prime Minister was offered parliamentary time to debate to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of the European arrest warrant by the Leader of the Justice. In effect, the Danish agreements that have caught Opposition, he said: the attention of some hon. Members simply bind Denmark “There is only one problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s to EU law by another legal means. I suspect that is not …question: we are going to have a vote, we going to have it before what those hon. Members had in mind. the Rochester by-election—his questions have just collapsed.”— [Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.] I have explained that only a certain number of the measures require transposition through the regulations What has changed, Home Secretary? before the House. The regulations make provision to give effect to the European supervision order in England Mrs May: We are having a vote on the regulations and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. That allows British tonight and it has been made very clear that people are subjects to be bailed back to the UK, rather than spend able to discuss the European arrest warrant in the months and months abroad awaiting trial. It will therefore debate. stand alongside the reforms that we have made to the If we were to vote against the motion tonight and did arrest warrant, making it easier for people like Andrew not opt back in to the measures—because a vote against Symeou, whose case has been championed admirably the motion tonight would be a vote against the package by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick of 35 measures—we would find ourselves kicked out of de Bois), to be bailed back to the UK and preventing Europol within weeks and our extradition arrangements such injustices from occurring in future. The connection would be thrown into legal uncertainty, potentially for between the supervision order and the arrest warrant, years. That would risk harmful individuals walking free one of which is being transposed in the regulations and and escaping justice, and would seriously harm the one of which is not, is an example of the inter-connectedness capability of our law enforcement agencies to keep the of the package of measures. public safe. Sir Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend is being very Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): Will generous in giving way. the Home Secretary give way? I mean this question completely sincerely. One reason why I passionately support the British courts and jury Mrs May: I will make a little more progress and will system is that one never knows when one might get into then give way to my hon. Friend. trouble or be wrongly accused oneself. I realise that it is For the reasons I have just given, the Government extremely unlikely, and it is a personal question, but if have always been clear that it is in our national interest she were wrongly accused of something in, say, Croatia, to remain part of these vital measures and to do so would she rather rely on British justice and traditional without an operational gap. extradition procedures or on the say-so of a prosecutor Over the past four years, and particularly since we in Croatia? announced our intention to exercise the opt-out in July 2013, a number of hon. Members have proposed Mrs May: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will alternative courses of action to me and my right hon. come on to explain how we have changed the European Friend the Justice Secretary as we have undertaken our arrest warrant so that British judges are now interposed negotiations in Europe. A number of hon. Members are in the system in a way that they were not always in the interested in the position of Denmark with regard to past. Those measures have been an important advantage, justice and home affairs matters. Some have said that it and some arrest warrant requests to the UK have already provides a potential model for the UK to follow. I been rejected as a result. believe that it is a false comparison. Denmark has a I do not want to lose sight of some of the other separate protocol to the Lisbon treaty that excludes it measures in the package. For example, the regulations from participating in post-Lisbon justice and home also cover the European criminal records information 1231 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1232

[Mrs May] Zvirgzds, a Latvian national convicted of controlling prostitution, firearms and drug offences and assault. In system. We are already taking steps to identify foreign April 2012, he was sentenced to thirteen and a half nationals who are abusing our openness and hospitality years’ imprisonment in the UK, and in June this year he by committing crimes in this country. Operation Nexus, was transferred out of this country to a prison in a groundbreaking initiative taken by the Metropolitan Latvia, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence. police and immigration enforcement, helped us to remove Had it not been for the prisoner transfer measure, he more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two would have remained in a British prison at a cost to the years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders British taxpayer of more than £100,000. considered by the police to represent a particularly As I indicated earlier, I have taken part in a number serious threat. As I said, it began with the Metropolitan of debates on these issues. From those debates, and police, but it has recently been extended to the West from the debate that we had earlier and the comments Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester forces that right hon. and hon. Members have made today, it is and six other forces including Police Scotland, and we absolutely clear that the measure that attracts the most wish to extend its work to every force in England and interest from Members is the European arrest warrant. Wales. ECRIS is a key tool that supports that operation and thereby helps to keep our streets safe. Extradition is always an emotive subject. It raises As people find it easier to move around the globe, we important questions about the civil liberties of British must ensure that our law enforcement agencies can citizens, the quality of justice in other countries, the role exchange information more readily too. In 2006, the of our own courts and how we bring criminals to UK made and received no requests at all for criminal justice, and I understand those concerns. I remind hon. records from other EU member states. In 2012-13 we Members that I am the Home Secretary who blocked made over 25,000 requests, and last year that figure was the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States, 41,500. I recently announced that the Government would and who reformed our extradition arrangements so increase the number of criminal record checks on foreign that, when prosecution is possible in both this country nationals by introducing full checks on foreign nationals and another, British courts can block extradition overseas arrested in the Metropolitan police area. Given that if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so. I 30% of those arrested in London are now foreign therefore share many of the concerns that have been nationals, it is clear that that is an operational necessity. raised about the European arrest warrant in the past. That is also why our package of 35 measures also Indeed, as a member of the shadow Cabinet I voted includes the Swedish initiative, which simplifies the against its transposition into British law by the last exchange of information and intelligence between law Labour Government. That is why, as Home Secretary, I enforcement agencies, and the data protection measure, have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest which protects personal data transferred in the fight warrant and increase the protections that we can offer against crime. Those measures both require transposition, to British people and others who are wanted for extradition. and they are covered in the regulations. The changes that we made through the Anti-social Another of the measures in the regulations provides Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the for joint investigation teams between our police and arrest warrant that sits in our package of 35 measures is their European counterparts. It allows our police to a better and safer arrest warrant than the one operated participate in cross-border operations such as Operation over the past decade. Under the last Government, British Birkhill, which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of citizens could be extradited for disproportionately minor 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement offences, so the law has been changed to ensure that in the degrading trafficking into the UK of over 120 arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland; offences. A British judge must now consider whether and Operation Rico, which resulted in 110 arrests, the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to mostly in the UK and Spain. make someone’s extradition proportionate, and a British judge must also consider whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities. Dr Huppert: The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. She has made a strong argument for cross-border co-operation with our European partners, Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Home Secretary but one measure that she is not opting into is the for taking a second intervention from me. internal security fund, which involves about £3 billion for measures across Europe to tackle cross-border crime. The Home Secretary knows well that a Mr John We are one of only two countries that have not opted Downey walked free from the Old Bailey earlier this into that; will she consider doing so, so that we can year. He had been charged in connection with the Hyde continue to work across borders? park bombing, which killed four innocent British soldiers, and was also sought in connection with the Enniskillen bombing and the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment Mrs May: We were clear about the package of measures men in Northern Ireland. He walked free because the that we wished to opt into—the 35 that we identified. Northern Ireland Office had signed off a letter in 2007— We looked at all the 130-odd measures that were subject not during the current Administration—for a category to protocol 36, and we believe that the package that the of people known as the on-the-runs. Mr Downey is now Government have published for Members is the right one enjoying the air of County Donegal. Would the UK to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need. opting into the European arrest warrant help the Another measure in the package is the prisoner transfer Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland retrieve framework decision, which helps to remove foreign Mr Downey to face serious criminal charges if the criminals from British jails—prisoners such as Ainars Police Service of Northern Ireland had sufficient evidence? 1233 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1234

Mrs May: I recognise the case that the hon. Lady clause, does she have confidence—this is something that raises and her concern about it. I do not think it would I and my constituent lack—that the decision to charge be right for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on and try will necessarily follow with the same speed and an individual case, particularly one that involves certain alacrity as in this country and many other countries? other matters that are not only relevant to the measures We are totally reliant on those other countries to enforce that we are discussing. As she says, they relate to such measures quickly, else people will languish in jail decisions taken some time ago about the issue of on-the- because there is a difference between the decision to runs. charge and the different decision to try. Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): May I Mrs May: In our changes to the legislation we are commend my right hon. Friend and ask her to stick to clear that this is about the decision to charge and to try. her guns on this matter? She is delineating the changes As I mentioned earlier, my hon. Friend has been assiduous that she has caused to be made to the European arrest in championing the issue because of the case of his warrant. It is different from how it was before, and we constituent Andrew Symeou and we all recognise that can and must support it in the interests of justice, that sort of circumstance led many people to query the because it will prevent this country from becoming a European arrest warrant and be concerned about its safe haven for terrorists and criminals. Furthermore, operation. The legislative changes we have made allow a does she recall that Keith Bristow, the head of the British court to decide that unless there is a decision to National Crime Agency, told the Committee that I sit charge and try an individual, it can reject the European on, the Home Affairs Committee, that he supported the arrest warrant. In addition, we have also made changes European arrest warrant? He said that it was the best so that an individual can be transferred temporarily to tool to accomplish what my right hon. Friend and the give evidence and be returned to the United Kingdom, rest of the House want to achieve. or to give evidence by video link, for example, so that they do not need physically to be taken to the other Mrs May: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and country concerned. as an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee he has looked at the matter in some detail. He is Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) rose— absolutely right that the Committee was clear about the benefits of the European arrest warrant. We have indeed Nick de Bois: rose— made changes to it, thanks to which the National Crime Agency refuses requests before they even get to our Mrs May: I note the importance of the case of my courts in the case of the most trivial offences, freeing up hon. Friend’s constituent, so I will give way to him police and court time for more serious matters. again. Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Nick de Bois: I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s your ruling, you made it clear that reference to the attempt to explain that point, but perhaps I can ask her European arrest warrant was to be made only in passing. about another issue. The courts are not allowed to take The Home Secretary has been speaking about the European into account the record of a country in its effectiveness arrest warrant for the past 10 minutes. Is that not in at pursuing a case from charge to trial-ready. Would such total contravention of what you ruled earlier? a requirement on the courts provide more confidence that they can look beyond the initial application to Mr Speaker: I said in my statement that I intended to extradite and hold to account countries that fail to offer latitude, so that the matters of which the House deliver? wishes to treat may be properly aired. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in seeking clarity from the Mrs May: I note my hon. Friend’s point, but I believe Chair, but nothing I have heard so far has conflicted that the changes we have made are sufficient to ensure with that. I intended—and I intend—pragmatically to that our courts are able to make judgments on charge handle matters from where we are, which, as I think we and trial, and therefore a judgment on whether a European all agree, is sub-optimal. arrest warrant should be put into place. I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) Mrs May: Our reforms have also clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must Chris Bryant: I did not have to ask this time, and I am be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a grateful to the Home Secretary. I fully agree with what person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a she is saying about the European arrest warrant and criminal offence in this country. The National Crime with many of the changes that she has managed to Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is introduce and negotiate with other countries. I agree obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. with all that, but not with the process she is adopting. It has done so nearly 40 times since our reforms came On 29 October, when asked about the European arrest into force in July. Under the old arrest warrant, people warrant, why did the Prime Minister say not just once were being detained for long periods overseas before but four times: being charged or standing trial. We have changed the “I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote on law to require that a decision to charge, and a decision it…we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the to try the person, has been made in the requesting Rochester by-election”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, country before they can be extradited. c. 301.] The Speaker has already said that this is not a vote on Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): I am grateful to the European arrest warrant. So that all Members the Home Secretary for her personal interest in the case of the House can at least reckon that they have had a of my constituent Andrew Symeou, and to the Minister. fair deal, will the Home Secretary please give us a On this point, which is often known as the Symeou proper vote next week? 1235 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1236

Mrs May: And the hon. Gentleman started off so terrorism cases. In the same period, the arrest warrant nicely—such a disappointment. As I have said, the has been used to return 647 people to this country to National Crime Agency is refusing arrest warrants in face justice. The list includes 51 suspected killers, 80 certain circumstances, and as I indicated in response to suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de one suspected terrorist. Bois), those require people to be able to be charged and stand trial. Some hon. Members were worried that Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): I am arrest warrants were being used for investigatory purposes glad that my right hon. Friend has come to the issue of rather than prosecution, and, as I said, that is why we the United Kingdom causing the extradition of others have allowed people to visit an issuing state temporarily from abroad. Does she accept that the European arrest to be questioned, or to do so via a video link without warrant brought an end to the rather hideous spectacle even leaving these shores. of well-known criminals living off their ill-gotten gains and sunning themselves on the Costa Brava? Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): These post-July changes are extremely welcome, but one point that has Mrs May: My right hon. and learned Friend makes not yet been made is that 95% of European arrest an important point, and there are many people, particularly warrants that are applied for from this country are for from Spain, whom we are now able to extradite in a foreign nationals. It is foreign countries wanting their rather more efficient process than was the case previously, nationals back to prosecute them—these are foreign and they are exactly the sort of people to whom he nationals, foreign criminals, who have come to the refers. United Kingdom because they think that it can be a safe haven. The European arrest warrant is enabling the Several hon. Members rose— countries where the offences were committed to get Mrs May: I say to right hon. and hon. Members that their nationals back—95% of those warrants do not I am conscious of the time I have been speaking for. I apply to UK citizens but to foreign citizens. have taken a number of interventions, but I wish to Mrs May: My right hon. Friend makes an important make progress because others wish to speak in this point. He is prescient because it was a point to which I debate. was coming soon in my speech, and it is an important Some opponents of the European arrest warrant say statistic. Sometimes people think that the European we should refuse to remain part of it and instead rely on arrest warrant is just used to extradite United Kingdom the European Council convention on extradition of citizens from the United Kingdom, but that is not the 1957. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher case. and Walton (Mr Raab) noted on the radio last week: Hon. Members have expressed concerns about people “If we have to fall back temporarily on the old Council of being charged with offences over and above those specified Europe conventions, extraditions will be slower.” in their arrest warrant if they consent to extradition, so That view was echoed today by the House of Lords we have lifted the requirement that individuals lose their Extradition Law Committee, which stated that right to “speciality protection” when they consent to “there is no convincing case for disagreeing with the conclusions extradition. Those changes have been made in UK law, previously reached by the European Union Committee that ‘If and came into effect earlier this year. They are already the United Kingdom were to leave the EAW and rely upon alternative extradition arrangements, it is highly unlikely that making an important difference to the operation of the these alternative arrangements would address all the criticisms arrest warrant. directed at the EAW.Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): The concept undermining public safety.’” of proportionality is hard to define and therefore hard to understand. The Home Secretary has already given Mr Raab: I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s examples of cases that have been refused on the basis elucidations. What I am seeking to understand is why that they are too trivial. Can she give an example of the we cannot opt out of all the measures, including the least serious offence where extradition has been possible EAW,and negotiate a bespoke arrangement without the since July? erosion of democratic control through the European Court of Justice and other means. I listened very carefully Mrs May: I do not have a list of all the European arrest to what she said earlier—the Commission’s view that warrants that have been refused, but there are two steps this was unprecedented—and I appreciate it would take to the proportionality decision. The first is an administrative time and a lot of diplomatic elbow grease, but can she decision taken by the National Crime Agency as the confirm that there is no legal bar to that course of body that initially receives the request. Then there is the action and that it is a question of political will? possibility for the courts to make a determination about proportionality, and they will consider a variety of Mrs May: I recognise my hon. Friend’s point. It is issues. It is not a tick-box approach; the courts will one he has made to me on a number of occasions. I have make judgments not just about the nature of the crime addressed the two areas where people have sometimes but about the nature of the disposal available in the said that alternative arrangements could be made. The other member state in relation to that crime, so that first is that we would fall back on the Council of Europe they can decide whether the arrest warrant is appropriate. convention of 1957. I have been absolutely clear in the My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony remarks I have just made that there is one crucial aspect Baldry) indicated that the vast majority of people extradited that would cause us problems: the length of time that from the UK—more than 95%—are foreign nationals. extradition procedures would take. As the House of They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more Lords Extradition Law Committee has just said, that than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults and seven could undermine public safety. 1237 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1238

