Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council statement
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
An extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council will be held on 9 November in Brussels. The meeting has been convened by the Luxembourg presidency of the Council of the European Union, in response to the ongoing migration crisis currently faced by Europe. I will attend on behalf of the UK.
We expect the discussion to focus on continuing efforts to manage ongoing migration pressures, including those at the external EU border and efforts to improve the effectiveness of the migration ‘hotspots’ in Italy and Greece, as well as the implementation of relocation measures in which the UK is not taking part. The discussion will also cover member states’ offers of practical assistance to those countries experiencing particular pressure. The UK is offering substantial assistance in that regard.
[HCWS294]
Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the draft Investigatory Powers Bill and our commitment to providing a new law consolidating and updating our investigatory powers, strengthening the safeguards, and establishing a world-leading oversight regime.
We live in a digital age. Technology is having a profound effect on society. Computers are central to our everyday lives. Big data is reshaping the way we live and work. The internet has brought us tremendous opportunities to prosper and interact with others. But a digital society also presents us with challenges. The same benefits enjoyed by us all are being exploited by serious and organised criminals, online fraudsters, and terrorists. The threat is clear. In the past 12 months alone, six significant terrorist plots have been disrupted here in the UK, as well as a number of further plots overseas. The frequency and cost of cyber-attacks is increasing, with 90% of large organisations suffering an information security breach last year. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre estimates that there are 50,000 people in this country downloading indecent images of children.
The task of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies has become vastly more demanding in this digital age. It is right, therefore, that those who are charged with protecting us should have the powers they need to do so, but it is the role of Government and Parliament to ensure that there are limits to those powers. Let me be clear: the draft Bill we are publishing today is not a return to the draft communications data Bill of 2012. It will not include powers to force UK companies to capture and retain third party internet traffic from companies based overseas; it will not compel overseas communications service providers to meet our domestic retention obligations for communications data; and it will not ban encryption or do anything to undermine the security of people’s data. The substance of all of the recommendations by the Joint Scrutiny Committee which examined that draft Bill have been accepted.
So today’s Bill represents a significant departure from the proposals of the past. Today we are setting out a modern legal framework that brings together current powers in a clear and comprehensible way, with a new Bill that provides some of the strongest protections and safeguards anywhere in the democratic world, and an approach that sets new standards for openness, transparency and oversight. This new legislation will underpin the work of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies for years to come. It is their licence to operate, with the democratic approval of Parliament, to protect our national security and the public’s safety.
This Bill responds to three independent reviews published earlier this year: the first from the Intelligence and Security Committee; the second from David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation; and the third from the independent surveillance review convened by the Royal United Services Institute. All three reviews made it clear that the use of investigatory powers is vital to protecting the public. They all endorsed the current powers available to the police and law enforcement agencies as both necessary and proportionate, and they all agreed that the legal framework governing those powers needed updating. While considering those reviews, we have engaged with technical experts, academics, civil liberties groups and communications service providers in the UK and overseas. I also met charities supporting people affected by the crimes that these powers are used to investigate.
Copies of the draft Bill will be available in the Vote Office. Our proposals will now be subject to further consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament. A revised Bill will then be introduced to Parliament in the spring, when it will receive careful parliamentary scrutiny. As the House knows, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 contains a sunset clause which means that legislation will cease to have effect from 31 December 2016. It is our intention to pass a new law before that date.
This Bill will govern all the powers available to law enforcement, the security and intelligence agencies and the armed forces to acquire the content of communications or communications data. These include the ability to retain and acquire communications data to be used as evidence in court and to advance investigations; the ability to intercept the contents of communications in order to acquire sensitive intelligence to tackle terrorist plots and serious and organised crimes; the use of equipment interference powers to obtain data covertly from computers; and the use of these powers by the security and intelligence agencies in bulk to identify the most serious threats to the UK from overseas and to rapidly establish links between suspects in the UK.
It cannot be right that today the police could find an abducted child if the suspects were using mobile phones to co-ordinate their crime, but if they were using social media or communications apps they would be out of reach. Such an approach defies all logic and ignores the realities of today’s digital age, so this Bill will also allow the police to identify which communications services a person or device has connected to—so-called internet connection records.
Some have characterised that power as law enforcement having access to people’s full web browsing histories. Let me be clear—that is simply wrong. An internet connection record is a record of the communications service that a person has used, not a record of every web page they have accessed. If someone has visited a social media website, an internet connection record will only show that they accessed that site, not the particular pages they looked at, who they communicated with, or what they said. It is simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill.
Law enforcement agencies would not be able to make a request for the purpose of determining, for example, whether someone had visited a mental health website, a medical website or even a news website. They would only be able to make a request for the purpose of determining whether someone had accessed a communications website or an illegal website, or to resolve an internet protocol address where it is necessary and proportionate to do so in the course of a specific investigation. Strict limits will apply to when and how those data can be accessed—over and above those safeguards that apply to other forms of communications data—and we will ban local authorities from accessing such data.
I have announced today our intention to ensure that the powers available to law enforcement and the agencies are clear for everyone to understand. The transparency report I am publishing today will help, and copies of that report will be available in the Vote Office. There remain, however, some powers that successive Governments have considered too sensitive to disclose, for fear of revealing capabilities to those who mean us harm. I am clear that we must now reconcile that with our ambition to deliver greater openness and transparency.
The Bill will make explicit provision for all of the powers available to the security and intelligence agencies to acquire data in bulk. That will include not only bulk interception provided under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and which is vital to the work of GCHQ, but the acquisition of bulk communications data, both relating to the UK and overseas.
That is not a new power. It will replace the power under Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, under which successive Governments have approved the security and intelligence agencies’ access to such communications data from communication service providers.
That has allowed them to thwart a number of attacks here in the UK. In 2010, when a group of terrorists were plotting attacks in the UK, including on the London stock exchange, the use of bulk communications data played a key role in MI5’s investigation. It allowed investigators to uncover the terrorist network and to understand their plans. That led to the disruption of their activities and successful convictions against all the group’s members.
I have also published the agencies’ handling arrangements relating to that power, which set out the existing robust safeguards and independent oversight. These make it clear that the data do not include the content of communications or internet connection records. The Bill will put that power on a more explicit footing and it will be subject to the same robust safeguards that apply to other bulk powers.
The House will know that the powers I have described today are currently overseen by the interception of communications commissioner, the intelligence services commissioner and the chief surveillance commissioner, all of whom are serving or former senior judges.
That regime worked in the past, but I am clear that we need a significantly strengthened regime to govern how these powers are authorised and overseen, so we will replace the existing oversight with a powerful and independent investigatory powers commissioner. This will be a senior judge, supported by a team of expert inspectors with the authority and resources to effectively, and visibly, hold the intelligence agencies and law enforcement to account. These will be world-leading oversight arrangements.
Finally, I want to turn to authorisation. Authorising warrants is one of the most important means by which I and other Secretaries of State hold the security and intelligence agencies to account for their actions. In turn, we are accountable to this House and, through its elected representatives, to the public. As the House knows, the first duty of Government is the protection of the public, and that is a responsibility this Government take extremely seriously.