There is another aspect in which that would be measures on sensitive matters such as racism and problematic were we to be negotiating with other member xenophobia. It is why we have opted out of, and will not states. Without the arrest warrant there are 22 member rejoin, the EU-US extradition agreement. It is this place states in the EU, including France, Germany and Spain, that should have the final say over our laws on these that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the matters, and Her Majesty’s Government should be able UK. In the past five years alone, more than 100 people to renegotiate such arrangements as they see fit. from those countries have been returned to Britain to I understand the concerns raised about the European face justice, many for serious crimes including rape and Court of Justice in the many debates we have had on murder. One of those was Andreas Ververopoulos, a protocol 36. I believe we must look again at this matter Greek, who committed a violent and sickening sexual in our renegotiations with the European Union before assault on a 16-year-old girl in Hampshire in 2007 and the referendum that a Conservative Government will then fled home to Greece. In July 2013, Hampshire deliver by the end of 2017. In the meantime, however, police linked him to the crime using DNA and an arrest we must act in the national interest to keep the British warrant was used to return him to the UK. In April this public safe. We have therefore exercised an opt-out, year, he pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced which it seems no one else would have exercised. We to nine years’ imprisonment. The judge in the case said have brought back more than 100 justice and home it was affairs powers that had already been signed away. We “an appalling attack on a young and vulnerable girl”. have listened to those who work tirelessly to keep us After seven years of further suffering, the victim and safe on which of the tools at their disposal are vital to the victim’s family finally saw justice done. their important work. We have gone to Europe and negotiated a good deal for the United Kingdom. We Yvette Cooper: I, too, have looked at that case. I agree have won support from the Commission and other with the Home Secretary that it is an appalling example member states to remain part of a smaller package of of a terrible crime. The European arrest warrant was measures in the national interest. Now we must vote to rightly used in that case. Will she say why the EAW is transpose those measures that require transposing and, not on the Order Paper? in doing so, vote to seal the deal.

Mrs May: The right hon. Lady knows that I have 6.36 pm answered that question previously. Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) The right hon. Lady is right that the case I cited was a (Lab): Today we have had a completely shambolic debate. particularly difficult and awful case in terms of the The Home Secretary has given an excellent account of crime that was committed. Without the arrest warrant, why we should support policies that are not on the the individual who committed that crime would still be Order Paper. She has given an excellent defence of the in Greece today. Before it came into force, Greece did European arrest warrant, which is not on the Order not surrender its own nationals. Indeed, it entered a Paper. I agree with her that the European arrest warrant reservation to the 1957 convention specifically barring is immensely important. It helps us to fight crime. It the extradition of Greek nationals, so the victims of helps the police, in Britain and across Europe, to stop brutal crimes, such as in this case, would go on suffering. murderers, traffickers and sex offenders. It helps us to We owe it to them to heed the old warning that justice deport more than 1,000 suspected foreign criminals delayed is justice denied. primarily to their own countries to face justice. Given I want to come on to one final relevant point that was that there is a majority in this House in favour of the hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for European arrest warrant, why on earth are we not Wokingham (Mr Redwood) earlier: the jurisdiction of voting for it? Why the sophistry? Why the games? Why the European Court of Justice. This pass was sold when the dancing around? It is just baffling that the Home the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Secretary is playing games with something so important (Mr Brown) signed the Lisbon treaty. Our opt-out only to criminal justice and to the fight against international applies to those policing and criminal justice measures crime and terrorism. that precede it. Since the Lisbon treaty came into effect, The draft regulations cover a series of measures—the the UK has signed up to 90 new justice and home 11 measures that are on the Order Paper—and we affairs measures, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ support them. The confiscation orders, freezing orders over them. We face the same choice today: whether to on criminal records, the European supervision order, accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ over the small package the joint investigation teams—we support them all. We of measures that we wish to remain part of from 1 support the measures on confiscation and freezing orders December, so that our law enforcement agencies can because no country in the EU should become a safe continue to use those powers to fight crime and keep us haven for criminal assets. We should be able to confiscate safe; or reject those measures and accept the risk to them wherever they are held. We support the two measures public protection that that involves. That invidious choice on criminal records and conviction. Exchanged data on is the result of a poor treaty, badly negotiated. In my the conviction of EU nationals should be harnessed for mind, however, it is clear: this is a vote about law and us to identify, locate and stop EU criminals entering order, not a vote about Europe. our country and committing crimes. We support the I am certainly no enthusiast for the European Court European supervision order as a vital reform to interact of Justice. The ECJ should not have the final say over with the arrest warrant, because suspects awaiting trial matters such as substantive criminal law or our international should, if appropriate, be in their home state. We support relations. That is why, as I indicated earlier, 100 or so the joint investigation teams because we saw with Operation measures the Government have opted out of, and will Golf that co-operation in complex investigations means not rejoin, include more than 20 minimum standards we can arrest 126 traffickers from across Europe and 1239 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1240

[Yvette Cooper] into a mess, because on 29 October he told the House that he would join Opposition Members in the Lobby safeguard vulnerable children not just in Britain but on a specific vote on the EAW? across the continent too. We support the prisoner transfer framework, because it makes it harder for other member Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime states to refuse to take back their nationals from our Minister was asked specifically about the EAW, not the prisons. We should have that co-operation in place. 11 measures on the Order Paper, and he could not have We support the rest of the 35 measures that are not been clearer: he said there would be a vote before the on the Order Paper—the measures we do not have a Rochester by-election. That he and the Home Secretary chance to demonstrate our support for and to vote for think they can rip up promises made to the House tonight. We saw, with the problem of foreign criminals shows that they are not taking this Parliament seriously. entering in the UK, that the Schengen information system is also vital and necessary. We need Europol to Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Is support and co-ordinate cross-border investigations. not this fine mess in many ways of Labour’s making, We support closer co-operation on combating child given that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and abuse imagery, because with this crime there are no Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) gave away the opt-outs? To borders and the police need to work with police across be clear, would Labour have used the opt-out for any of Europe and across the world too. We support action to the 130 justice measures? tackle football hooliganism across borders, and as we have made clear many times in the House, we particularly Yvette Cooper: Nice try. I will come to the issues that support the EAW. The Association of Chief Police the Home Secretary has opted out of in a second, but Officers has described it as an essential weapon, and the idea that the Home Secretary’s utter shambles today distinguished legal figures, including the former President is the fault of the previous Labour Government is of the Supreme Court, have argued that pushing the hon. Gentleman’s political argument to a “Britain also risks becoming a safe haven for fugitives from ludicrous extreme. justice, a handful of them British citizens, but the vast majority The statistics are clear: the EAW helps us to deport foreign nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in Europe.” foreign criminals and terrorists, and of the 1,057 people And they are right. removed under an EAW last year, only 43 were UK nationals, and eight of those were connected to child Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): Does the right hon. sex offences. It is because the EAW and the other Lady believe that our country was a safe haven for measures are so important that we should be having a foreign criminals before the EAW, and does she believe vote on them now. it is a safe haven now for foreign criminals from countries The Home Secretary has form. We saw it when she outside the EU? was asked about the net migration promise. No ifs no buts, the Prime Minister made a promise—a contract Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there with the British people, he said—but she said it was no were cases before the introduction of the EAW when it longer a promise but a comment. We saw it again today took years to extradite suspects—for example, suspected when she dismissed the Prime Minister’s promise to the terrorists back to France. We should not be in that House that there would be a vote on the EAW. situation. If we have people in our country wanted in Frankly, the whole opt in, opt out process has been a France for serious crimes, particularly terrorists allegations, con. It is an in/out hokey cokey back to where we we should be able to deport them to face justice. started. On the measures to be opted out of, the Prime Minister promised the biggest transfer of power from Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Is not the Brussels back to Britain by opting out of more than 100 important point that in a completely multilateral system measures, but what powers in practice have been brought we do not stand out, whereas if everybody else opted back? Britain will no longer be expected to have a good into the justice and home affairs measures and the practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal EAW, and we alone stood outside, we would become a matters, but we will keep one anyway; Britain will not safe haven, because it would be much easier to stay in sign up to having a contact point for cross-border this country for extended periods than in any other EU allegations of corruption, but the police and Border state? Force will still have one anyway; we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is but we will get someone to send it to us on the side; we suggested that we could arrange separate extradition will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures treaties, but in the past when we did that, they took too that apply to other countries and did not cover us long and caused immense problems. In the case of anyway; we were already opting out of the European Rachid Ramda, the Algerian national arrested in the judicial network, and we will carry on opting out of it; UK in connection with a terrorist attack on the Paris and we will not be involved in setting up contact points transport system, France sought extradition from the to deal with the other countries in pursuing those UK in 1995. The process was completed in 2005. That responsible for genocide, but we will—quietly—let Europol was when the EAW was not in place. know whom they should ring. Time and again, the Home Secretary claims to be Steve Rotheram: My right hon. Friend started by repatriating huge numbers of powers, when in fact she calling the proceedings in the House “shambolic”. Does is simply opting out of dozens of measures that either she agree that the Home Secretary has got herself into a do not operate anymore or which cover areas where we mess, but that equally the Prime Minister has got himself plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out. 1241 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1242

So much for a repatriation of powers—it is a repatriation not have happened, and the whole House will have of other people’s phone numbers. She has taken back immense sympathy with them. They should not have the Yellow Pages. Congratulations to her. been put through what they were put through.

Mrs May rose— Sir William Cash: Of course, the big difference is that in the case of the Kings, this European arrest warrant is Yvette Cooper: Let her try and defend it now. subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It overtakes the Supreme Court; it overtakes Mrs May: The right hon. Lady has said she disagrees this Parliament because the Lisbon treaty has allowed it with the opt in, opt out process. Will she remind the to do so. That was passed by the right hon. Lady’s House which party was in government when it was Government, but the bottom line is that it has created negotiated? grave injustice.

Yvette Cooper: Given the shambles the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper: As I have made very clear, the police has presided over today, the idea that she wants to make and the CPS should have withdrawn that arrest warrant this about the last Labour Government is frankly ludicrous, much earlier; it was the wrong thing to do. I also think it and it makes her look silly. She decided what she wanted important for the police to be able to work with other to opt into and out of, and she then claimed to the police forces right across European and right across the House that she had repatriated powers and safeguarded world, and to have these particular powers in place to the hugely important things she is still too scared to give work in Europe. The Home Secretary agrees, and we the House a vote on. agree with her that this is the right thing to do, but the way in which we have had this debate in Parliament Nick de Bois rose— today has been utterly chaotic.

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, Geraint Davies: We have heard from the hon. Member if he can tell the House whether he thinks, like us, that for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the Kings, but what we should have a vote today on the EAW. about Hussein Osman, one of the 21/7 bombers, or the murderer Jason McKay and many more appalling cases Nick de Bois: Since the right hon. Lady has been busy of appalling crimes that have been brought to justice by disparaging the 100 things or so she signed up to, does the European arrest warrant? Yes, there have been a few Labour now acknowledge that the Lisbon treaty was odd mistakes, but a massive number of criminals have one of the greatest betrayals of this country on record? been brought to justice who, if the hon. Gentleman had his way, would still be lounging around, posing a threat Yvette Cooper: Again, nice try. The problem is that to the public. we are debating a series of measures that we and the Home Secretary think we should be opting back into. Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. A huge We think that the 11 measures are important, and we number of people, including more than 1,000 foreign want to have a debate today on the additional measures citizens, are deported from this country, having been we also think we ought to opt back into: the EAW and suspected of committing crimes, to face justice. I think the rest of the 35 measures. I understand that the hon. it is right that we have the ability to do so. Gentleman and other Conservative Back Benchers disagree, but at least we should have the debate. I can reassure the The Home Secretary has basically told us that we Home Secretary that there would still be a strong House should be grateful for the debate that the Government of Commons majority in favour of her 35 measures, have somehow conceded should take place. You gave because they are important for fighting crime. Surely, your ruling, Mr Speaker, that we were not having a vote however, we should have that debate so that the House on the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary can send a strong signal to Europe and the courts that then stood up and completely contradicted that. She we support these measures—that they are the right went on to say that we were voting on a package of thing for fighting crime and for Britain and Europe. 35 measures and that it was not a “pick and mix”. Why, then, has she picked and mixed only 11 of the measures and put them on the Order Paper rather than the full Sir William Cash: Is the shadow Home Secretary package of 35? The Prime Minister said categorically effectively saying that she agrees with the treatment of that we would have a vote on the European arrest the Kings: a small child with a brain tumour is taken warrant, yet he has refused to allow it. away from his parents in Spain, a European arrest warrant is issued by the British courts—after the July Again I urge the Home Secretary to rethink. It is not reforms—and the parents are arrested? Was that a good too late for her to rethink and to provide the House way to treat a child? with a specific vote on the European arrest warrant. It is true that some of her Back Benchers would vote against Yvette Cooper: I think there was dreadful decision it, but the rest of us would vote for it. On the Labour making in that case. The police should not have continued Benches, we want enthusiastically to endorse the Home with the EAW—they should have withdrawn it—and I Secretary’s measures; on the Conservative Benches, think it was a bad decision. However, the hon. Gentleman Members want rebelliously to oppose them—but we all will know of cases in this country where the police want a parliamentary vote. wrongfully arrest somebody; we do not then conclude Is not the truth that the Government took the European that the police should not have a power of arrest. arrest warrant out of the motion because the Home Instead, we say there should be proper and thoughtful Secretary and the Chief Whip thought they were being decision making. What happened to that family should clever? They took it out because they wanted to minimise 1243 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1244

[Yvette Cooper] suffered any detriment. We will leave it there. I think that the right hon. Lady was about to take an intervention the rebellion. They wanted to tell journalists that it was from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg. a vote on the European arrest warrant, but tell the Back Benchers not to worry because they were voting only on Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend the Member for prisoner transfer agreements. They wanted to pretend Ipswich (Ben Gummer) quite understandably does not to Parliament that this was a vote on a package of read his communications from the Whips Office with 35 measures, yet let their MPs fend off UKIP in their care and attention. Had he read section 4 of the document constituencies by claiming that they never voted for the on today’s business, he would have found that it said: most controversial plans. “We then move to a motion to approve the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations, which Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con) rose— includes the European arrest warrant.” I hope I have been able to clear up this matter. Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me whether the European arrest warrant is Yvette Cooper: Now that the hon. Members for Ipswich included in this motion. (Ben Gummer) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have referred to this document, it really Ben Gummer: I have the privilege, unlike the right must be put in the public domain. The hon. Member for hon. Lady, of being in receipt of communications from North East Somerset has kindly put it in front of the the Whips and from the Home Secretary about today, House so that that we can all consider it. and I have to say that we were all perfectly well aware of That demonstrates the chaos we are in. You have what we are debating, as the right hon. Lady has made ruled, Mr Speaker, that this is not a vote on the European clear. arrest warrant, yet communications to Government Back Benchers were very clear that it was. Yvette Cooper: It might have been helpful if the hon. Let me now give the Home Secretary the opportunity Gentleman had explained that to some of his fellow to agree from the Dispatch Box that there will be a Back Benchers—and certainly to us, as we really would vote—an additional vote—on the European arrest warrant have liked to know. We thought we were coming to vote before the Rochester and Strood by-election. Let me on the European arrest warrant. When we saw the give way to the Home Secretary so that she can do this. motion on Thursday and Friday last week, I specifically [HON.MEMBERS: “Come on!”] She has not done so, and wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for clarity, because that is really disappointing. Let me give her one further it was utterly baffling to us. opportunity to do so, because it is a huge concern for this House if we do not have the opportunity to put the Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) rose— European arrest warrant beyond legal doubt—we know the mischief lawyers will make through judicial reviews. Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let us have a chance to give a strong signal that we support all 35 measures, not just the 11 that appear on Mr Speaker: Before I allow the intervention of the the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home hon. Member for North East Somerset, we have a point Secretary saying from a sedentary position that we will of order. do that by voting for this motion, because Mr Speaker has said that it is not a vote on the European arrest Chris Bryant: “Erskine May” says that if a Member warrant. We are therefore acting on advice from the prays in aid a document, they must be prepared to House. I urge the Home Secretary again to stand up submit it to the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich and say that she will withdraw this motion and give us (Ben Gummer) prayed in aid documents that apparently the opportunity to vote on the full 35. I will let her came from the Government Whips. Surely they should do so. be made available to the House. Mrs May indicated dissent. Mr Speaker: It is not as simple as that. The ruling refers to state papers, and I do not honestly think that Yvette Cooper: I have to tell the Home Secretary that some document circulated clandestinely or otherwise as this puts the House in an extremely difficult position. a result of the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government She has effectively said that Ministers are just going to Whips Office necessarily constitutes a state paper. It is make it up. The Speaker has been very clear that this probably just some piece of advice or other material motion does not include a vote on the European arrest being lobbed around the Chamber. It does not have a warrant. The right hon. Lady has said that she is going hallowed status. to reinterpret this in any way she chooses. That is an irresponsible way in which to treat this House. If she Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. brings this motion back tomorrow, with all 35 measures I think state papers would normally include anything included, we will support it. We will work with the prepared by a civil servant for a Government Minister. I business managers, we will support it, we will vote for it. am sure that the papers to which the hon. Member for Then there would be no doubt that we had categorical Ipswich referred were such. support for all 35 measures. The Home Secretary should do that tomorrow. We will get it through—there is Mr Speaker: I have not seen the document in question, plenty of time. Will she do that tomorrow? although it may be presented at some point. At this If the Home Secretary will not do that tomorrow, she stage, all I am saying is that it is not obvious to me that a is playing fast and loose with the criminal justice system state paper is at stake or that the hon. Gentleman has and fast and loose with this Parliament. On that basis, 1245 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1246

Mr Speaker, I think we need further debate now, and to put, to have an opportunity, in an orderly way, to make return to the issue tomorrow. We have loads of time her case. Let me now hear what I hope will be an orderly tomorrow. There is plenty of time for the Home Secretary account. to do this tomorrow. We could get it all in place. On that basis, I move that the Question be not now put. Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on what matters are relevant to the speech Mr Speaker: Order. The question is, that the Question that can be made in relation to the question that has be not now put. As the Previous Question is an unusual now been put. procedure, addressed on page 404 of “Erskine May”, I The motion is about whether or not we should vote ought to explain the effect of so deciding. I should on the regulations that are before the House today. As I perhaps first make the point that the question is debatable. have made very clear, we put those regulations before If the previous question is agreed to, the draft regulations the House today because of the timetable with which will not be further considered at this sitting. If the we are dealing in relation to ensuring that we are able to previous question is negatived, the Chair will be required opt back in to the measures that we need to opt back in to put the question on the draft regulations straight to by the requisite date—1 December—if we are to away, with no further debate. Only if the previous ensure that there is no operational gap. question is withdrawn can the House continue to debate the regulations. As usual, withdrawing the previous Sir William Cash: As my right hon. Friend will know, question would require the unanimous assent of the the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all House. I repeat, for the sake of clarity and the benefit of these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of Members, that the question is, that the Question be not events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is now put. provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and Hon. Members: Aye. amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is Mrs May rose— my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote Mr Speaker: Order. Before I put the Question, I want on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile to hear from the Home Secretary. what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although your clarification meant that it was now possible for several Select Committees have said that there should speeches to be made in relation to the question that has be? now been proposed, which is that the question should not now be put. In that case, I am very happy to speak, Mr Speaker: I would have called the hon. Gentleman and other Members may wish to do so as well. to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Mr Speaker: Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of Home Secretary. doubt, that that is perfectly orderly. I did say that the Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. question was debatable. No Member appeared to be standing, and Members seemed to be expressing a will As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. to reach a decision by making their voices heard. However, Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as the Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to speak on the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and matter, and she will now do so. his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, 7.1 pm including the European arrest warrant. However, I have Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract legislative process that would be put in place. There is and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) appears to have been no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put getting herself into quite a state about this particular in place for us to remain party to the European arrest issue. I am very happy to explain the position to the warrant. House again, very clearly. It is very simple. There is a timetable that we must follow if we are to ensure that we Sir William Cash: I must point out, with great respect, can opt back in to measures by 1 December— that what my right hon. Friend is saying is, “We will go by prerogative.” That smacks of everything that is in Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. direct contradiction to the evolving democracy of the The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable House of Commons. The fact is that it was the prerogative is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather that was displaced by parliamentary change and reform. than the merits of what we have previously been debating. What she is saying is that, on this particular matter, she will decide on behalf of the Government without regard Mr Speaker: I think that the context is germane to to what Parliament has to say, and that is unacceptable. the question of whether the motion be approved, or not approved, as the case may be. I therefore think that an Mrs May: I am not saying that. I suggest to my excessively narrow interpretation would be wrong. I hon. Friend that I have been very clear about this think it only right for the Home Secretary, if she wants matter. The Government have negotiated with the European to speak to the Question that the Question be not now Commission, and with other member states, a package 1247 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1248

[Mrs May] of course, in any individual case it is up to the independent police and prosecution services to choose what to do, if of measures for us to opt back in to. We believe that we were not in the European arrest warrant it would, as those law and order measures are necessary for ensuring she has indicated, be harder for us to extradite people that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that who had committed offences in Northern Ireland and they need to catch criminals and to deal with matters of who were now in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister justice, which is why we have put before the House for Justice in the Republic of Ireland has been very clear legislative measures that will enable United Kingdom that if there is any operational gap at all between being law to accord with that package of 35 measures. in the European arrest warrant and opting back in to it, which there would be if we reject the package of measures, Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): that would have serious consequences because it would The Home Secretary has dug herself into a hole. She be assumed that the arrangements currently in place will not allow the House to decide on the very important would no longer be extant. issue of the European arrest warrant. Why does she not simply support the procedural motion so that she can Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary confirm that go away, have a think, and then come back and allow there is time tomorrow to debate this, and we would the House to vote on whether it wants to enter into the then be able to vote on the whole package of 35 measures, European arrest warrant or not? support all of them and have no operational gap by 1 December? Will she confirm there is time to do this Mrs May: The House said absolutely clearly that it tomorrow? wanted to debate the European arrest warrant, and we have been debating the European arrest warrant. I am Mrs May: If the right hon. Lady is concerned about very happy to speak about the issue, and I am sure that the operational gap, she is perfectly able to vote for the other Members wish to speak about it as well. I understand regulations we have put before the House tonight. She that, if the Question put by the right hon. Member for talks about wanting to have time for debate. I say to her Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is agreed to, the that we had time for debate and what has happened is debate will be ended in relation to the European arrest she has raised another motion that is interrupting that warrant, and the debate will be ended in relation to the time for debate. regulations. Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Several hon. Members rose— this is an example of game-playing by the Labour party on a crucial matter of law and order and the national Mr Speaker: Order. May I say something for the sake security of this country? Opposition Members stand up of clarity? I do not dissent from what the Home Secretary and say at length how they want to debate this matter, has just said, but what I said, quite specifically, was that how they want to extend the debate and how they want if the previous question were agreed to, the draft regulations to cover every angle of it, and then they use an arcane would not be further considered at this sitting. I did not procedure, for which we have to look up the precedents say, and I am not contending, that debate on these in “Erskine May”, to curtail the debate, and they do so matters will be over for good. I am simply saying that with a view only to obstruct the proper business of this the debate on the regulations would be over for today. It House, against the interests of justice and law and would of course be open to the House, which is in order. control of these matters, to have that debate on a subsequent day if it wished. Mrs May: I say to my hon. Friend— Lady Hermon: May I take this opportunity to remind Members on both sides of the House that we in Northern Pete Wishart claimed to move the closure (Standing Ireland face an unusual threat? [Interruption.] May I Order No. 36). ask Opposition Front Benchers to keep quiet for a moment? Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can do so, but it is The situation in Northern Ireland is very serious. for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, no other debate is Dissident republicans—the Real IRA, or whatever they required, as has politely been suggested from a sedentary want to call themselves—hide beyond the border in the position. It is for the Chair to decide whether to accept Republic of Ireland. They come into Northern Ireland, what is effectively a closure motion, and the answer to and they murder people. We had a prison officer murdered the hon. Gentleman is that at this rather early stage in two years ago, on 1 November. If his widow and his debating these particular matters—the previous question—I family were aware that we are jeopardising the possibility do not accept the closure motion. We are in the middle of these measures coming into force, they would be of a speech by the Home Secretary and there may be deeply concerned, as I am. Let me say to Members on other contributions. A former senior Cabinet Minister both sides of the House that we must make absolutely wishes to contribute and possibly other Members, so I sure that there is no time gap between these measures, would take a view on that matter in due course, but not which we have all agreed that we support, and the now. debate in the House. Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mrs May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting that out so clearly, and she is obviously deeply concerned Mr Redwood: Will the Home Secretary give way? about that point. She intervened on me earlier in relation to a particular case, and I would add to that that while, Mrs May: I give way to my right hon. Friend. 1249 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1250

Mr Redwood: As I understand it, if the Government how many hon. and right hon. Members will have been defeat the Opposition motion there will be no further prevented from contributing to the substantive debate debate, which would frustrate debate on a very important we were having before the shadow Home Secretary matter on which the Government wish to have more moved her motion? time. In that event, will the Home Secretary make more time available if colleagues are going to help her vote Mr Speaker: The answer is that a considerable number down the Opposition motion? of Members have applied to speak in this debate. If memory serves, approximately 20, possibly slightly more, Mrs May: I did not move this motion that the Question wished to speak in the debate as a whole, not in the should not now be put. I was very happy for this debate debate on the previous question—obviously I have had to carry on this evening, because there are hon. and no written applications on that, because it has only just right hon. Members of this House who wish to contribute been introduced. On the overall debate today, I had to it. The right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary approximately 20 requests to speak. If those Members has taken the decision that she wishes possibly to curtail do not have the opportunity to do so, they will be the debate that takes place in this House today on this denied the opportunity today, but they would not, of matter. We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm— course, be denied the opportunity subsequently.

Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): Will my right Mrs May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I make the point hon. Friend give way? to the shadow Home Secretary that if she says she supports— Mrs May: I will do in just one moment. Sir Edward Leigh rose— We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm, after we had had the urgent question following questions. There rose— was a good length of time available, in which hon. Yvette Cooper Members, with the degree of latitude you indicated you would give them, Mr Speaker, in relation to the motion Mrs May: Yes, I did say I would give way to my hon. on the regulations, would have been able to debate Friend, and then I will give way to the right hon. Lady. matters that were not just the measures in those regulations. We then went into a business motion debate, which Sir Edward Leigh: On the point the Home Secretary took a considerable time. We have now got into the debate has just made on the importance of debate and the proper on the regulations, but what we have seen— point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), as I understand the procedure, now that we are debating this motion there will be no Sir Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way further debate regardless of the result of the vote we are on that point? about to have. Am I right in thinking that? Mrs May: My hon. Friends are queuing up to intervene, Mrs May: I hesitate to give an absolute ruling, because so I ask my hon. Friend to wait. Mr Speaker has, of course, made it absolutely clear What we have now seen is a deliberate attempt by the what would happen, but the Question is that the matter Opposition to change the terms of this debate and to be not now put and, as I understand it, if that motion is stop the debate taking place, and I have to say to the passed, the draft regulations will not be put to this right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary that she House. We have been very clear about the timetable we says she supports the regulations and she says she need in order to address this matter. supports the Government on what we wish to do, and in that case she should allow the debate to take place and Sir Edward Leigh: We are in quite a serious position vote on the regulations. now. This is a very important matter and it looks as if, whatever happens in the vote in a few minutes’ time, Margot James: I am very concerned that these measures there will be no further debate today.I beg the Government: have a deadline, which is beyond this House’s control, this is an important issue and we can come back tomorrow. of 3 December, by which time we have to opt in. We We can just set aside time, have a proper motion, and have a recess coming up on Wednesday, and I do not vote on the European arrest warrant. That is the clear, share the confidence of the shadow Home Secretary simple, honourable and direct way of proceeding. that the Government could find time for a debate tomorrow. The House starts sitting late tomorrow—at Mrs May: I say to my hon. Friend, as I have been lunchtime—so we have minimal time then. We have saying throughout the debates on the various motions almost three hours left to us to debate these important tonight, that the Government have been very clear matters this evening, however. Does my right hon. about why they have brought the regulations forward in Friend agree that we need to take all of that time to the form they have done in relation to UK legislation, debate the substantial motion? but we are also very clear that if this House votes in favour of the regulations, then it is endorsing the package Mrs May rose— of measures the Government have brought forward to ensure we can maintain the ability of our law enforcement Sir Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is agencies to deal with matters they need to deal with. it in order for the House to ask you to say how many hon. and right hon. Members have written to you Yvette Cooper: So determined are we that the House asking whether they might catch your eye in this debate, should be able to debate and pass these regulations and so that if this motion is agreed the House will know the rest of the 35 measures that we will not jeopardise 1251 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1252