Although there was a good deal of agreement in the three independent reviews I have referenced, all three reached different conclusions on the question of who should authorise interception warrants. The Intelligence and Security Committee supported authorisation by a Secretary of State; David Anderson said judges should carry out the authorisation; and the Royal United Services Institute said that the authorisation of warrants should have a judicial element, but also recognised the important role of the Secretary of State. I have considered the very good arguments that were put forward by the three reviews. My response is one that I hope the House agrees will provide the reassurance of both democratic accountability and judicial accountability.
As now, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that an activity is necessary and proportionate before a warrant can be issued. However, in future, the warrant will not come into force until it has been formally approved by a judge. That will place a double lock on the authorisation of our most intrusive investigatory powers. There will be democratic accountability, through the Secretary of State, to ensure that our intelligence agencies operate in the interests of the citizens of this country, and the public reassurance of independent, judicial authorisation. This will be one of the strongest authorisation regimes anywhere in the world.
For parliamentarians, we will go even further. The Bill will, for the first time, put into law the Prime Minister’s commitment that in any case where it is proposed to intercept the communications of a parliamentarian, including Members of this House, Members of the House of Lords, UK MEPs and Members of the devolved legislatures, the Prime Minister will also be consulted.
The legislation that we are proposing today is unprecedented. It will provide unparalleled openness and transparency about our investigatory powers; it will provide the strongest safeguards and world-leading oversight arrangements; and it will give the men and women of our security and intelligence agencies and our law enforcement agencies, who do so much to keep us safe and secure, the powers they need to protect our country. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s comprehensive and detailed statement, and the advance notice that she provided.
Huge changes in technology have clearly left our laws outdated and made the job of the police and security services harder. In a world where the threats we face, internationally and domestically, are growing, Parliament cannot sit on its hands and leave blind spots where the authorities cannot see. This debate will be seen through the prism of extremism and terrorism, but, as the Home Secretary said, it is about much more. It is about child sexual exploitation, serious online fraud and other important functions, such as the location of missing people.
We support the Government in their attempt to update the law in this important and sensitive area. We share the Government’s goal of creating a world-class framework. The Opposition’s position is clear: strong powers must be balanced by strong safeguards for the public to protect privacy and long-held liberties. From what the Home Secretary has said today, it is clear to me that she and the Government have listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed about the draft Bill that was presented in the last Parliament. She has brought forward much stronger safeguards, particularly in the crucial area of judicial authorisation. It would help the future conduct of this important public debate if the House sent out the unified message today that this is neither a snooper’s charter, nor a plan for mass surveillance. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
On behalf of the Opposition, I echo the Home Secretary’s thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee, RUSI and, in particular, David Anderson, QC, who has done the House and the country a huge service by setting out the basis for a new consensus on these important matters. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether David Anderson has expressed a view on her draft Bill, whether he supports the measures within it and whether he is satisfied with the checks and balances on powers and safeguards?
The House will want reassurance that the Bill carries forward the safeguards from previous legislation, particularly the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, such as the threshold for the use of the most intrusive powers. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the far-reaching powers of content interception will be used for only the most serious crimes, as was the case under the original legislation?
We welcome what the Home Secretary said about internet connection records and local authorities, but the House will have been listening carefully to what she said about data retention and bulk storage. Will she say more about what kind of data will be stored by the authorities, for how long it will be stored and whether the information will be held in anonymised form? That is important because public concern will have risen following the attack on data held by TalkTalk. People will have heard her say at the beginning of her statement that 90% of commercial organisations have experienced a data breach. What lessons has she drawn from the TalkTalk attack? Does she believe that there is a need to enhance the security of bulk storage arrangements in both public and private bodies?
On encryption, the Prime Minister spoke some months ago about the possibility of introducing a ban. Clearly, that is not the policy that the Home Secretary has just outlined. Will she explain the reason for the change in approach? Alongside the proposals on encryption, it is clear that the Bill will place a range of new legal duties on communications providers. Will she tell the House whether all the major providers support her proposals, including those who are based overseas? I listened carefully to what she said on that point. She implied that the measures in the Bill would not apply to organisations that are based overseas. That suggests that there is a large hole that the legislation will not cover. Will she say more about that and reassure us on whether there will be voluntary arrangements in that area?
Will the Home Secretary say whether the measures will apply to individuals? There is rapid change in the development of online applications, so we need to know whether individuals might be liable.
The whole House will welcome what the Home Secretary had to say about the Wilson doctrine, but she did not mention journalistic sources. Will she say whether the legislation will provide protection in such cases?
My predecessor made a key demand in the crucial area of authorisation, which I have reiterated. We are pleased that the Home Secretary has listened. The two-stage process that she advocates seems to have the merits of both arguments: it will provide public and political accountability, and the independence that is needed to build trust in the system. There may be a worry that it will build in delays. Will she say more about how the two-stage process will work in practice and how delays will be avoided? Will judges sign off warrants in all cases? If the Secretary of State and the judge come to different conclusions, who will have the final say?
Finally, as well as looking at the specific proposals in the Bill, it is important to look at the wider context in which they are being introduced. The Home Secretary will know that there are fears in some communities, particularly the Muslim community, that the powers will be used against them disproportionately. We have seen in the past how police powers have been wrongly used against trade unionists.
David Anderson rightly laid great emphasis on the need to build trust in the new framework. It does not help to create the right context when the Prime Minister suggests that the entire Muslim community quietly condones extremism, nor does it build confidence in the new Bill when, at the same time, the Government are legislating in the Trade Union Bill to impose new requirements on trade unionists in respect of the use of social media and on the monitoring of it by the police. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, “This isn’t Franco’s Britain”. Can the Home Secretary see that to continue to build on the trust she has created and the good start that she has made today, the Government should drop some of its more divisive rhetoric and measures, starting with the measures in the Trade Union Bill?
In conclusion, the issues the proposed legislation seeks to tackle go way beyond party politics. Any Government will face a difficult task in balancing the security of the nation with the privacy and liberties of individual citizens. As someone who was in the Home Office on 7/7, I know that that challenge has got harder in recent years. We will examine carefully the detail of the draft Bill and seek to improve the safeguards to build trust. Having listened carefully to what the Home Secretary has said today, I believe that she has responded to legitimate concerns and broadly got that difficult balance right.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone that he adopted for most of his response to my statement. I thank him for his willingness to understand and accept the importance of this legislation and for his clear comment that this is not mass surveillance. As he says, the message should go out very clearly from this House today that these are important powers that are necessary to keep us safe and secure, but that we must have the right safeguards.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions. I will attempt to answer as many of them as possible, but if I miss any particular points I will respond to them in writing.
Before I come to the specific questions, I want to address the reference that he made to the Prime Minister at the end of his speech. I have to say to him that it was not justified by the tone that he adopted for the rest of his speech. What the Prime Minister has said, and what we are saying in our counter-extremism strategy—the strategy deals with extremism of all sorts, including Islamist extremism and neo-Nazi extremism—is that we want to work with people in communities and encourage mainstream voices. We want to work to ensure that, when people are in isolated communities, we identify the barriers that cause that isolation. That is why Louise Casey is doing the very important work she is doing. The characterisation of the Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman puts to the House is not one that I recognise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about David Anderson’s view. I have had a private meeting with him on the matter and discussed it with him. We have taken virtually everything that he requested on board, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to say what his view is. That is for him to say separately. It was a private meeting and I just do not think it is appropriate for me to use it in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to serious crimes. Yes, the measure will cover only the most serious crimes, as currently defined in RIPA. That definition will be brought into the legislation.