[Yvette Cooper] Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I am mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend has those regulations. We want to have a vote tomorrow. stressed the importance of the timetable—[Interruption.] The business managers can agree, and will agree, to I slipped out of the Chamber for one cup of tea; have a debate and vote on all the measures tomorrow. If otherwise, I have been here for the duration of the debate. not, the Home Secretary can have our Opposition day I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West debate in order to do it then, so there is no gap and we (John Robertson) will withdraw that remark. Will the can get all these measures voted on in this House. Home Secretary explain what difference it would make if we postponed the debate from today to tomorrow or Mrs May: The right hon. Lady doth protest too next week, given that we were promised a debate and a much. If she wishes to have a debate and to vote on the vote on these matters by 20 November? regulations, that option is open to her tonight. However, she has chosen to play politics with the matter and tried Mrs May: My hon. Friend puts it very well. We said to curtail the debate. As we have heard from the Speaker’s that we would bring this debate to the House and enable answer to the point of order raised by my right hon. a vote to take place according to a particular timetable, Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), a and we have done so. We have introduced the measures significant number of Members have indicated that in the form of regulations because these are the only they wish to speak in the debate on the regulations. The ones that require transposing into UK legislation. It is Speaker has granted latitude regarding the subjects that absolutely clear what the legislative approach would be. Members may speak about, and we are able to debate I think that Members would be unwilling to accept any the European arrest warrant and other matters that are decision by the Government not to introduce the regulations not in the regulations. or not to show Members before the 1 December cut-off It is open to the House to have that debate but, sadly, date what those regulations would look like. the right hon. Lady has chosen to take a step that could I have not been in this House for quite as long as curtail the debate and ensure that the regulations are some right hon. and hon. Members but it is clear to me not put before the House, in which case it would not be that all hon. Members wanted an opportunity to stand possible for Members to have their say on these important up and put their arguments on a variety of matters, matters. She and I agree on the importance of these including the European arrest warrant. That option was matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough open to Members tonight, but the shadow Home Secretary (Sir Edward Leigh) and I might disagree on how some is saying that she wants to forget about the timetable of them should be finalised and on whether we should and about our need to put the regulations before the be party to the measures, but I am clear that, at this House. Instead, she seems to be saying that the Government point, the House of Commons has an opportunity to should not have brought the debate to the House, debate and vote on measures that relate to law and because she does not happen to think we have done it in order in this country. These are important decisions for the way she wanted. Well, that is not a position that I the House to make, and I have clarified for the House am willing to accept. I have made it clear why the the exact form of the regulations. regulations have been brought forward and why we feel it necessary to do so. We have debated the European Geraint Davies: Is the Home Secretary saying that, if arrest warrant and, had she not moved her motion, the House votes to terminate this debate today, she will other Members would have been able to debate it as refuse to have a further debate on the European arrest well. Her motion is not an attempt to ensure that the warrant and the statutory instruments—[Interruption.] House has a proper debate. It is not an attempt to I know she is saying that we can debate the matters now, ensure that the House votes on these important measures. but is she saying that if we vote not to do so, she would It is just an attempt to take away— refuse to have any further debate on them? Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mrs May: I have made it absolutely clear that we have the motion smacks of political opportunism on the part had an opportunity to debate these matters today. Ample of the Opposition? Does she also agree that it is ironic, time has been set aside for the debate. The point of the or perhaps just odd, for them to be talking about voting business motion on which we voted earlier was to ensure on this matter given that we are in this position as a that we could have a lengthier debate, rather than the result of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government hour and a half that would normally be set aside to negotiated so ineptly and negligently? In the light of the debate such regulations. The Government have given incompetence of the previous Labour Government and time to Members to make their points and contribute to of the current Labour Opposition, one might almost the debate before voting on the regulations. We have think that they were leaderless. been clear about our position on the regulations, but the shadow Home Secretary is now suggesting that she wishes to curtail that debate. The opportunity was there Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us for hon. Members. of the difficulties that the Labour party is having with This is an important matter, on which different views its leadership. I will make no further comment— are held. I have made it clear why we have brought [Interruption.] He tempts me to comment on why the forward the regulations and why we should debate and shadow Home Secretary has been intervening in the vote on them now. We need to make these decisions in debate in certain ways this evening, but I will not do so. order to inform the European Commission and other He has made an important point. member states and to enable the Council to take a Earlier, I asked the right hon. Lady who had negotiated decision, to ensure that there is no operational gap on the opt-out, opt-in arrangements in the Lisbon treaty. 1 December. She was unwilling to answer the question, because it 1253 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1254 followed on from her complaining about the inadequacies at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown of those arrangements. Those inadequate arrangements areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench were negotiated and introduced by her own Government, spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious of whom she was a Cabinet member. She refused to debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to accept that point, however. She will not accept any come. suggestion that we are now having to deal with these I sympathise with the shadow Home Secretary’s position; opt-out, opt-in arrangements as a direct result of the indeed, I agree with her on quite a lot of things. Her Labour Government’s negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. problem is that she is leading for the Opposition when This situation is not a result of the way in which this in policy terms she agrees with absolutely everything Government have been dealing with these matters. I the Home Secretary is proposing, and so do I. I congratulate have made it clear that we should have been able to the shadow Home Secretary on her responsible approach continue the debate tonight. It is quite wrong for the to the subject. Everybody in this country responsible for right hon. Lady to have introduced the new motion and the fight against crime and for the criminal justice I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will vote system, and wanting to protect the public, is in favour of against it. this opt-in. I am even more closely aligned with her than with some of my colleagues. I voted with her on the 7.29 pm Maastricht treaty. I also voted with her on the Lisbon Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con): May I ask the treaty, which paved the way for these international shadow Home Secretary to reconsider the rather agreements being reached. That has enabled us to be so extraordinary step she has taken of presenting this much more effective than we used to be in dealing with archaic motion and, indeed, ask the House to consider international criminal fugitives, who not only thrived quite where we are getting to on this issue? Nobody on the Costa del Sol but were very present in London enjoys a good procedural row in the House of Commons when they fled to this country before we steadily began as much as I do, and this is one of the best we have had to develop today’s arrangements. for many years. It is perfectly straightforward—people The shadow Home Secretary has, however, got absolutely are entitled to do this if they wish—but the House ought no arguments against the Government’s proposals on to reflect on what impression this is going to give to the the merits. She is therefore making a mountain out of a outside world if we are not careful. We are discussing molehill of a parliamentary procedural thing, which she serious matters, yet we are all frolicking about in a thinks serves her purpose. Of course she is also enjoying rather schoolboy manner while the Whips try to get herself, which I quite understand in ordinary party people to come back for an unexpected debate early in political terms. She is allying herself with my right hon. the evening. Let us be candid about what is happening. and hon. Friends who profoundly disagree with her and Some 20 or 30 years ago, this sort of thing was quite with the Home Secretary, and who are totally opposed excusable, and people just thought it was one of the things to me in my support for these criminal justice measures. this House did, usually at bizarre hours of the night. The alliance between the shadow Home Secretary and Nowadays, that is not the mood out there and we have some of the most dyed in the wool Eurosceptics in this to be careful that we do not feed the thoughts of those House is a very unlikely one, but I go back to where I who do not have a very high regard for parliamentary started. debate and for party politics, and who believed they were told to expect, as every Member of Parliament Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Gentleman expected, that we were going to spend an evening having knows that I agree with him on many issues relating to a serious discussion on how we organise our policing the European Union, but I gently suggest to him that and criminal justice system to deal with the extremely good Europeans like us need to understand that we important and growing problem of international and have to carry the country with us. That requires proper cross-border crime. If the whole thing collapses in time processes in this House, not chicanery and not a proxy for everybody to go and have a good dinner in the early motion; we need a proper motion on the Order Paper, evening, that will not rise to the expectations of serious which is why every Committee that has considered this members of the public who expect us to have a proper matter—the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice debate. Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee— decided that there should be a separate motion. That is Steve Baker: I disagree with my right hon. and learned all we are calling for. Friend profoundly. I came into politics only because I was sick of the state of it, yet tonight I see the House of Mr Clarke: I hope my opening remarks made it quite Commons alive. We have the opportunity to find out clear that the one thing I am not going to do is get whether the Government are even asking the right drawn back into this entertaining procedural debate we questions. Surely he can see that this is about Parliament had earlier on. It seems to me as plain as a pikestaff that seizing back the initiative and reconnecting representatives if we have a vote at 10 pm on what is apparently on the with the public, who are so upset, largely because of the Order Paper, the Government will be bound either to incompetence of the Labour party. proceed with the opt-in to 35 measures or not to proceed with the opt-in to any of them. I repeat that the public Mr Clarke: I have every respect for the strongly held are expecting the House of Commons to debate this views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my seriously. It may be that there are not enough Members side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, of Parliament against it and there are not enough but I think we would win back the respect of the public arguments against it to delay us much longer, but I do if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we not think that is the case. Some very respectable Government bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, Members are going to oppose it—if they ever get the most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber chance. 1255 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1256

[Mr Kenneth Clarke] they would be fire-proofed against judicial challenge and whether, if we do not pass a motion explicitly One way or another, this argument about whether or opting into all of them, there is any area of ambiguity not the strict requirements of parliamentary procedure— left that could be exploited by their opponents. It is allowing everybody to get wildly indignant about what perfectly clear from the debates that we have already we all know is synthetic anger at the way the procedures had that the vast majority of Members are strongly in have been brought forward—is not a wise way of support not only of the motion before us tonight but of proceeding. One thing that unites most Members so far, what could have been a wider motion to opt into all the all the way from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone elements—[Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip (Sir William Cash) to me, is that we think these are seeks to intervene from a sedentary position. I know serious issues, and to break down now in an atmosphere that it would be improper for her to stand up and do so, of such trivial argument will be a triumph for the UKIP but we are living in interesting times and debating but something that all of us ought to regret. unusual things, so perhaps she would like to speak as well. 7.36 pm Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) indicated dissent. Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): It is always a privilege to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member Damian Green: Sadly not. There is a serious point for for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with whom I disagree on only the Government to address. Given the passions that one thing: his statement that he enjoys procedural rows have been aroused and the novel constitutional and more than anyone else. The attendance in the House at procedural territory into which we have now gone, it the moment suggests that procedural matters can unite would be particularly bad if the House went through all the House in ways that, weirdly, the serious matters we of this, presumably passed this motion and came back thought we were discussing today appear not to have done on another day to do it again, and then discovered that early on. I speak in the same terms as he has: in the some of this could be challenged or even overturned in context of strong support for the measures the Government the courts at a later date. Assuming that this debate are putting forward today and for the whole of the follows the normal course and there are winding-up 35 measures, which is shared by the official Opposition. speeches, I would be grateful if the Minister could On the shadow Home Secretary’s motion that debate address that issue. be curtailed—that the Question be not put—it is important that some issues that have not yet arisen be discussed before the House decides whether or not to support it. 7.42 pm Never having been here for this sort of debate before, I Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): In a fit of confess that I am not clear whether there is a winding-up enthusiasm earlier this evening, I voted with the right speech from the Government. I see, Mr Speaker, that it hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford may not be entirely clear whether or not there is a (Yvette Cooper) and the Labour party along with a winding-up speech—I shall take silence to indicate assent. rather distinguished collection of rebels from at least If there is a Government winding-up speech, I would be two diametrically opposed positions on Europe and grateful if the Minister could address the point that has from at least four different political parties. That was not come up yet: the attitude of the courts to the because we all shared her frustration at the outcome of motion that we pass. the procedural shenanigans that have landed us in this The point has been made by Members on both sides situation in which we are voting on only 11 of the of this House that the motion before us tonight only 35 justice and home affairs measures, and not specifically commits us to legislating on a certain number of the the European arrest warrant, which is the very one that 35 issues. Clearly, that will be a decision for the courts—the we all wanted to debate and vote on. Now, the right courts will enforce that. In the controversy, particularly hon. Lady has got a bit carried away. I cannot see any about the European arrest warrant, there must clearly earthly reason, however frustrated we all are with the be the possibility of legal challenge at some stage, situation, for not voting on the 11 that we all agree on. perhaps through an application for judicial review. There There is no logic to that whatever. What justification is is always the prospect that what a Minister says at the there for not voting on co-operation between asset Dispatch Box is taken as the intention of the Government recovery offices of the member states in the field of of the day and has some weight with the court, but tracing the proceeds of crime? That is something on clearly it has much less weight than if this House had which we all agree. passed a legislative motion. I speak with some experience, and with some scars on Yvette Cooper rose— my back. As Immigration Minister, I was advised by Government lawyers that if we had a debatable motion Martin Horwood: I am making only a brief speech, and said things from the Dispatch Box in the House of but I will happily give way. Commons, that would entail the courts acting in a certain way on asylum appeals. As it turned out, that Yvette Cooper: Let me clarify this matter for the hon. was not an effective way to make the immigration and Gentleman. We think we should vote in support not asylum courts change how they operate. Subsequently, just of these 11 measures but of all 35 so that we have a the Home Secretary wisely put through primary legislation vote from this House that puts it all beyond legal doubt, to allow that to happen. and we should do so tomorrow. We will work with him That experience is analogous to the current situation. and the Government Front Bench to make that happen. Strong supporter as I am of all the motions that the The Government can have our Opposition day debate if Government wish to opt back into, I wish to know whether they do not want to do it tomorrow. 1257 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1258

Martin Horwood: There is actually nothing to stop Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con): The the Opposition using their Opposition day debate for a seriousness of the case to which my hon. Friend refers further indicative vote on the European arrest warrant. in his excellent speech will be listened to by his constituent I would entirely support the right hon. Lady if that is and his constituent’s family. Does that not show that the the motion she chose to bring to the House. However, voters who send us here do not want us to get involved that does not justify not voting on the statutory instrument in procedural shenanigans in the House of Commons? that is required by the deadline of 1 December, and They would rather we have a proper debate and allow voting on it tonight. I am afraid that she is trying to sow Members to raise constituency cases as my hon. Friend more procedural confusion and the Home Office has is trying to do. already provided us with enough of that for one night, so I will not be supporting her in this Division. Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is quite right, but this case gets a lot worse. This man was then held in a Madrid prison while an appeal against his extradition 7.44 pm was submitted. The Foreign Office sent a letter to the Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con): Whatever Spanish authorities saying that, unless the Romanians the outcome of the Divisions tonight, I think it would were willing to ensure that a retrial took place, they be helpful for the House to know what happened to my should decline Romania’s request to have him extradited. constituent whom I visited in Wandsworth prison. I was No such assurance was given, but on 14 May 2007 he appalled not only by how horrible prison is but by the was taken back to Bucharest where he spent a further miscarriage of justice experienced by my constituent. 21 months in prison, enduring horrendous conditions In Romania, my constituent gave the equivalent of which fell considerably short of the minimum required £2 to a young beggar. Two policemen immediately by members of the EU. Most importantly, the Spanish accused him of having sex with this boy, arrested him constitutional court, following the Foreign Office request, and took him to a cash point machine where he refused upheld the appeal against extradition— to pay them off as he had done nothing wrong. The prosecution was based on a witness who gave contradictory Mr Speaker: Order. These are matters of judgment statements, and the policemen and the beggar were and degree, and I have been listening carefully to the never seen or heard from again. My constituent was hon. Gentleman. In the debate on whether the question arrested on 11 August and was released from Romanian be not now put, it is perfectly reasonable for Members prison on 3 November 2004 by a judge who recorded on either side of the argument to put their case with that there was no evidence against him and that the reference to matters that they think either do or do not original arrest warrant was illegal. require immediate resolution by the House. Where the hon. Gentleman strays somewhat beyond the legitimate My constituent returned home to the UK later in parameters of this debate is when he starts to go into November, following direct advice from the then consul great detail, which he is now doing, of the particulars of at our embassy.He refused to give money to his interpreter’s the matter of the EAW or some other policy matter. friends to make his files disappear, and so without That he should not do, and I am clear in my mind, upon either his knowledge, or that of the British embassy receipt of suitable advice, that it would be unwise—I in Bucharest, he was tried and convicted in absentia— know the hon. Gentleman applied to me to speak in the illegally—in 2005. An appeal followed, which led to main debate—for him simply to read out the speech another trial, of which neither he nor the British embassy that he would otherwise have made as though the were made aware. It was only on 3 March 2007, when he motion moved by the shadow Home Secretary had not received an e-mail from the Romanian desk of the been moved. The hon. Gentleman might not have wanted Foreign Office that he first heard news of these events. it to be moved, but it has been moved, and he needs to It said: display—dare I say it—a deftness of touch and an “I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you.” adaptability in terms of footwork. It told him that the Romanian Ministry of Justice had noted that Bill Wiggin: I am most grateful for your guidance, “you were sentenced to 7 years with…approximately £1,000 fine Mr Speaker. I have been at pains to avoid mentioning in moral damages and…approximately £140 for court expenses; anything that might fall outside the motion—[Interruption.] your appeal against the above decision was made at the Bucharest Tribunal, the result was that your sentence was reduced to 4 years; Pete Wishart claimed to move the closure (Standing this sentence was then open to appeal by the Prosecutor’s Office…and Order No. 36). the initial sentence of 7 years was re-set. As far as we are aware, you will not be extradited but will have to pay the damages if the minor involved employs a lawyer to track you down.” Mr Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is very difficult to interpret the precise will of Although the first my constituent knew of these the House on these matters without notice. I am alert to developments was on 3 March 2007, our embassy in the argument for closure, which is what he is seeking, Bucharest had been working to find out such information, but several other Members have been standing— without any success, for more than two years since the [Interruption.] Order. Therefore, I am quite open to the initial trial held in absentia. case for closure after a reasonable interval, but I would On 5 March 2007, just two days later, my constituent like to see whether, when the hon. Member for North was arrested at work in Tenerife, on an European arrest Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has concluded his speech— warrant, to serve the sentence in Romania, without any before it becomes even more disorderly—there are other promise of a retrial. He had never been given any hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. If there are, opportunity to speak or give evidence in his own defence and if my assessment is that they are likely to want to and was given no promise that he ever would. make orderly speeches, I might wish to hear them. If the 1259 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1260

[Mr Speaker] Nick de Bois: My right hon. Friend makes an entirely important point. The House might be interested to hon. Gentleman is hopeful that closure might be accepted know that my constituent Andrew Symeou, who languished before too long has passed—I leave the House to consider in jail for 11 months and was not served well by the what constitutes “too long”—he may not be disappointed. European arrest warrant, has just tweeted to say that today Bill Wiggin: I am sorry that I read some of my “should be about preventing injustice and protecting British speech, Mr Speaker, and will leave it there so that you citizens, not be used as a political football!” will not feel that I have strayed again. My purpose in The debate should be heard. speaking in this debate is that, as you have ruled that we are not debating something that we wanted to debate, I Mr Davis: My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely wanted the Home Secretary to hear of the specific right. There are many cases of British citizens, such as injustices suffered by my constituent. I would have been Andrew Symeou, Deborah Dark and Colin Dines, being able to read those out, but now I will not. Luckily for badly mistreated. It is not just British citizens, because the House, I will not take a great deal more time. My the leading criminal lawyers in 11 other countries have constituent was told that he was not going to be extradited, complained about this procedure in previous years. It is but he was extradited on the day that the Spanish court a very serious issue. This House, above all others, should decided that it would not allow that. I think that we have been in a position to debate it at some length, need to be allowed to continue this debate— rather than being faced with this awful choice between accepting the Government’s business untouched and Mr Speaker: Order. Ignoring the instruction of the forgoing the debate altogether in the fond hope of Chair does not cease to be ignoring the instruction of having it another day. the Chair just because it is done politely and with a Jacob Rees-Mogg: If we accept the motion proposed charming smile. I think that the hon. Gentleman is by the shadow Home Secretary, we will not forgo the concluding his speech—his peroration is being reached, debate; we will be allowed a full debate and the Home and may ever have been concluded. Secretary will be able to return with a proper motion on the European arrest warrant. The shadow Home Secretary’s Bill Wiggin: Not quite. motion is much to be commended.

Mr Speaker: But very nearly. Mr Davis: I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend—I very rarely do. I would have liked to have had Bill Wiggin: Therefore, I hope that we will not rush to a full-blooded debate with several motions on each vote on this important matter, because there are serious component, or at least packages of components of this cases. My constituent did not get legal aid to allow him so-called package, but that was not available to us to clear his name. Until we get the justice element right, today, and there is no guarantee that we will get it if the we should not allow debates such as this to be curtailed Opposition’s motion succeeds. too speedily. Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no guarantee, should the Opposition’s 7.52 pm motion be carried, that we would get the proper debate that so many people are demanding, but the Government, Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): having behaved pretty shamefully today, will be facing Perhaps it is entirely appropriate that I should follow a huge embarrassment if they do not give in to the clear Member who has been disorderly, given the nature of will of the House, which is that there should be more the House all day—in many ways this is the most time for debate. I urge him to support the shadow disorderly I have seen it in 20 years. However, in one Home Secretary. respect he demonstrated a really important point: he gave us an example of what we should have been Mr Davis: I am afraid that—I will explain why in a debating had this parliamentary gambit not been attempted. moment—I am not in the business of casting something What we have seen today is a very clever parliamentary on the waters and hoping that it comes back. If I hear gambit by Labour Front Benchers, but it is acutely from both Front Benches that they have agreed to meet undemocratic. It has denied Back Benchers on both all day tomorrow to go through this business again, I sides the opportunity to debate one of the most contentious will change my view, but I will not take a chance with issues to come before the House for some time. something quite so invidious as this. Let us remember My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for what we are talking about: taking British citizens, with Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I have completely different no prima facie evidence, and sending them off to courts views on how this should proceed: he believes that this elsewhere in Europe. What we have been asked to measure is entirely necessary for the delivery of law and debate assumes that those courts all deliver equal justice. order, and I believe that it is pernicious to law and Romania does not deliver equal justice. Nor does Bulgaria, order. I take the view that the first duty of this House is Greece or Italy. Some of them have post-Soviet justice ensuring justice for subjects of the British Crown. What systems to which we are sending our constituents. it has done, in fact, is allow a number of people, What is so anti-democratic about the Opposition’s including the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member proposal is that it would deny many Members who had for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), to suffer a intended to speak today the opportunity to do so, and miscarriage of justice and then have it arbitrated on in that is a tragedy, because this House’s first responsibility, what could be termed a parody of a justice system in as I have said, is the delivery of justice for our constituents. courts outside the United Kingdom. We will not have the opportunity to discuss the alternatives, 1261 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1262 such as having a multiple-negotiated outcome, rather our democracy or that it was bad for this debate. Not a than the European arrest warrant. We will not be able bit of it. Of course the substantive Question is a matter to talk about the other implications of Europol and of the first importance to justice, security, our international Eurojust for the actions of the European Court and the relations, our constitution and the democratic control ability of the Home Secretary to pass laws that protect of power. us. All in all, I think that this is a very unfortunate In a moment we will have a chance to answer the outcome for Parliament today—a very clever parliamentary question, “Are the Government asking the House the trick, but very poor democracy. right questions?” I urge everybody to vote Aye and send the Government back to reformulate the question, come Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con): Does my back to the House and ask us the right questions about right hon. Friend agree that it is not only those Members matters of the most grave importance. The motion—the who wished to speak tonight who have been cheated, previous Question—is not a motion to destroy our but those who, like me, wished to listen to the arguments democracy; it is a motion to save it, and I commend it to on both sides? the House.

Mr Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will hear Mr Speaker: As the previous Question is an unusual some of us attempting to stay in order—desperately, procedure, I think I ought to repeat to the House the Mr Speaker—while making those arguments, but he effect of this motion, because several Members have will be unable to vote explicitly on them; he will have to come up to me, quite understandably in this unusual vote on whether we have a vote on another day or we situation, somewhat uncertain about what is at stake close down the debate today.That is not the way Parliament and what the implications of a particular course of is designed to work. I am afraid, therefore, that this is a action are. Let me try to help. travesty of democracy. If the previous Question—that is, the motion put by the shadow Home Secretary at, if memory serves me Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I correctly, 7.1 pm is agreed to—the draft regulations thank my right hon. Friend for making his comments. introduced by the Home Secretary will not be further Would not the solution be for the Government to make considered at this sitting. That is to say, they will not be it clear from the Dispatch Box that they will make time further considered tonight. If the previous Question is available to allow us to discuss the issue properly, as the negatived—that is, the right hon. Lady’s motion is country wants and as Parliament wants, and then we defeated—the Chair would be required to put the Question can move on? It is within their scope to do that now. on the draft regulations straight away, without any further debate. Mr Davis: It is, of course, within their scope, and I was very tempted at the beginning of the exercise to Lastly, before I put the Question, I can say to the suggest to the Home Secretary that she shoots the House, with reference to an inquiry at a very senior level Opposition’s fox—that she says, “We’re going to have a that has just been put to me, that yes, of course, if the day’s debate tomorrow. There you are. All over.” They House wishes to debate a motion or a set of motions of would have looked stupid and we would have looked a similar or a different character, or a combination of very democratic. Sadly, that did not happen. I will not similar and different characters, tomorrow, it is perfectly vote for the proposal today. I may abstain, I may at liberty to do so. I am not saying it should do so; I am double-vote, but I am not going to vote for the proposal not saying any such thing. That is not for the Chair, but because I do not want us to leave uncovered an extremely the House would be at liberty to do so with an emergency important debate in the history of this House. business statement to explain the change of business. I hope it is clear what the implication of agreeing to 8pm the previous Question is—no further consideration of the draft regulations tonight. If the motion is rejected, John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Last the draft regulations would have to be put to the vote time the previous Question was moved, I voted for it. without any further debate. And yes, the matters can be On this occasion I will vote against it. The difficulty is treated of by the House tomorrow if colleagues wish to to work out what the Opposition feel they will achieve do so. My role is simply to facilitate the will of the from this. Although there is always an argument about House. Is that clear? the Executive lumping together lots of decision into one vote, one of the more complex questions is when the Hon. Members indicated assent. Executive are bound by a motion of the House. It was Previous Question put, That the Question be not now obvious on the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill and various put. other occasions that the Executive are not automatically bound by motions in the House. The Executive are The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 272. bound when they say they will be bound. On this Division No. 78] [8.5 pm occasion the Executive have said that they will be bound. There is therefore nothing else on that that the Opposition AYES can achieve and the motion should be withdrawn. Abbott, Ms Diane Austin, Ian Abrahams, Debbie Bacon, Mr Richard 8.1 pm Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Bailey, Mr Adrian Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): I support the previous Alexander, Heidi Bain, Mr William Question. To listen to some of the right hon. and hon. Ali, Rushanara Baker, Steve Members who have spoken, one would think that the Allen, Mr Graham Balls, rh Ed Question destroyed our democracy, that it threatened Ashworth, Jonathan Banks, Gordon 1263 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1264