On the retention of communications data, it will be possible to require the intercept communications records to be retained for up to 12 months. That refers only to the front page of the website. As I have said, it is not exactly which pages within a website that people have been looking at, but just the fact of access to a website or communications device.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about recent cyber-attacks. The message we take from those is very simple: as criminals are moving into more online crime, we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the power to deal with that cybercrime and work in that online space, which is precisely what today is about.
On encryption, the current requirement, which is in secondary legislation, that those companies issued with a warrant should take reasonable steps to respond to it in unencrypted form, is being put on the face of the legislation, but we are not banning encryption. We recognise that encryption plays an important part in keeping people’s details secure.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about providers. There may be a slight misunderstanding about requirements on overseas providers. There are some elements that we are not now requiring of overseas providers, but we retain the extra-territorial jurisdiction of our warrantry. It is still our view that we should be able to exercise against an overseas provider a warrant issued here in the UK. The work of Nigel Sheinwald, of which hon. Members will be aware, suggested that there was scope for a greater form of international agreement in this area. The Government will continue to look at that.
On journalistic sources, I did not mention it, but we will include in the legislation what we included in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code earlier this year: access to communications data to identify a journalist’s source will require judicial authorisation.
The point of the double lock is that both parties have to authorise the warrant for it to go ahead. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the time delays. There will be an urgent process, so it will be possible for a Secretary of State to sign an urgent warrant that will come immediately into effect. There will then be a period of time within which the judge will have to review it and make a decision on whether it should continue. We will look to ensure that, in that urgent process, the time delay is as little as possible between those two parts of the process. As I have said, the purpose of a double lock is that, in most circumstances, we will have that double authorisation.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In view of the size of the Bill, I will confine myself solely to the judicial authorisation aspects of it. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the measure will replace all 66 statutory approval mechanisms for intercept and use of communications data? Will the judiciary involved in the authorisation procedures be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission or by the Prime Minister? Will Members of Parliament get the same protections on communications data, to which she referred, that are being extended to journalists? My understanding is that that is not the case.
Mrs May
In relation to the warrantry that will be subject to the double lock and the process of interception, where the process currently requires a warrant signed just by the Secretary of State, it will in future have the double lock. Additional processes will be introduced in relation to some of the bulk capabilities to which I referred. Obviously, we have to appoint the investigatory powers commissioner. There will then be a process to determine who should be under the commissioner and the areas of expertise they should have. I have said to the Justice Secretary in Scotland and the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland that we would expect to ensure that Scottish and Northern Ireland expertise is available to the commissioner.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Her last Bill on this fraught but important subject hit the buffers. The current Bill is a much-improved model, although I have the feeling that, under the bonnet, it retains some of the flaws of its predecessor. The Home Office has clearly put in a lot of work, which I welcome, as I do the dropping of some of the key provisions on third-party data and encryption. I am a little confused by the advance briefings on the Bill: some suggest that it is a radical departure from its predecessor, and others suggest that much of it is the same. It cannot be both, and the devil will be in the detail.
On judicial authorisation, the Home Secretary has set out a somewhat complex double-lock compromise that may incur stop-start delays. I heard what she said earlier, but I wonder whether it would not be simpler and faster to provide for direct judicial authorisation. I should like to understand from her why she has not decided to do that.
On web browsing, I strongly welcome what looks at first like a significantly more proportionate and targeted approach, but will the Home Secretary explain why it is still necessary to hold such large amounts of data retrospectively for a considerable period of time?
Finally, will the Home Secretary tell the House why she has not acted on the commitment she made in the last Parliament to establish a proper US-style privacy and civil liberties board to provide reasoned scrutiny on such Bills in future?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman says that there was some confused briefing. Different reports appeared in newspapers, but that is not necessarily the result of briefing. The situation on the Bill is what I have set out today in my statement—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) says that I went on TV. I said on TV exactly what I am about to say to the House in relation to the difference between the Bill and the draft Communications Data Bill, which is that some of the more contentious elements are not in the current Bill. For example, the requirement for UK communications service providers to retain and access third-party data from overseas providers is not in the Bill, nor is the web browsing provision, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and nor is the provision that would have placed on US and overseas providers the same data retention requirements and obligations that apply to UK service providers.
On judicial authorisation, the double lock provides both judicial independence, but also, crucially, public accountability. That is what we get through membership of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned retrospective data. I put to him the case of the abducted child. We want to see who that child or young person was in contact with before they were abducted. We can do that through telephone records, but we cannot do it if they were using a social media app. That is what the intercept communications records enable us to do.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The Intelligence and Security Committee will, working in co-operation with the Joint Committee, provide scrutiny for the proposed legislation. In that context, my right hon. Friend referred to the earlier report of the ISC in March, in which there were 54 specific recommendations. While I appreciate that, in part, the draft Bill may be seen as a response to those recommendations, there is a duty on the Government to provide a specific response to the ISC report. May I urge her that, in the course of the next few weeks and while the debate takes place, the Government should provide such a response—it can be in quite a short form—to those 54 recommendations, because that will enable the House and the public to identify those areas that need to be looked at in the course of the debate, and to identify what has been taken on board and what, perfectly properly, has been rejected by the Government? I seek an assurance from her today that that will happen.
Mrs May
Of course, the ISC report went wider than investigatory powers, but I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that, in relation to those aspects that dealt with such powers, in a sense the new Bill is a response to the report. As he knows, we have been considering very carefully the full set of recommendations from the previous ISC and will respond to him and his Committee in a timely fashion.
Joanna Cherry
I am nearly finished.
I welcome the Home Secretary’s indication that protection of all parliamentarians’ communications will be put on a statutory footing, but will that protection extend to people communicating with parliamentarians, such as our constituents, whistleblowers and campaigners, and will there be not just oversight by the Prime Minister, but judicial oversight?
Finally, and briefly but importantly, the Bill concerns not only issues of national security but the investigation of serious crime, and accordingly it will impinge on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she is aware of this and that a legislative consent motion will be required in due course, and that she has engaged, and will continue to engage, with the Scottish Government?
Mrs May
On the hon. and learned Lady’s point about an open door, I have already spoke to Michael Matheson about the Bill, and my officials have been, and will continue to be, in touch with Scottish Government officials. I am well aware that it impinges on matters devolved to the Scottish Government—the operation of Police Scotland and the signature of warrantry relating to law enforcement powers—and we will work with them. There is a question about whether a legislative consent motion is necessary, but officials are working through that and considering whether it would be appropriate.
I recognise that the Scottish Government have raised the timing of warrantry. We have every confidence that the process will not add greater bureaucracy, but will add the necessary independent judicial authorisation. In emergency warrant cases, the Secretary of State will be able to authorise a warrant immediately, but that will be followed by a speedy review by the judge to ensure there is still authorisation.
The hon. and learned Lady asked if David Anderson’s recommendations, particularly about the Bill’s being comprehensive, had been met. I genuinely believe that this is a clearer and more comprehensible and comprehensive Bill, although given its length, some Members might wonder how I can say that. It is an important Bill that will set out much more clearly the different powers available to the authorities. She asked about necessity and proportionality. Of course, warrants will still be judged on whether they are necessary and proportionate—that will still be the test applied by the Secretary of State to any warrants signed. On the issue of liberty versus security, some people think it is a zero-sum game—that if we increase one, we reduce the other—but I am clear that we cannot enjoy our liberty until we have our security.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Our success in preventing numerous attacks on the public, to which the Home Secretary rightly paid tribute, is down not just to the professionalism and skill of our security services, but to the rapid decision-making process for warrants. As she and I know acutely, this is a very serious responsibility, but I strongly believe that these decisions should be made by an elected Member of the House, accountable to the House and Committees such as the ISC. I am concerned that involving a decision maker from the judiciary, who might not have particular skills in this area, will bring delay and complication. As Secretary of State, I was often approached at short notice and at difficult times of the day—early morning, for example—for a decision, and in making such decisions, I was fully aware that I would be held to account later. Will she explain further how this system will work? How many hours after an early-morning decision by a Secretary of State will there be scrutiny by the judge? Will the Secretary of State be able to discuss the areas of concern, and will the intelligence services, which prepare the material—I always found it to be punctilious, correct and professionally drafted—have an opportunity to return with a further application with further detail, if the Secretary of State has understood the judge’s grounds for throwing out an application?
Mrs May
As he said, in his former role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend did indeed witness the process of warrant approval. I am conscious of the need to ensure that warrants can be put in place within a reasonable timeframe. There are already agreements between the Home Office and the Security Service about the time needed for a Secretary of State to deal with a warrant and for officials to process the warrantry, and we would expect to come to similar agreements with the judicial commissioners in order to make clear the time in which a warrant needs to be considered.
The judicial commissioners, in considering the warrants under the powers they will be given, will apply the same principle as applied by a court on an application for judicial review, but in an emergency a Secretary of State will be able to authorise a warrant immediately. In normal circumstances, the double lock will be required for a warrant to be exercised, but in an emergency it will be possible to exercise it purely on the Secretary of State’s authorisation. The Bill makes it clear that the judicial commissioners should review that decision within five days and decide whether the warrant can continue or should be stopped, and if it is stopped, whether the material gained from it should be kept in certain circumstances or destroyed.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Today the Home Secretary has ripped up RIPA—a piece of legislation that has been unfit for purpose. I particularly welcome the ban on local authorities accessing information about their own citizens. Although I welcome the additional judicial scrutiny, I have some concerns. Who will train the judges to deal with this very complex area? We shall need a panel of judges and a lot of expertise. Will she continue working with the internet providers to ensure that we track people of interest? I know that the Home Secretary said that the information is equivalent to an itemised bill, but there is a lot of information in an itemised bill. If I were to look at her itemised telephone bill and she were to look at mine, we might be surprised at who we were telephoning. [Interruption.]
Mrs May
I think that in their sedentary suggestion my hon. Friends made the right response to that particular point: “Speak for yourself!” There is an issue with the judicial panel, and a number of judges will need to be brought together. It is not the first time that changes have been made in matters relating to national security, where judges have to deal with them in different circumstances from which they have dealt with them previously. Judges are used to making independent decisions on a judicial review basis and on the basis of the law as they know it. Of course, a Secretary of State who, like me, has been in the position for some time will have seen a history of national security operations, for example, that provides a level of experience that would not be there the first time a judge looked at this. Ensuring that the judges are aware of that national security background will, I am sure, be part of the process. I have more faith in the judiciary and its ability to work independently than the right hon. Gentleman perhaps does.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I agree with the Home Secretary about the importance of putting faith in the ability of the judiciary. What consultation will she have with the Lord Chief Justice on the selection of members of the panel that will be appropriately security vetted? Can she ensure, for example, that an appropriate senior judge is available to be on call on a 24-hour basis, as is perfectly common in other types of judicial review proceedings so that delay is minimised? Will she also provide more detail on how the appointment of the judicial commissioners will take place and who will be responsible for it? Finally, will she give an undertaking that the ambition to introduce the Bill by the spring will in no way truncate the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Joint Committee?
Mrs May
On the last point, we will be talking to the Chairman of the Joint Scrutiny Committee, when appointed, about the appropriate timetable. Although we have the deadline of December 2016, we want to ensure that the process of scrutiny by the Joint Committee is a proper one, and the timetable will reflect that. On the judicial commissioners and the investigatory powers commissioner, we have already had some discussions at official level with the judiciary, as my hon. Friend might imagine. We would not be putting these provisions into legislation unless we had spoken to the judiciary about the requirements. Discussions about the precise elements that my hon. Friend and others have raised about the choice and number of judicial commissioners will be ongoing.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The police and the agencies will agree with what the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have said about the need both for powers to deal with serious threats and for safeguards that are needed in a democracy. I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to judicial authorisation and her significant points about transparency, both of which issues reflect the David Anderson report.
I want to ask particularly about the investigatory powers commissioner. It sounds like something we have called for, but will that commissioner be accountable to the Executive and to the Prime Minister, which has limited the operation of some of the existing commissioners, or will he be accountable instead to Parliament or to the ISC? How will this interact with the existing counter-terror reviewer? I think David Anderson has done an extremely good job in that role.
Mrs May
On the right hon. Lady’s last point, there is no intention to change the role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. As she will know, we have made some adaptations to that role in respect of what it covers and the reporting requirements, but there is no intention to change that role. Indeed, we are having discussions with David Anderson, ensuring that he has extra support for the role he is required to carry out.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and others who have raised this issue. The appointment of the investigatory powers commission will be a prime ministerial one, and the Prime Minister will appoint such members of other judicial commissions as are considered necessary. The Bill will set out the relevant qualifications that judicial commissioners will need to have to undertake their role.