Baron, Mr John Francis, Dr Hywel Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Skinner, Mr Dennis Barron, rh Kevin Gapes, Mike Morris, Anne Marie Slaughter, Mr Andy Bayley, Hugh Gardiner, Barry Morris, Grahame M. Smith, Angela Begg, Dame Anne Gilmore, Sheila (Easington) Smith, Nick Benn, rh Hilary Glass, Pat Murphy, rh Paul Smith, Owen Berger, Luciana Glindon, Mrs Mary Nandy, Lisa Spellar, rh Mr John Betts, Mr Clive Goodman, Helen Nash, Pamela Stewart, Bob Blackman-Woods, Roberta Greenwood, Lilian Nuttall, Mr David Straw, rh Mr Jack Blears, rh Hazel Griffith, Nia Onwurah, Chi Stringer, Graham Blenkinsop, Tom Hamilton, Mr David Owen, Albert Stuart, Ms Gisela Blomfield, Paul Hamilton, Fabian Pearce, Teresa Tami, Mark Bone, Mr Peter Hanson, rh Mr David Perkins, Toby Thomas, Mr Gareth Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Harris, Mr Tom Pound, Stephen Thornberry, Emily Brennan, Kevin Healey, rh John Powell, Lucy Timms, rh Stephen Bridgen, Andrew Hepburn, Mr Stephen Raab, Mr Dominic Trickett, Jon Brown, Lyn Heyes, David Redwood, rh Mr John Turner, Mr Andrew Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Hilling, Julie Reed, Mr Jamie Turner, Karl Brown, Mr Russell Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Reed, Mr Steve Twigg, Derek Bryant, Chris Hollobone, Mr Philip Rees-Mogg, Jacob Umunna, Mr Chuka Buck, Ms Karen Hopkins, Kelvin Reevell, Simon Vaz, rh Keith Burden, Richard Hosie, Stewart Reeves, Rachel Walley, Joan Burnham, rh Andy Howarth, rh Mr George Reynolds, Emma Watts, Mr Dave Byrne, rh Mr Liam James, Mrs Siân C. Reynolds, Jonathan Weir, Mr Mike Campbell, rh Mr Alan Jamieson, Cathy Ritchie, Ms Margaret Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Campbell, Mr Ronnie Jarvis, Dan Robertson, Angus Whitehead, Dr Alan Carswell, Douglas Jenkin, Mr Bernard Robertson, John Williamson, Chris Cash, Sir William Johnson, Diana Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Wilson, Phil Caton, Martin Jones, Mr Kevan Rotheram, Steve Wilson, Sammy Champion, Sarah Jones, Susan Elan Roy, Mr Frank Winnick, Mr David Chapman, Jenny Kane, Mike Ruane, Chris Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Clarke, rh Mr Tom Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Wishart, Pete Clwyd, rh Ann Keeley, Barbara Sanders, Mr Adrian Wollaston, Dr Sarah Coaker, Vernon Kelly, Chris Sarwar, Anas Woodcock, John Connarty, Michael Kendall, Liz Sawford, Andy Wright, Mr Iain Cooper, Rosie Khan, rh Sadiq Seabeck, Alison Cooper, rh Yvette Lammy, rh Mr David Shepherd, Sir Richard Tellers for the Ayes: Crausby, Mr David Lavery, Ian Sheridan, Jim Nic Dakin and Creasy, Stella Lazarowicz, Mark Shuker, Gavin Bridget Phillipson Cruddas, Jon Leigh, Sir Edward Cryer, John Leslie, Chris NOES Cunningham, Alex Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Cunningham, Mr Jim Lewis, Mr Ivan Aldous, Peter Burstow, rh Paul Curran, Margaret Lewis, Dr Julian Andrew, Stuart Burt, rh Alistair Danczuk, Simon Lilley, rh Mr Peter Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Burt, Lorely David, Wayne Love, Mr Andrew Baldry, rh Sir Tony Cairns, Alun Davies, Geraint Lucas, Ian Baldwin, Harriett Cameron, rh Mr David Davis, rh Mr David MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Barclay, Stephen Campbell, rh Sir Menzies De Piero, Gloria Mactaggart, Fiona Barker, rh Gregory Carmichael, Neil Docherty, Thomas Mahmood, Shabana Bellingham, Mr Henry Chishti, Rehman Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Main, Mrs Anne Benyon, Richard Clark, rh Greg Doran, Mr Frank Malhotra, Seema Beresford, Sir Paul Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Doughty, Stephen Mann, John Berry, Jake Clegg, rh Mr Nick Dowd, Jim Marsden, Mr Gordon Bingham, Andrew Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Doyle, Gemma McCabe, Steve Blackman, Bob Coffey, Dr Thérèse Drax, Richard McCann, Mr Michael Blackwood, Nicola Collins, Damian Dromey, Jack McCarthy, Kerry Blunt, Crispin Colvile, Oliver Dugher, Michael McDonald, Andy Boles, Nick Cox, Mr Geoffrey Durkan, Mark McDonnell, John Bottomley, Sir Peter Crabb, rh Stephen Eagle, Ms Angela McFadden, rh Mr Pat Bradley, Karen Crockart, Mike Eagle, Maria McGovern, Jim Brady, Mr Graham Crouch, Tracey Edwards, Jonathan McGuire, rh Mrs Anne Bray, Angie Davey, rh Mr Edward Efford, Clive McInnes, Liz Brazier, Mr Julian Davies, David T. C. Elliott, Julie McKechin, Ann Brine, Steve (Monmouth) Ellman, Mrs Louise McKenzie, Mr Iain Brokenshire, James Davies, Glyn Engel, Natascha McKinnell, Catherine Brooke, rh Annette Dinenage, Caroline Esterson, Bill Meale, Sir Alan Browne, Mr Jeremy Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Farrelly, Paul Miliband, rh Edward Bruce, Fiona Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Fitzpatrick, Jim Miller, Andrew Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Doyle-Price, Jackie Flello, Robert Mills, Nigel Buckland, Mr Robert Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Flint, rh Caroline Mitchell, Austin Burley, Mr Aidan Ellis, Michael Flynn, Paul Moon, Mrs Madeleine Burns, rh Mr Simon Ellison, Jane Fovargue, Yvonne Morden, Jessica Burrowes, Mr David Ellwood, Mr Tobias 1265 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1266

Elphicke, Charlie Kawczynski, Daniel Randall, rh Sir John Thornton, Mike Eustice, George Kirby, Simon Reid, Mr Alan Thurso, rh John Evans, Graham Lamb, rh Norman Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Timpson, Mr Edward Evans, Jonathan Lancaster, Mark Rogerson, Dan Tomlinson, Justin Evennett, Mr David Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Rudd, Amber Tredinnick, David Fabricant, Michael Latham, Pauline Russell, Sir Bob Truss, rh Elizabeth Fallon, rh Michael Laws, rh Mr David Rutley, David Tyrie, Mr Andrew Farron, Tim Leadsom, Andrea Sandys, Laura Uppal, Paul Field, Mark Lee, Jessica Scott, Mr Lee Vaizey, Mr Edward Foster, rh Mr Don Leech, Mr John Selous, Andrew Vara, Mr Shailesh Francois, rh Mr Mark Lefroy, Jeremy Shapps, rh Grant Vickers, Martin Freeman, George Leslie, Charlotte Sharma, Alok Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Freer, Mike Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Shelbrooke, Alec Walker, Mr Robin Fullbrook, Lorraine Lewis, Brandon Simmonds, Mark Wallace, Mr Ben Fuller, Richard Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Simpson, Mr Keith Walter, Mr Robert Gale, Sir Roger Lidington, rh Mr David Skidmore, Chris Ward, Mr David Garnier, Sir Edward Lloyd, Stephen Smith, Chloe Webb, rh Steve Garnier, Mark Lopresti, Jack Smith, Julian Wharton, James Gauke, Mr David Loughton, Tim Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Wheeler, Heather Gibb, Mr Nick Luff, Sir Peter Soubry, Anna White, Chris Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Lumley, Karen Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Whittingdale, Mr John Glen, John Macleod, Mary Spencer, Mr Mark Wiggin, Bill Goodwill, Mr Robert Maude, rh Mr Francis Stanley, rh Sir John Williams, Roger Gove, rh Michael May, rh Mrs Theresa Stephenson, Andrew Williams, Stephen Graham, Richard Maynard, Paul Stevenson, John Williamson, Gavin Grant, Mrs Helen McCartney, Jason Stewart, Iain Willott, Jenny Grayling, rh Chris McCartney, Karl Streeter, Mr Gary Wilson, Mr Rob Green, rh Damian McIntosh, Miss Anne Stride, Mel Wright, rh Jeremy Greening, rh Justine McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Stuart, Mr Graham Wright, Simon Grieve, rh Mr Dominic McPartland, Stephen Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Yeo, Mr Tim Griffiths, Andrew Menzies, Mark Sturdy, Julian Young, rh Sir George Gummer, Ben Metcalfe, Stephen Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Zahawi, Nadhim Gyimah, Mr Sam Miller, rh Maria Swinson, Jo Tellers for the Noes: Hague, rh Mr William Milton, Anne Swire, rh Mr Hugo Tom Brake and Halfon, Robert Moore, rh Michael Syms, Mr Robert Gavin Barwell Hames, Duncan Mordaunt, Penny Hammond, rh Mr Philip Morgan, rh Nicky Hammond, Stephen Morris, Anne Marie Question accordingly negatived. Hancock, rh Matthew Morris, David Hancock, Mr Mike Morris, James Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can Hands, rh Greg Mosley, Stephen you confirm that the House will now move to vote on Harper, Mr Mark Mowat, David the 11 measures that the Home Secretary has put forward, Harrington, Richard Mulholland, Greg which we support? Have you had any indication from Hart, Simon Mundell, rh David Government Front Benchers, in the light of the speeches Harvey, Sir Nick Munt, Tessa made in all parts of the House today, that they will Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Murray, Sheryll come forward with a vote tomorrow on the remaining Hayes, rh Mr John Murrison, Dr Andrew 24 measures? Heald, Sir Oliver Neill, Robert Heath, Mr David Newmark, Mr Brooks Heaton-Harris, Chris Newton, Sarah Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for Hemming, John Nokes, Caroline her point of order. As I indicated in my explanatory Hendry, Charles Norman, Jesse statement before this vote, in which I sought to explain Hermon, Lady O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen to the House the implications of different courses of Hinds, Damian Offord, Dr Matthew action, I had been approached about debating some Hoban, Mr Mark Ollerenshaw, Eric matters tomorrow, and I explained what was possible, Hollingbery, George Opperman, Guy but no determination was communicated to me by Hopkins, Kris Osborne, rh Mr George Government on that matter. In the circumstances, therefore, Horwood, Martin Ottaway, rh Sir Richard the proper course is to proceed to the next vote, which Howell, John Paice, rh Sir James flows naturally from the defeat of the first motion. I Hughes, rh Simon Parish, Neil therefore now need to put the Question on the draft Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Patel, Priti regulations straight away without any further debate. Hunter, Mark Pawsey, Mark Huppert, Dr Julian Penning, rh Mike Original Question accordingly put. Hurd, Mr Nick Penrose, John The House divided: Ayes 464, Noes 38. James, Margot Percy, Andrew Division No. 79] [8.20 pm Javid, rh Sajid Perry, Claire Jenrick, Robert Phillips, Stephen AYES Johnson, Gareth Pickles, rh Mr Eric Johnson, Joseph Pincher, Christopher Abbott, Ms Diane Alexander, Heidi Jones, Andrew Poulter, Dr Daniel Abrahams, Debbie Ali, Rushanara Jones, rh Mr David Prisk, Mr Mark Aldous, Peter Allen, Mr Graham Jones, Mr Marcus Pugh, John Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Andrew, Stuart 1267 Criminal Law10 NOVEMBER 2014 Criminal Law 1268

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Colvile, Oliver Gale, Sir Roger Jarvis, Dan Ashworth, Jonathan Connarty, Michael Gapes, Mike Javid, rh Sajid Austin, Ian Cooper, Rosie Gardiner, Barry Jenrick, Robert Bailey, Mr Adrian Cooper, rh Yvette Garnier, Sir Edward Johnson, Diana Bain, Mr William Cox, Mr Geoffrey Garnier, Mark Johnson, Gareth Baldry, rh Sir Tony Crabb, rh Stephen Gauke, Mr David Johnson, Joseph Baldwin, Harriett Crausby, Mr David Gibb, Mr Nick Jones, Andrew Balls, rh Ed Creasy, Stella Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Jones, rh Mr David Banks, Gordon Crockart, Mike Gilmore, Sheila Jones, Mr Kevan Barker, rh Gregory Crouch, Tracey Glass, Pat Jones, Mr Marcus Barron, rh Kevin Cruddas, Jon Glen, John Jones, Susan Elan Bayley, Hugh Cryer, John Glindon, Mrs Mary Kane, Mike Begg, Dame Anne Cunningham, Alex Goodman, Helen Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Bellingham, Mr Henry Cunningham, Mr Jim Goodwill, Mr Robert Kawczynski, Daniel Benn, rh Hilary Curran, Margaret Gove, rh Michael Keeley, Barbara Benyon, Richard Dakin, Nic Graham, Richard Kendall, Liz Beresford, Sir Paul Danczuk, Simon Grant, Mrs Helen Khan, rh Sadiq Berry, Jake Davey, rh Mr Edward Grayling, rh Chris Kirby, Simon Betts, Mr Clive David, Wayne Green, rh Damian Lamb, rh Norman Bingham, Andrew Davies, David T. C. Greening, rh Justine Lammy, rh Mr David Blackman, Bob (Monmouth) Greenwood, Lilian Lancaster, Mark Blackman-Woods, Roberta Davies, Geraint Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Blackwood, Nicola Davies, Glyn Griffith, Nia Latham, Pauline Blenkinsop, Tom De Piero, Gloria Griffiths, Andrew Lavery, Ian Blomfield, Paul Dinenage, Caroline Gummer, Ben Laws, rh Mr David Blunt, Crispin Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Gyimah, Mr Sam Lazarowicz, Mark Boles, Nick Docherty, Thomas Hague, rh Mr William Leadsom, Andrea Bottomley, Sir Peter Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Halfon, Robert Lee, Jessica Bradley, Karen Doran, Mr Frank Hames, Duncan Leech, Mr John Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Hamilton, Mr David Lefroy, Jeremy Bray, Angie Doughty, Stephen Hamilton, Fabian Leslie, Charlotte Brazier, Mr Julian Dowd, Jim Hammond, rh Mr Philip Leslie, Chris Brennan, Kevin Doyle, Gemma Hammond, Stephen Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Brine, Steve Doyle-Price, Jackie Hancock, rh Matthew Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Brokenshire, James Dromey, Jack Hancock, Mr Mike Lewis, Brandon Brooke, rh Annette Dugher, Michael Hands, rh Greg Lewis, Mr Ivan Brown, Lyn Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Hanson, rh Mr David Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Dunne, Mr Philip Harman, rh Ms Harriet Lidington, rh Mr David Brown, Mr Russell Durkan, Mark Harper, Mr Mark Lloyd, Stephen Browne, Mr Jeremy Eagle, Ms Angela Harrington, Richard Lopresti, Jack Bruce, Fiona Eagle, Maria Harris, Mr Tom Love, Mr Andrew Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Edwards, Jonathan Hart, Simon Lucas, Ian Bryant, Chris Efford, Clive Harvey, Sir Nick Luff, Sir Peter Buck, Ms Karen Elliott, Julie Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Lumley, Karen Buckland, Mr Robert Ellis, Michael Hayes, rh Mr John Macleod, Mary Burden, Richard Ellison, Jane Heald, Sir Oliver MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Burley, Mr Aidan Ellman, Mrs Louise Healey, rh John Mactaggart, Fiona Burns, rh Mr Simon Ellwood, Mr Tobias Heath, Mr David Mahmood, Shabana Burrowes, Mr David Elphicke, Charlie Hemming, John Malhotra, Seema Burstow, rh Paul Engel, Natascha Hendry, Charles Mann, John Burt, rh Alistair Esterson, Bill Hepburn, Mr Stephen Marsden, Mr Gordon Burt, Lorely Eustice, George Hermon, Lady Maude, rh Mr Francis Byrne, rh Mr Liam Evans, Graham Heyes, David May, rh Mrs Theresa Cairns, Alun Evans, Jonathan Hilling, Julie Maynard, Paul Cameron, rh Mr David Evennett, Mr David Hinds, Damian McCabe, Steve Campbell, rh Mr Alan Fabricant, Michael Hoban, Mr Mark McCann, Mr Michael Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Fallon, rh Michael Hodgson, Mrs Sharon McCarthy, Kerry Campbell, Mr Ronnie Farrelly, Paul Hollingbery, George McDonald, Andy Carmichael, Neil Farron, Tim Hopkins, Kelvin McDonnell, John Caton, Martin Field, Mark Hopkins, Kris McFadden, rh Mr Pat Champion, Sarah Fitzpatrick, Jim Horwood, Martin McGovern, Jim Chapman, Jenny Flello, Robert Hosie, Stewart McGuire, rh Mrs Anne Chishti, Rehman Flint, rh Caroline Howarth, rh Mr George McInnes, Liz Clark, rh Greg Flynn, Paul Howell, John McIntosh, Miss Anne Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Foster, rh Mr Don Hughes, rh Simon McKechin, Ann Clarke, rh Mr Tom Fovargue, Yvonne Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy McKenzie, Mr Iain Clegg, rh Mr Nick Francis, Dr Hywel Hunter, Mark McKinnell, Catherine Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Francois, rh Mr Mark Huppert, Dr Julian McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Clwyd, rh Ann Freeman, George Hurd, Mr Nick McPartland, Stephen Coaker, Vernon Freer, Mike James, Margot Meale, Sir Alan Coffey, Dr Thérèse Fullbrook, Lorraine James, Mrs Siân C. Menzies, Mark Collins, Damian Fuller, Richard Jamieson, Cathy Metcalfe, Stephen 1269 Criminal Law 10 NOVEMBER 2014 1270

Miliband, rh Edward Rudd, Amber Webb, rh Steve Winnick, Mr David Miller, Andrew Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Weir, Mr Mike Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Miller, rh Maria Russell, Sir Bob Wharton, James Wishart, Pete Milton, Anne Rutley, David Wheeler, Heather Wollaston, Dr Sarah Mitchell, Austin Sanders, Mr Adrian White, Chris Woodcock, John Moon, Mrs Madeleine Sandys, Laura Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Wright, Mr Iain Moore, rh Michael Sarwar, Anas Whitehead, Dr Alan Wright, rh Jeremy Mordaunt, Penny Sawford, Andy Williams, Hywel Wright, Simon Morden, Jessica Scott, Mr Lee Williams, Roger Yeo, Mr Tim Morgan, rh Nicky Seabeck, Alison Williams, Stephen Young, rh Sir George Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Selous, Andrew Williamson, Chris Zahawi, Nadhim Morris, David Shannon, Jim Williamson, Gavin Morris, Grahame M. Shapps, rh Grant Willott, Jenny Tellers for the Ayes: (Easington) Sharma, Alok Wilson, Phil Tom Brake and Morris, James Shelbrooke, Alec Wilson, Mr Rob Gavin Barwell Mosley, Stephen Sheridan, Jim Mowat, David Shuker, Gavin NOES Mulholland, Greg Simmonds, Mark Mundell, rh David Simpson, Mr Keith Afriyie, Adam McCartney, Karl Munt, Tessa Skidmore, Chris Baker, Steve Mills, Nigel Murphy, rh Paul Skinner, Mr Dennis Barclay, Stephen Morris, Anne Marie Murray, Sheryll Slaughter, Mr Andy Baron, Mr John Nuttall, Mr David Murrison, Dr Andrew Smith, Angela Brady, Mr Graham Percy, Andrew Nandy, Lisa Smith, Chloe Bridgen, Andrew Raab, Mr Dominic Nash, Pamela Smith, Julian Cash, Sir William Redwood, rh Mr John Neill, Robert Smith, Nick Davis, rh Mr David Rees-Mogg, Jacob Newmark, Mr Brooks Smith, Owen de Bois, Nick Reevell, Simon Newton, Sarah Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Drax, Richard Robertson, Mr Laurence Nokes, Caroline Soubry, Anna Goldsmith, Zac Shepherd, Sir Richard Norman, Jesse Spellar, rh Mr John Gray, Mr James Stringer, Graham O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Heaton-Harris, Chris Syms, Mr Robert Offord, Dr Matthew Spencer, Mr Mark Henderson, Gordon Turner, Mr Andrew Ollerenshaw, Eric Stanley, rh Sir John Jenkin, Mr Bernard Whittingdale, Mr John Kelly, Chris Onwurah, Chi Stephenson, Andrew Wiggin, Bill Leigh, Sir Edward Opperman, Guy Stevenson, John Wilson, Sammy Osborne, rh Mr George Stewart, Bob Lewis, Dr Julian Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Stewart, Iain Lilley, rh Mr Peter Tellers for the Noes: Owen, Albert Stewart, Rory Main, Mrs Anne Douglas Carswell and Paice, rh Sir James Straw, rh Mr Jack McCartney, Jason Mr Philip Hollobone Parish, Neil Streeter, Mr Gary Patel, Priti Stride, Mel Question accordingly agreed to. Pawsey, Mark Stuart, Mr Graham Pearce, Teresa Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Resolved, Penning, rh Mike Sturdy, Julian That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol Penrose, John Swayne, rh Mr Desmond No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on Perkins, Toby Swinson, Jo 3 November, be approved. Perry, Claire Swire, rh Mr Hugo Phillips, Stephen Tami, Mark Business without Debate Phillipson, Bridget Thornberry, Emily Pickles, rh Mr Eric Thornton, Mike Pincher, Christopher Thurso, rh John EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS Poulter, Dr Daniel Timms, rh Stephen Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Pound, Stephen Timpson, Mr Edward Powell, Lucy Tomlinson, Justin Order No. 119(11)), Prisk, Mr Mark Tredinnick, David Pugh, John Trickett, Jon EU DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION RESULTS Randall, rh Sir John Truss, rh Elizabeth FRAMEWORK Reed, Mr Jamie Turner, Karl That this House takes note of European Union Document Reed, Mr Steve Twigg, Derek No. 17709/13, a Commission Staff Working Document–Paving Reeves, Rachel Tyrie, Mr Andrew the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework; Reid, Mr Alan Uppal, Paul and welcomes the document as an important step towards putting Reynolds, Emma Vaizey, Mr Edward in place a results framework which will help drive improvements Reynolds, Jonathan Vara, Mr Shailesh in the impact of the European Commission’s development Ritchie, Ms Margaret Vickers, Martin programmes by reporting results achieved and providing performance Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa information for the Commission and others to act on.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) Robertson, Angus Walker, Mr Robin Robertson, John Wallace, Mr Ben Question agreed to. Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Walley, Joan Rogerson, Dan Walter, Mr Robert Rotheram, Steve Ward, Mr David DELEGATED LEGISLATION Roy, Mr Frank Watts, Mr Dave Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Ruane, Chris Weatherley, Mike Order No. 118(6)), 1271 Business without Debate10 NOVEMBER 2014 Business without Debate 1272

CONSUMER PROTECTION The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons That the draft Compensation (Claims Management Services) urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration. (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this Following is the full text of the petition: House on 21 July, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) [The Petition of residents of the UK, Question agreed to. Declares that the Petitioners believe that current immigration checks in the UK are not tough enough; Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take further that the Petitioners believe that the checks should motions 5 to 7 together. mean that if an individual has no job, no money and a Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing criminal record, they should be denied entry to the UK; Order No. 118(6)), and further that a Petition in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West Constituency on this matter has received over FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS 800 signatures. That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) The Petitioners therefore request that the House of (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent 22 July, be approved. checks on immigration to stop criminals from entering the That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Prohibition UK and breaking laws. on Opening Current Accounts for Disqualified Persons) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved. And the Petitioners remain, etc.] That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) [P001397] Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) Planning Application—Bozeat (Wellingborough) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing 8.38 pm Order No. 118(6)), Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It gives me great pleasure to present a petition—somewhat earlier SOCIAL SECURITY than I had expected, regrettably—about the village of That the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance (18-21 Work Skills Pilot Bozeat in my constituency, where a massive planning Scheme) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on application has gone in that would increase the number 13 October, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) of buildings around the village by 10%. Question agreed to. The petition states: The Humble Petition of residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire PETITIONS and the surrounding areas, Sheweth, Immigration Checks in the UK That the Petitioners believe that the proposed planning application for 75 new houses outside, but adjacent to the village of Bozeat— 8.37 pm planning application reference WP/14/00369/OUT—is unacceptable, because it would increase the size of the village by nearly 10% and Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/ would put further strain on public services and utilities that are Co-op): I wish to present a petition initiated by my already inadequate. constituent Mrs Elsie Guidici among her fellow constituents Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House and others in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the urges the Department for Communities and Local Government surrounding area, following the murder of her son to encourage the Borough Council of Wellingborough to reject in his home by a convicted criminal from outwith the the current planning application. United Kingdom. The related petition has received And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. more than 800 signatures. It states: [P001398] 1273 10 NOVEMBER 2014 David Efemena 1274

David Efemena to their bashers after 10 pm on the Saturday. The staff then went back to training base A, which was 1.9 km Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House from the cadets’ camping sites, according to the service do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.) inquiry report. It took members of the service inquiry team about nine minutes to drive between the two sites Mr Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for when subsequently investigating the events of the weekend. Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), I should advise the House that, although a date has been set for the Two-way radios were supplied to each group to retain inquest into the death of his constituent, I have exercised contact. The last actual contact between staff and the the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the group took place at 10.15 pm, according to an oral resolution on matters sub judice to allow debate on this report of the initial findings of the investigation that matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister was read out to the family on 27 March 2014. The next will refrain from discussing the matter that it is for the morning at between 6.20 and 6.30 am, as the staff inquest to decide, which is the cause of death. leader was walking to the cadet site, he began to receive intermittent radio messages, but could not make out 8.40 pm what was being said. At 6.45, he received a clearer message that the cadets could not wake David. The staff Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab): Tonight, arrived at the campsite at approximately 7.5 am. On I wish to raise a number of issues regarding the tragic realising the condition that David was in, they called for death of my constituent Mr David Efemena. an ambulance while administering cardiopulmonary First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the waiver of the resuscitation. They were joined by another ambulance sub judice rules regarding Adjournment debates, which and then an air ambulance and the police. is needed because the pre-inquest hearing begins on According to an interview with a fellow cadet and 17 November 2014. The issues that I will cover do not tent mate, David had complained on the Saturday relate specifically to the findings of the coroner on the afternoon, 22 March 2014, about an old rugby injury to reasons for David’s death, which is why the waiver was his back and of feeling sick. Later, a rota for sentry granted, and the family very much appreciate that. patrols was established for that night, although David Rather, I will focus on the events that took place in the was excused given how hard he had worked carrying camp that night, the camp protocols on the duty of heavy equipment that day and because there was an odd care, and the questions of supervision and effective number of cadets to divide up. However, I should add communication between adults and cadets. that it was suggested in the evidence of other cadets that David died at 14 years of age on 23 March 2014. He he was relieved of duty because of his sore back. would have celebrated his 15th birthday last Wednesday. Sometime after 11 pm, the cadets went to bed. David’s By all accounts, he was a strong, sporty, athletic young tent mate has said that he was woken on up to 10 separate man. David went on an air cadet camping trip on occasions through the night by strange noises and shaking Friday 21 March 2014 at the Bramley defence training from David. Each time he tried gently to shake David to estate in Hampshire. On Sunday 23 March, at about wake him, but at no time did he succeed. At 5 am, 9 am, his parents Zoe and Felix received a telephone David’s tent mate relieved two others for sentry duty, call from Basingstoke hospital advising them that David which began about 4 metres from where David was was “poorly”. While they were still speaking to the hospital, sleeping. His tent mate says that he then heard what the police arrived at their home in Elm Park in east London were described as “wild animal noises” coming from the to take them to the hospital. Upon arrival, a lady detective direction of the tent and assumed it to be a wild animal. met the family and said, “I’m really sorry for your loss.” Those sounds were heard another two or three times That is how they discovered that their son had died. that morning, and the tent mate, covered by a fellow I will provide a brief summary of the events that 14-year-old cadet, went to see David, who by that stage occurred on the base over that weekend before making was shaking violently. At about 6.55 am they again some more specific points regarding David’s death. The went to check on David, and they noticed that his eyes summary is based on an oral report of the initial were wide open and realized that they could not wake findings of the investigation that was given to the family him up. David’s tent mate woke the other cadets and on 27 March 2014. There are also some elements that was left with David for about 30 minutes until adult come from the service inquiry report. staff arrived. The training that weekend was to take place at training There are slight discrepancies in timings throughout base A, with the use of areas known as A, B and C. between the statements of the tent mate and the adults, A risk assessment, an emergency action plan and a but that is the basic series of events according to the military training plan were all included in the Bramley police liaison officer assigned to the case. application for the weekend. There were 13 male cadets On the cause of death, the family had a meeting on and two female cadets on the trip, together with three 28 March 2014 with the coroner’s officer David Richards, staff members. Two of the senior cadets were responsible who had notified them that the coroner’s report would for the supervision of the cadets at the campsite, leaving be completed after the receipt of reports from both 13 cadets taking part in the exercise. Home Office and paediatric pathologists, the police On the first night, Friday night, everyone slept in the report and the service inquiry report. During the meeting, building at training base A because the group arrived David Richards stated that the preliminary medical late. Followinga6amstart, the Saturday was spent report showed that David had a scarred indent kidney, setting up camp and practising patrolling, followed by fluid in his lungs, an enlarged heart and a swollen brain. an escape and evasion exercise, with four cadets evading Mr Richard discussed with the family the possibility and nine hunting, one of whom was my constituent that David’s heart was enlarged, and that it could have David Efemena. The staff ordered the cadets to go back been hereditary and the reason for his death. 1275 David Efemena10 NOVEMBER 2014 David Efemena 1276