As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will know, the existing commissioners report annually on the work they undertake. It is a great pity that that part of our process of oversight has never really been seen by the public, precisely because the reports usually show that the agencies are doing a very good job, so do not hit the headlines in the way that different sorts of reports would. We expect the independent investigatory powers commissioner to ensure that recommendations are made and to make public any views on the processes that emerge.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Constituents of mine who work at GCHQ are some of the most talented and dedicated public servants anywhere in our country, but they are also conscientious and scrupulous about acting within the law. Does the Secretary of State agree that these measures contain a clear authorisation and oversight framework, including a welcome judicial element, which can command public confidence and, crucially, allow GCHQ employees to do their vital work with professionalism and pride?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend does well in speaking for his constituents who work at GCHQ, and indeed for all who work at GCHQ. Obviously, I have met and dealt with a number of them, and with our other security agencies such as the Secret Intelligence Service and MI5. I can confirm what my hon. Friend says—these people act with extreme professionalism in the work they do, and take extreme care with the powers they exercise. They are very conscious of the powers they hold and they are very careful in the exercise of them. As my hon. Friend says, the Bill provides the important strong oversight arrangements that will enable the people at GCHQ and our other agencies to get on with the job they do so well, day in and day out.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
However much we all agree that action is necessary to combat terrorism and other forms of criminality, I remain concerned, even if I am one of only a few who is, about the excessive powers that will be given to the security authorities in addition to what they already have, although judicial involvement is better than no judicial involvement. I hope the Home Secretary will bear in mind the fact that there is a good deal of concern outside this House. I certainly believe that if this measure were to be passed without substantial amendment, it would be unfortunate and a bitter blow for civil liberties.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman says that he thinks there are substantial new powers in the Bill, but I have to tell him that there are not. What the Bill primarily does is to bring together the powers that are spread across a number of pieces of legislation—mainly RIPA, but others too—into one single piece of legislation in a much clearer and more comprehensible form than has previously been the case. There is a new power in respect of the retention of the internet connection—with limited access to internet connection records—but the other powers in the Bill already exist. What it will do is strengthen safeguards and strengthen authorisation systems.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s careful and thoughtful approach to this sensitive area, which is so important for all our safety, and I particularly welcome the new provisions on judicial oversight. If my right hon. Friend anticipates that additional specialist training will be required by members of the judiciary to fulfil the widened remit she has outlined today, will it be possible to ensure that there is no delay in putting the necessary training in place? Will she be able to carry it out in advance and in anticipation of the legislation passing through the House?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. We shall take every step to ensure that as soon as the legislation is in place, the new processes and structures will be brought into operation. That means ensuring that those appointed as the investigatory powers commissioner and additional commissioners have the necessary training to enable them to undertake the role we are giving them.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that when in the past she has sought support from the DUP on national security issues, it has always been willingly given. Sometimes, however, we find it hard to take when the Government do not tackle serious and organised crime on the ground in Northern Ireland. Ministers could take immediate measures with statutory instruments to address serious and organised fuel crime, and they should do that urgently. More directly, does the Secretary of State recognise that some of the major godfathers of serious and organised crime will be in direct communication with some political representatives in Northern Ireland? To avoid the debacle that we had over the National Crime Agency, she should avoid a legislative consent motion for Northern Ireland.
Mrs May
I, and others in the House, worked hard to ensure that the National Crime Agency was able to operate in Northern Ireland, and it is now tackling serious and organised crime there just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am not aware that a legislative consent motion would be necessary in Northern Ireland, but we will be talking to the Northern Ireland Executive about such matters, just as we will be talking to the Scottish Government.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House today and setting out such a comprehensive approach to these issues. She is right to do so because they affect fundamentally the civil liberties and rights of every citizen in the country. Parliament will need to look precisely at the words in the Bill, not least because—she alluded to this—there has been a certain amount of spin in the papers recently and we must be clear about what is suggested. On warrantry, from time to time I deputised for the Home Secretary and for my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and I am inclined to agree that the dual key is the right way to proceed. Does she accept that the judges appointed must not be those who work too closely with the police and security services—for example the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—because their independence will not be trusted or accepted by the general public if they are given such a role?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work—as he said, he sometimes signed warrants on my behalf and that of other Secretaries of State. Those appointed as judicial commissioners must have held high judicial office—we are setting a high threshold for those appointed to this role. Because such extra, strengthened oversight is an important part of the Bill, those who are appointed must be seen by members of the public to have the independence that is required to give extra confidence in the whole process of warrantry.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary must be aware that there is wide acceptance of her statement in the House, and Members will consider the details of the legislation in due course. One question from Members of this House and the other UK legislatures is whether she is happy that the combination of the triple lock, as she described it, is the best way to ensure that extra safeguarding is provided?
Mrs May
Yes I am, and I apologise because I think one or two Members have already raised that issue. It is important to introduce the extra element—the third element—of consultation with the Prime Minister, so that everybody in the House will be clear about requests to intercept the communications of a Member of this House, the House of Lords, or the other legislatures. We will discuss with the Scottish Government the process that will be introduced for warrants that are currently signed by Scottish Ministers. That third lock is the right way to go, and I hope that will give people confidence in the process.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his remarks about the snoopers charter misnomer. The difficulty we often face is when the use and abuse of intelligence leads to poor policy decisions—I am thinking particularly of the September 2002 dodgy dossier from which I am afraid the reputation of the intelligence services has yet to fully recover. What can be done further to improve public understanding of the work that the intelligence services do on their behalf? I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her remarks about the double lock and the investigatory powers commissioner, and for the fact that her statement draws on the three reports to which she referred. That is a good first step although I am sure she feels that more could be done. What more can we do as the Bill passes through the House?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important point about highlighting to members of the public the nature of the work being done by the agencies and the way they do it. A number of steps have already been taken, and I am sure we will build on them to ensure that the public have that confidence. Recently, the agencies have been more willing to come forward and explain what they do to members of the public—the director general of MI5 gave a live interview on the “Today” programme, and that is the first time any of our agency heads have given such an interview. Anybody who has read The Times over the past couple of weeks will have seen a considerable amount of reporting on the operations of GCHQ. Such things are important because they help the public to understand what our agencies are doing.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
A large number of constituents have contacted me about this matter. Does the Secretary of State accept that concerns about her proposals go well beyond what is sometimes wrongly dismissed as the civil liberties lobby?
Mrs May
It is important that Members of the House make clear to people exactly what the Government are proposing, and the strength and safeguards in the Bill. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the review by David Anderson on these matters, in which he cited polling that showed that the majority of members of the public wanted the authorities and agencies to have the powers they need to keep us safe.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
We often hear about the rights of criminals not to have their privacy intruded on. Will the Home Secretary inform the House about the perspective she has heard from the victims of crime?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I met representatives from groups who support and campaign for victims of crime, including child sexual abuse, rape and stalking. They made it very clear that the Government must ensure that the police and others are able to use the powers necessary to bring the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
A few weeks ago at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Government’s QC, Mr James Eadie, seemed to argue—on the Home Secretary’s behalf and at public expense—that modern technology had rendered the Wilson doctrine impractical, and that it was not up to much anyway. Now that the doctrine has been reborn in the Home Secretary’s statement, will she say what has happened to modern technology over the past few weeks that has now made practical what was impractical? How will that protection extend to journalists, campaigners and whistleblowers who may be contacting their MP or MSP?
Mrs May
I am not sure that I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of references to modern technology. I was clear in the statement that I gave to the House less than two weeks ago that the Wilson doctrine still exists. We are putting the third lock of consultation with the Prime Minister in the legislation. Over time a mythology has grown up around what the Wilson doctrine meant. Many Members of the House felt that it meant that no communication by MPs would ever be intercepted, but that is not what the doctrine said.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
If the first duty of the Government is the protection of the realm, their second duty is to ensure that those protections are fit for purpose—my right hon. Friend the Secretary and the Minister for Security have passed that test with flying colours and are to be congratulated. The Home Secretary mentioned in passing the benefits that her proposals will bring when clamping down on paedophiles and child sexual exploitation, and as a father of three young children I welcome that, as do all my constituents. Will she flesh out a little further what benefits she sees for the services that are involved in clamping down on such pernicious activity? What benefits will her proposals actually deliver?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Let me give him just one example. Following a recent survey of more than 6,000 cases, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre determined that more than 860 paedophiles could not be identified precisely because it did not have the internet connection records power that we are introducing in the Bill. With that power, it would have been able to identify them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Under Operation Notarise, more than 30,000 individuals were identified as engaging in online child abuse, but, if I recall correctly, only 1,000 of those cases were followed up. Will the new powers be matched by resources to ensure that prosecutions and safeguarding interventions can take place as well?
Mrs May
As I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the increased power relating to internet connection records will increase the ability of CEOP—and, indeed, others—to identify the paedophiles who are committing these horrific crimes. The National Crime Agency has made very clear that it continues to investigate those who are looking at online images of child abuse, and continues to take action against them.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the proposed powers update the existing investigatory powers to reflect the existence of new technologies such as Facebook Messenger, which were not even thought of a decade ago, but what reassurance can the Home Secretary give the House that the Bill will be future-proofed so that we do not have to return to the issue very rapidly?
Mrs May
I have every confidence, because we have taken every care to draft the legislation in such a way that it will last for a good many years and will take account of the fact that new technologies develop. The draft Communications Data Bill was drawn so widely that there was great concern about what the authorities might have been able to do as a result, so we have had to balance the requirements very carefully, but we are obviously very conscious of the need to ensure that the Bill enables us to move forward as technology develops.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I welcome the statement, but it appears that every application to the Secretary of State and the judge will involve limited provision for investigative accessibility. Will applicants have to go back to the Secretary of State and the judge to make a secondary, or further, application every time something is found during an investigative process?
Mrs May
The requirement for a double lock relates to the most intrusive powers, mainly those relating to the interception of communications. Access to communications data will continue to take place according to the current process, which does not involve warrantry from the Secretary of State. Not everything in the Bill involves the warrantry; it is involved only in those most intrusive powers.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated particularly on the introduction of independent judicial oversight, which, as she will know, many Members in all parts of the House regard as an essential step towards ensuring that she can promote both the security of the people and their civil liberties. As she says, security and civil liberties are not a zero-sum game; they go together.
In relation to the double lock, has my right hon. Friend considered any kind of reconciliation mechanism to enable the judge and the Home Secretary to resolve the position—presumably over some time—if they reach different decisions, or will the intelligence services be able to come back again so that warrants are not simply lost?
Mrs May
That is an important point. I think that it was touched on in a previous question, and I apologise for not responding to it then.
Under the current system, if the Secretary of State expresses the view that a warrant should not be issued, it is open to the agency concerned to go away, reconsider, and then come back with more information about necessity and proportionality, or to abandon the warrant, or to consider applying for a different warrant. That process will continue to be possible under the new system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, David Anderson called for prior judicial authorisation. He also said that the new law should comply with international human rights standards. Given the uncertainty over the future of the Human Rights Act, will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will comply with that Act, and with the European convention on human rights?
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s balanced approach. Is it not important for us to continue to reassure the public that this is not a proposal for mass surveillance, and to restate the essential need for the Bill? There is a new form of technology that is effectively shielded from the law enforcement and intelligence agencies simply because the law has not kept up with technological development, and it is therefore necessary to update the law with essential safeguards in order to ensure that the public are safe.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
May we have some idea of any benchmarks that may have informed the Home Secretary’s declaration that these will be world-leading oversight arrangements?
Mrs May
As I think was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), other countries look to this legislation precisely because they feel that we are forging a path ahead. They will be looking very closely at what we do in the Bill, and, indeed, may wish to adopt some elements of it in their own legislation.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary comment on what was said recently by Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation? He said:
“Judges are, of course, very good quality men and women”,
but
“if judges are going to authenticate these issues, they have to learn about national security”.
We have heard about three reports that had influenced the Government’s thinking. Will the Home Secretary tell us who else they consulted when they were drafting the Bill? I am thinking particularly of communications companies and internet providers.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has quoted Lord Carlile, who, as she said, is a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. It will, of course, be necessary for any judicial commissioners who undertake the warrantry to be aware of the context in which they make decisions in relation to national security in particular. There have been a great many meetings with internet service providers from both the United Kingdom and overseas. The Security Minister and I have held round tables with United States internet service providers, and I met some when I was in the United States in September. We have also held round tables with United Kingdom providers, civil liberties groups, and charities representing victims of these serious crimes.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the tone and nature of the statement, but may I ask the Home Secretary what in particular led her to decide that 12 months was the right maximum period for the police and security agencies to benefit from data retention?
Mrs May
It is the period that is currently in legislation that we reinforced in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. We looked at it again following the Digital Rights Ireland decision by the European Court of Justice. It had previously been possible to hold data for up to 24 months, but we felt that, given the need for a balance between not holding data for too long and holding data for a sufficient period to do the job required by the authorities, up to 12 months was the right and appropriate time frame.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement.. When we talk about nefarious online activity, we should bear in mind that cyber-bullying is a very worrying activity which often involves young, vulnerable people and, in the most serious cases, has led to suicides. In those most serious cases, could the new powers be used to put the perpetrators behind bars?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of cyber-bullying, which affects the lives of too many young people—sometimes, as he said, with tragic consequences. The Bill will include a definition of serious crime, which is one of the areas in which it is possible for the agencies to apply for the most intrusive powers, such as interception warrantry. I would expect cyber-bullying, at the most serious end, to come within the definition, but I will check that point and write to my hon. Friend.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Does the Bill deal with the process of applying to go through browsing history—the directory to which the Home Secretary referred? If there are no such regulatory procedures in the Bill at the moment, might the Home Secretary think about a system whereby somebody at the rank of chief superintendent, for example, would give initial permission under RIPA criteria?
Mrs May
It will not be possible for law enforcement agencies to access browsing history; they will just be able to access the first device or social media site that the individual device accessed, for the limited purposes I have set out—IP resolution, to see whether somebody is looking at an illegal website or to find out the communications services accessed. The arrangements for authorisation are those in existence for communications data in telephony, which were looked at by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill. It felt that that was the right process to lead to serious and proper consideration of access—albeit not the browsing history—and that the right measures were already being taken in that authorisation process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the statement, which will help make the country safer and prevent local authorities from accessing communications data. The Home Secretary rightly condemned the extraordinary claim by the shadow Home Secretary in an otherwise positive response that the Prime Minister had said that the entire Muslim population condoned extremism. Will she confirm that in his speech on 7 October the Prime Minister specifically recognised the value of religious teaching across all religions, but said that the teaching of intolerance or separatism was not acceptable? Does the Home Secretary also agree that many of us know good examples of Islamic teaching in our constituencies and the message today is very clear: we should unite against extremism using all modern tools appropriately, and if there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the speech to which he refers, the Prime Minister welcomed and recognised the important role that faith teaching plays in our society. We all wish to see an end to intolerance, separatism and division among those who would seek to divide our communities. That is why our counter-extremism strategy is so important.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
As the home affairs spokesman for my party, I commend the Secretary of State for the reassurances given in her statement and her statements over the weekend about what is in the Bill, and perhaps more importantly, about what is not in it. We are grateful for those indications. There was an exchange earlier about the composition of the Joint Committee. May I encourage the Home Secretary to consider making sure that its composition reflects this House and more importantly the regions of this United Kingdom—that Northern Ireland’s voice can be present in those discussions to ensure that the legislation is drafted in full cognisance of the effects and impacts in Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman may recognise, decisions about the composition of Committees are taken by the business managers in the House, but I can assure him that it is my intention, as I indicated to David Ford when I spoke to him yesterday, that my officials will continue to work with Northern Ireland officials. Ministers will be available to speak to Ministers in Northern Ireland about these matters to ensure that we take into account the considerations in relation to Northern Ireland as this Bill goes through its scrutiny and through this House.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments that local authorities will be banned from accessing these sort of data. Can she give a little more information about the extension of the life of a warrant for any period and about data-sharing among those who are able to access those warrants—or will each authority have to access their own separate warrant?
Mrs May
Any agency that wishes to intercept and use these intrusive powers would need to have a warrant to do so. The current position, which it is intended will be replicated in the Bill, is that a warrant applied for by the security and intelligence agencies is normally in place for six months, and a warrant applied for by law enforcement is normally in place for three months. There is a much shorter period of time when an emergency warrant is signed; it normally must be reconsidered within five days.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that it is important that the public feel reassured by these proposals and that, therefore, while it is clear that the police and security services need the very important powers set out today, where they are most intrusive it is right that they are authorised by Secretaries of State, who are, after all, accountable to the public?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the doublelock is important. Many people have called for the involvement of the independence of the judiciary, but I think it is important not to abandon the public accountability of Secretaries of State. It is the Secretary of State who can stand in this House and who is accountable for the actions of the agencies, and that is why it is important that they continue to sign.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She will know that the debate about the use of investigatory powers often focuses on prevention of terrorism. Does she agree that the proposed powers are also important in keeping the public safe from financial cyber-criminals and organised crime?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that the double lock will mean judicial oversight to ensure that the measures are legal and proportionate, and that the Secretary of State can ensure that the public interest test is satisfied by any warrant being issued?
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which again shows why she is held in such high regard by those who operate in these teams. Does she agree that one of our great privileges in this country is the relative safety and security that we enjoy in a desperately unstable world, and that sometimes these privileges require a price, which in my experience the vast majority in this country are willing to pay so long as they are safe?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend, who of course has put himself on the line to maintain our security and defend this country, makes a very important point. Most members of the public want to know that the authorities have the powers they need to keep them safe, but they also want to ensure that those powers are exercised properly, and that is where the safeguards that we have put in this Bill are so important.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I, too, welcome the statement. I have also been alarmed by the terming of the so-called snoopers charter and, unsurprisingly, have had correspondence from concerned constituents, but as a forward-looking Government, doing nothing is not an option. We should listen to the police chiefs and give them those essential tools. Does the Home Secretary agree?
Mrs May
Yes, that is important. The police have been very clear that they need these tools if they are going to be able to continue to do the job we want them to do in relation to serious and organised criminals and particularly in relation to paedophiles. On the first point my hon. Friend made, that is why I particularly welcome the comment made by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham): across this House we can send out a message today that this Bill is not about mass surveillance.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary and her team on introducing into what has been an incomprehensible regime much-needed transparency and coherence, informed deeply by three independent reports and, importantly, enabling our intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies to have the powers they need to deal with the unprecedented scale and character of the threat this country faces. On warranting, does my right hon. Friend agree that the judiciary are well placed to deal with their new involvement? As a barrister, I made urgent applications on the phone late at night on an emergency basis to senior judges, so they are experienced in these matters. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the double lock strikes the right balance between public accountability and appropriate checks and balances?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend, particularly for her reference to her own experience. Sometimes people have a vision of judges taking a very long time to do all this, but as she says, there are many occasions on which they have to react very quickly to requests, and they have to be available to do so. I expect that they will do that in these circumstances as well. I believe that this Bill will strike the right balance between public accountability and the independence of the judiciary, which will give the public that extra confidence.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The House has generally welcomed the Home Secretary’s balanced approach, as do I, but may I urge her to be much more aggressive in one regard? In her statement, she referred to equipment interference powers. May I encourage her to frame those powers in such a way that they could be used to disrupt or even destroy servers distributing child abuse images or other criminal material?
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Lord Carlile, the former terrorism laws watchdog, has said that there has been a lot of demonisation of the police and security services over their intentions regarding this information. He also said:
“I think it’s absurd to suggest that the police and the security services have a kind of casual desire to intrude on the privacy of the innocent.”
Does my right hon. Friend support that view?
Mrs May
Absolutely. The heads of agencies have also made it clear that they have no intention of intruding on everybody’s lives. That is why the message that this is not about mass surveillance is so important. This is about targeting those who are seeking to do us harm and ensuring that any action that is taken is always necessary and proportionate.
Policing
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened, because I am not saying anything of the kind. I am not saying that the cuts that the Government have managed to date have been without consequence. I have just described how functions as important as managing Remembrance Sunday parades have been cancelled. I have also pointed out that crime is rising and I, for one, do not say that there is no link between police numbers and rising crime. We looked at a plan to protect the frontline by merging police forces. I note that the Government have turned their face against that. It is all about how they do it. The frontline can be protected if the Government are prepared to manage the cuts in a way that takes resource out of the back office. They are not prepared to do that, either, so consequently we are seeing unacceptable cuts in police forces up and down the country.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am very interested in the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the frontline. Perhaps he would like to add in to his speech the fact that the proportion of officers on the frontline has increased over the past five years.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I commend the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for securing his first Opposition day debate since becoming shadow Home Secretary. I agree with his comments about the bravery of our police officers and the excellent job they do for us day in, day out. We were tragically reminded by the funeral of PC David Phillips earlier this week of the dangers that our police officers face when they put on that uniform and go out on shift, because they never know what they will face or what difficulties they will encounter. Sadly, in PC David Phillips’s case, a family was left bereaved. Our thoughts are with his family and with his colleagues in the Merseyside police.
However, I cannot commend the motion that the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House today. Not only is it simply wrong on almost every point of fact, but it shows that Her Majesty’s Opposition have comprehensively failed to learn the lessons of the past five years. I will happily turn to each of their points in turn, but before doing so I want to say this: when I became Home Secretary in 2010 and set out the need for reform of policing, the response from the Opposition Benches was to deny the need for change. The Labour party was united with chief constables and the Police Federation in saying that funding reductions would lead to a “perfect storm” of rising crime, falling public confidence and a depleted and damaged frontline. Five years on, and not a single one of those irresponsible claims has come true.
Crime, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales—one of the most authoritative indicators of crime in any country in the world—is down by more than a quarter. Public confidence in the police has remained strong. Far from the frontline being damaged, police officers are now more likely to be deployed in front-line roles, like patrol or neighbourhood officers, than at any time in modern policing history. This is the uncomfortable truth for the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party: communities in England and Wales are safer now than they have ever been. Their homes are less likely to be burgled, their cars are less likely to be stolen, and their friends and families are less likely to be confronted with violence on Britain’s streets.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We had a meeting earlier this week at which we heard police officers say that 1% of fraud was being investigated. We heard concerns that cases of human trafficking were not being investigated. We know for a fact that the number of hate crimes against disabled people has increased by 25%. How can the Home Secretary be so complacent?
Mrs May
We are concerned about the investigation of fraud, which is exactly why we set up the economic crime command in the National Crime Agency, to improve the police’s ability to deal with fraud. With regard to human trafficking, it is the Conservative party that introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, ably taken through the House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). It gives the police extra powers to deal with exactly that point. Police reform is working and crime is falling.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
What message does the Home Secretary think she is sending to my constituents when only 16% of knife crimes in 2013-14 have been resolved? Is she suggesting that my local police force is incompetent or that tragedies such as the murder of Mohamed Duru-Ray, who was a 16-year-old stabbed to death, should go unsolved?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Hampshire constabulary, which has 96% of police out on the beat rather than stuck in back offices, because of efficiencies and reorganisation which have led to an 11% reduction in crime?
Mrs May
I absolutely do congratulate Hampshire police. I have visited Hampshire police. It is one of the police forces that has been at the forefront of using technology to help it investigate crime—through the body-worn video cameras, for example, and the tough tablets that they have taken out with them. They are also working very closely with the fire service and doing everything to ensure that they have been making savings and improving the service to the public.
Graham Stuart
On the new funding formula for the police, there is concern among many that it favours the urban over the rural. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other colleagues from across the House who represent rural constituencies to discuss the formula and ensure that we get something that is fair to all?
Mrs May
I am happy to do so. I know that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister has been conducting a number of meetings with colleagues to hear their views on the proposed police funding formula. I am happy to set up the sort of meeting that my hon. Friend suggests. The consultation on the police funding formula is still open and no decisions have been taken in relation to it.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The funding formula as it stands is out for consultation, but the proposals would lead to a 5.1% cut for Sussex police and a 5.2% increase for Surrey police next door—urban to rural. Would the Home Secretary say that that is fair, and that a city such as Brighton and Hove, which has very specific challenges, could cope with another 5.1% cut, on top of all the others?
Mrs May
The point I made is very simple. The police funding formula has been out for consultation for a while. We are listening to the representations and then decisions will be taken. He refers to the specific needs of certain parts of the Sussex police force area, Brighton and Hove being one of those. I take this opportunity to commend the work that Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne has been doing in relation to certain communities in Sussex and the very real attention that she has given to the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
Joan Ryan
Enfield communities value their police community support officers, particularly given the rise in violent crime and the need for uniformed officers on the streets to reassure people. The right hon. Lady will know that having had a £600 million cut in budget, the Met police are now expecting another £800 million cut in the spending review and are considering making the decision in December to axe all PCSOs. Does the Home Secretary place any value on police community support officers?
Mrs May
Earlier the right hon. Lady intervened on her right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and referred to the issues around knife crime. May I take this opportunity to commend her predecessor in her constituency, Nick de Bois, who did a great deal in relation to knife crime and ensured that further legislation was passed in this House in that regard? On the issue of police community support officers, of course we value them, but the decision is an operational one for chief constables as to how they balance their budgets and ensure the differentiation. The sort of comments that we are hearing now about PCSOs have been heard before. For example, in 2010 the chief constable of Lancashire, Chief Constable Finnigan, said that with huge regret he had told all 427 PCSOs in the force that they might lose their jobs as a result of budget cuts. Did they? No, they did not.
Police reform is working, and crime is falling. This Government have achieved something that no other Government have achieved: we have proved that it is possible to improve services, and maintain public trust and confidence, while saving money for the taxpayer. We must not forget why those savings are necessary. The right hon. Member for Leigh mentioned the deficit and yes, we did inherit a structural deficit, high taxes, record debt and unreformed public services. I hope I do not have to remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the 2007 spending review was decided—a document that continued this country’s course down that fateful path of profligacy.
Andy Burnham
If I may correct the Home Secretary, I conducted the 2007 spending review as Chief Secretary and a decision was taken to grow public spending at a lower rate than overall growth in the economy—a decision that the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor described at the time as tough. The right hon. Lady needs to correct the record.
I want to ask the Home Secretary a direct question, and she cannot leave the debate today before she answers it. If she is saying that everything is fine, she now needs to tell the House at what level she thinks it is safe to cut the police before public safety is compromised. What is the percentage cut that she is prepared to make without compromising the safety of our constituents?
Mrs May
It sounded as though the right hon. Gentleman was about to get his handcuffs out and stop me. [Interruption.] Perhaps I won’t go there.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the discussions around the spending review are currently taking place. The spending review will be reported to this House by the Chancellor on 25 November. We are still consulting on the police funding formula, and in due course, after the spending review has been announced, the funding formula will be announced.
Since 2010, we have cut the budget deficit by more than half, we have lowered the tax burden for people up and down the country, and we have set about reforming public services to better serve citizens and communities. It is therefore with some dismay that I see the Opposition making exactly the same mistakes they made in 2010—misusing statistics, worrying decent members of the public, and wilfully ignoring the experience of the past five years. The similarities are uncanny.
The weekend before last, the right hon. Member for Leigh told the Sunday Express that
“the Home Secretary is gambling with public safety”,
just as five years ago his predecessor told The Daily Telegraph that police savings were “an irresponsible gamble with crime and public safety”. Indeed, in 2011 the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) even called an Opposition day debate on police funding, with a motion that bore more than a striking resemblance to the one we are discussing today.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I admire the Home Secretary’s approach to the good use of statistics. I am surprised to hear her say that crime has fallen, when in Redcar and Cleveland in the past year we have seen an increase in crime of 21%. That includes a 77% increase in violence against the person. This does not accord with what she says about crime falling. Under the Labour Government crime fell by 43%. I am very proud of our record so it is disappointing to see that.
Mrs May
I think I am right in saying that the figures the hon. Lady quotes for crime falling under the Labour Government have exactly the basis as the figures that I have quoted for crime falling over the past five years—the independent crime survey of England and Wales. There is an issue about police recorded crime which I will refer to later in my speech.
The tactics and the language of the Opposition have not changed, but I thought the shadow Home Secretary’s mind had. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, and as was very ably pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), the shadow Home Secretary told the Labour party conference:
“Of course, savings can be found.”
Savings are mentioned in the motion today. The Opposition say that further savings can be found. They therefore assume that the savings that have been made so far have not damaged policing. This was a point that the right hon. Member for Leigh completely failed to address when my right hon. Friend challenged him on it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On savings, according to the chief constable of Sussex, the last savings term delivered not only efficiency but reductions in crime—for example, by merging arrest units with detection units. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of how much money is spent, but of how well it is spent?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about how the money is spent, not about the absolute amount of money. That is a crucial difference between ourselves and the Labour party. Labour thinks the answer to everything is more money; we recognise that it is how the money is spent. It is not just about police officer numbers, but about how those officers are deployed.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Another problem that Labour seems to be repeating from its past, according to the shadow Home Secretary’s comments, is the plan to force mergers on to police forces. Will my right hon. Friend commend the way in which the West Mercia police force has worked in a bottom-up alliance with Warwickshire police? Only today, they have announced plans for a joint operational control centre with Hereford and Worcester fire service.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs May
I would like to make a little more progress, because I am conscious that a lot of Members wish to speak, and I want to turn to each of the points in the motion in turn.
First, the motion
“notes with concern the loss of 17,000 police officers in the last five years”
and the possibility of “further reductions” in numbers during this Parliament. Of course, that is not Government policy. Decisions on the