[Jon Cruddas] Having read the completed service inquiry report, the following areas still need to be resolved. On the diagnosis On 9 May, the family received a letter from the of David’s condition and communication on the base coroner Andrew Bradley, stating that he could that weekend, the following questions need to be answered: “confirm that Professor Sheppard has completed her examination when David initially declared that he was unwell, how and I have a natural cause of death for David. In those circumstances was that managed and monitored, and by whom? It I have concluded my Investigation and released David for burial.” would appear that the adult in charge did not have the Cardiac specialist Mary Sheppard had reported a discovered next of kin information. The parents were informed of heart defect and concluded that death was due to natural David being “unwell” from Basingstoke hospital, and causes. However, the forensic pathologist had not completed did not receive any communication from the RAF. As I his report at the time, so the family’s concerns about the mentioned earlier, they were informed that David had circumstances surrounding David’s death, particularly passed away by the hospital on arrival in Basingstoke, the lack of adult supervision, communication and early but prior to that there had been no contact between the intervention, were not taken into consideration before RAF and the family. the case was closed. What are the protocols for determining a suitable The family, my office and solicitors have made a camping area, or on the distance between adult supervisors number of requests for the reasons for the delay in and cadets? What are the emergency protocols in such completing the pathologist’s report and how Mr Bradley environments? In this case, the service inquiry report had come to his conclusion, but they have not been details the distance from the camp site where the cadets answered. Subsequently, the family had a phone call on were based to training base A where the adults were as Wednesday 3 July, and then they received a formal letter some 1.9 km—approximately a nine-minute drive. on 4 July that stated: According to the service inquiry report, the original “Having regards to the history of the case and your concerns it camp area that was planned to be used that weekend seems appropriate for the matter to go forward to Inquest and for had been changed, and an alternative camp area had to that purpose I have transferred jurisdiction to your local Coroner in Walthamstow.” be used due to the cadets’ late arrival on the base on Friday 21 March 2014. The service inquiry report highlights As you said, Mr Speaker, there are a number of that no risk assessments or other checks were carried questions to be answered about the process that cannot out on the alternative site prior to its use. be covered here tonight. Instead, I want to raise a number of points relating to the events on the base that weekend. From the time that David was first believed to be Following David’s death, the family were assigned a police shivering at about midnight, causing initial concern in liaison officer from the Hampshire major investigation his fellow cadet, were the first aiders made aware of his team and a warrant officer from RAF Northolt. On condition? What “escalation process” was in operation 24 March 2014, the family presented the police liaison that night for cadets if they had concerns about their officer with a list of questions that needed answers tent mates? As I have mentioned, David’s tent mate had regarding events at the camp on that Saturday night concerns throughout the night and attempted to wake and Sunday morning. In an e-mail dated 2 April 2014, him on approximately 10 separate occasions. The parents the police liaison officer said that were not informed of David’s condition before the “these questions will be fully answered in time as all the information police attended the scene, so why was that the case? regarding the case is gathered together.” Overall, from about midnight until around 5 am on The parents notified both the police and the RAF that 23 March 2014, David had shown symptoms giving rise they would carry out an independent examination, and for concern. Would earlier medical intervention have the independent examination report was presented to the given him an opportunity to survive if an adult, and not family last Thursday, 6 November 2014. The service a fellow 14-year-old cadet, had assessed his situation? inquiry report, with three A4 ring binders of reference documents, was handed to them last Saturday, 9 November, The second area of concern relates to supervision on by the president of the board of the service inquiry such training camps. Are parents aware when their team, Squadron Leader Paul Ellis, and Warrant Officer children go on training trips that they are being cared Duncan Andrews. Therefore, until last Saturday, the for by 17-year-old senior cadets and not necessarily by family’s only account of what had happened to their son adults? Should parents be made aware that there is not had been provided on 27 March 2014—some seven and 100% adult supervision at all times, prior to signing the a half months earlier—when the police liaison officer “Activities, Consent and Health Form”? If adults are and the RAF warrant officer verbally explained their not within close proximity to the cadets at the camp site, initial findings surrounding the events of that night. what protections should ensure communication between the sites in the event of illness and escalating health Despite the service inquiry report with three A4 ring concerns? Should camp protocols ensure that “experienced” binders of reference documents, many of the initial and not just “qualified” first aiders are available at the questions submitted by the family in late March 2014 camp site. The three senior cadets in charge had received remain unanswered. Those concerns cover three general “Heart Start” first aid training, but did not know what areas, the first of which is the time taken to alert the to do when David’s situation was assessed—that point adult in charge as to David’s condition that night, and is made in the service inquiry report. therefore the medical attention given to David. The second is the protocols on the base regarding the supervision Did any of the adults know that David had been unwell of cadets, and third is the possibility that the camp prior to leaving the camp that Saturday night, and were communication systems were faulty. The family believe any plans in place to monitor his health? Why did the that those factors might have made a difference to cadets not contact an adult on 22 March 2014 from David’s survival that night, which is why I am asking about midnight, when there was first cause for concern? these questions this evening. The report suggests a “lack of process”or “non-compliance 1277 David Efemena10 NOVEMBER 2014 David Efemena 1278 of process”. Is that because of the lack of effective camp very serious matter. The death of a cadet is taken protocols in terms of supervision and medical diagnosis extremely seriously, not only by the air cadet organisation and care? in this particular instance but by everybody and anybody The third area relates to equipment. The preliminary associated with such a matter, as one might expect. report from the police investigation highlighted that the What then happens is that there is a service inquiry, communication system was not working and that it which delivers its report. I do not know whether the took one of the cadets approximately 30 minutes to hon. Gentleman has seen the report. I certainly have alert one of the adults, who were not at the camp area not, but I make no complaint about that because the with the cadets. Were the communication devices tested, service inquiry report was only delivered to the family once the camp site had been determined, based on on Saturday, when two members of the RAF, including range? The service inquiry report details that the distance the family liaison officer, attended them. That must be was 1.9 km. We know that six radios were issued for the the right way. The first people to find out what the service camping exercise. In May 2014, three of the six radios inquiry has looked at and found must be the family, and were tested. Of the three radios that were tested, they that is why two members of the RAF attended. The had a range shortage of approximately 200 metres between coroner has not received the report yet, so I make no the cadets’ camp site and where the adults resided that complaint that I have not. It would be a grave discourtesy night. It is unclear whether the two handsets issued to to the coroner were I to see it before her. the cadets were among the three that were tested. The The coroner’s inquest will be rigorous, transparent service inquiry report classified the three tested radios and honest. I would like to draw on my own experience as “unserviceable”. It is unclear whether the handsets issued as a Member of Parliament. I do not know whether you to the cadets had a fault range of greater than 200 metres. were in the Chair, Mr Speaker, but not long after my That raises questions regarding emergency procedures election I secured a debate about a constituent killed by and the effectiveness of communications devices on the his grandson. It was a terrible case—I will not trouble base that night. That is obviously of vital importance if anybody with the details because we are talking about cadets are miles away from their adult supervisors. David Efemena’s death—and in due course there was a These questions need to be answered. It has been coroner’s inquest, some of which I attended, which nearly eight months since the death of my constituent lasted longer than the two days currently set aside for David Efemena. Throughout, the family have battled to the inquest into David’s death. find out what happened to their beloved son that night. Answers to those questions, and many others concerning It is not just the Nottinghamshire coroner; all coroners other elements of the case, are needed so that we might conduct extremely good investigations into all matters be reassured that our young people are safe when leading up to a death, as well as the cause of death, and attending weekend military camping trips. If protocols they do so with rigour, honesty and transparency. In on our military bases need to change, the family would what I realise are dreadful circumstances, I know that take some comfort that other families might not have to the hon. Gentleman will take that assurance to the experience what they have had to experience in the past family, whom I know are legally represented, which is seven and a half months following the tragic death of important. To be blunt, I hope they have had the benefit their son David Efemena. of legal aid. If not, I will do everything to ensure that they do. Furthermore, they should know that the coroner 8.56 pm will bend over backwards to get all the answers. The family will be at the heart of the investigation. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham The hon. Gentleman quite properly asked a series of and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing this debate. questions on behalf of the family, not only about the I express my sympathy and offer my condolences to events leading up to David’s death but about the events the family and to everyone who knew and loved David after he died. Normally, a coroner cannot look into the Efemena. Those of us who are parents cannot think of latter, but regardless of whether the hon. Gentleman anything worse than the death of a child. Burying a brings this back to the Chamber, I give a solemn promise child is every parent’s nightmare, but one does not need that I shall ensure as far as possible that all these to be a parent to know and understand that. Our incredibly important questions are answered. Even if sympathies go out to his family. In these circumstances, nothing and no one could have saved David, because of it is undoubtedly the case that the awful grief they must some inherent heart problem or condition or whatever bear is made all the worse when they do not know it may be, I am told that the service inquiry has nevertheless everything that has happened. It is a terrible feature of made more than 20 recommendations arising from such cases, but I fear that it is almost inevitable that, to the hon. Gentleman’s important questions about ensure we know everything that happened and are supervision. therefore able to learn the lessons, statements need to be It is the nature of these exercises—be it the Duke of taken and post mortems conducted, and pathologists, Edinburgh Awards or the cadets—that they contain an doctors and other experts all need to make their inquiries. element of excitement and risk. Nevertheless, everything Inevitably, that takes time. It behoves those who are must be done to ensure that children are as safe as charged with those dreadful tasks to act as swiftly as possible, and important questions have been raised possible. That has to be in everybody’s interests, but about the distance between where the youngsters were most importantly it is in the interests of the family who camping and the adult volunteers. I do not know the are suffering in grief. recommendations of the service inquiry—possibly some I am placed at a severe disadvantage. I gently chide of that has already been addressed—but certainly the the hon. Gentleman in this respect: if I may say so, I coroner will look into it. On the way the family were think he has pre-empted the coroner’s inquest. This is a informed, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I do 1279 David Efemena10 NOVEMBER 2014 David Efemena 1280

[Anna Soubry] were told what had happened. The other young cadets must have suffered a terrible experience to know that not know if there is ever a good way to deliver such somebody in their tent, one of their number, had become dreadful news, but he asks an important question that so terribly ill and died. Their welfare is also in my mind. needs to be answered. I am more than happy to take any interventions from I do not think there is anything else to add until the the hon. Gentleman if he wishes me to assist him coroner has conducted her inquiry and we know her further. Mr Speaker, I think that everybody here would findings, at which point I will be more than happy to join him in expressing our condolences and sympathy answer all these questions as fully as possible. to the Efemena family. We hope that all their questions can be answered and that, in time, perhaps some peace In this particular case, David’s family will, of course, could settle upon them. always grieve for the loss they suffered because they no longer have their beloved son, but we must remember Question put and agreed to. that other youngsters were involved—not just the youngster in the tent, but another young man who came to assist— 9.5 pm and, indeed, the adult volunteers who came when they House adjourned. 63WS Written Statements10 NOVEMBER 2014 Written Statements 64WS Written Statements Continuing reform We have delivered our promise. The landscape is now smaller, more accountable and efficient, with reduced Monday 10 November 2014 administrative costs, ensuring better value for money to the public. This remarkable achievement is thanks in no small part to the committed public servants who have embraced the spirit of reform. We will continue to work CABINET OFFICE in partnership with the chairs and chief executives of public bodies to build on these achievements, and improve accountability, embracing innovation and, most importantly of all, raising the quality of services. This is efficiency Public Bodies Reform Programme and reform at its best—not just cutting costs, but actually finding new and better ways of providing services that people can rely on. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster Triennial reviews provide regular, rigorous review of General (Mr Francis Maude): In May 2010, the Government the form and function of public bodies to guarantee committed to review public bodies, with the aim of that NDPBs exist for a clear purpose, deliver the services increasing accountability for actions carried out on their users want, maximise value for money for the behalf of the state. Nearly four years on, I am pleased taxpayer and do not outlive their useful purpose. The that the public bodies reform programme has made Cabinet Office and Departments have worked together excellent progress in the biggest reform of the public to apply lessons from the first phase of the triennial bodies in a generation. Earlier this year the National review programme, firmly embed good practice for the Audit Office commended this progress and next phase and build the civil service’s capacity for good “major simplification of the public bodies landscape”. governance of the landscape of arm’s length bodies. Today I am placing in the Library of the House an To ensure that Departments improve the way they update setting out progress. It is the first comprehensive sponsor public bodies in the long term a sponsorship update since the Public Bodies Act received Royal Assent specialism has been established this year for over in 2011. The achievement now stands at over 95% of 500 officials across Government. Independent analysis planned abolitions and mergers completed. of the public bodies reform programme undertaken by The public bodies reform programmes’successes include: academic experts at the universities of Birmingham and Reducing the number of public bodies by over 285—by abolishing Sheffield demonstrate that a step change has been achieved more than 185 and merging over 165 bodies into fewer than 70. in Government capacity to undertake public bodies’ Improved accountability through bringing the functions of sponsorship, but we will continue to work to improve over 75 bodies closer to democratically elected representatives. this. Increased funding from alternative sources and volunteering We are also pressing forward with a review of the by moving some organisations outside the public sector under classification system for public bodies in order to ensure innovative delivery models. that it is fit for purpose. Achieving cumulative administrative spend reductions as at March 2014 of £2.0 billion since 2010. TRANSPORT The programme is now on track to exceed cumulative spend reductions of £2.6 billion by the end of March 2015. Ministerial Correction Full details of the reforms are available at https://www. gov.uk/public-bodies-reform. Today the Cabinet Office is publishing “Public Bodies The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport 2014”—detailing the broad range of public bodies (Claire Perry): I would like to inform the House that sponsored by the UK Government. a statement I made on 29 October 2014 during an Adjournment debate on South West Trains, Official The “Public Bodies” annual report was first published Report, column 106WH, was incorrect. During the by the Cabinet Office in 1980. Initially it reported on speech I stated that: the size, expenditure and membership of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), but since 2010 it has been “We are seeing the most rapid rise in travel of anywhere in Europe. We have the safest and most punctual railways in expanded. Today it is a single transparent source of Europe. We have the most improved railways in Europe, according top-level data on all NDPBs, Executive agencies and to passengers. We are seeing an enormous rise in demand for non-ministerial departments. “Public Bodies 2014” also these services...” contains an annual update of the progress in rationalising While we do have the safest major railway in Europe, the public bodies landscape, the savings made and the as well as the most improved railway in Europe according legacy delivered by the work on the sponsorship and to the European Commission, the statement on punctuality triennial review programme, which will continue reform. cannot be substantiated. While we do not have comparable “Public Bodies 2014” will be an online publication, statistics that show how our railway is currently ranked available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ for punctuality, we can say that UK rail passengers are public-bodies-2014, and the data set will be updated among the most satisfied in Europe with train punctuality quarterly where applicable. and reliability.

ORAL ANSWERS

Monday 10 November 2014

Col. No. Col. No. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 1161 COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT— Affordable Housing...... 1170 continued Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation...... 1166 Local Government Pension Scheme...... 1171 Business Rates (Small Businesses)...... 1169 Localism ...... 1161 Community Pubs ...... 1167 Neighbourhood Planning (Community Rights)..... 1165 Council Tax Benefit ...... 1173 Protection for Leaseholders ...... 1175 Council Tax Freeze ...... 1171 Social Housing...... 1172 Departmental and Local Authority Budgets ...... 1174 Stormwater Drainage (Local Authorities)...... 1175 Firefighters’ Pensions...... 1163 Topical Questions ...... 1176 Help to Buy Scheme...... 1175 WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Monday 10 November 2014

Col. No. Col. No. CABINET OFFICE...... 63WS TRANSPORT ...... 64WS Public Bodies Reform Programme ...... 63WS Ministerial Correction ...... 64WS Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than Monday 17 November 2014

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £4. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £600. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volumeof House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage Volume 587 Monday No. 59 10 November 2014

CONTENTS

Monday 10 November 2014

Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 1161] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

EU Budget (Surcharge) [Col. 1183] Answer to urgent question—(Mr George Osborne)

Business of the House (Today) [Col. 1205] Motion—(Chris Grayling)—on a Division, agreed to

Criminal Law [Col. 1223] Motion—(Mrs May)—on a Division, agreed to

Petitions [Col. 1271]

David Efemena [Col. 1273] Debate on motion for Adjournment

Written Statements [Col. 63WS]

Written Answers to Questions [The written answers can now be found at http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers]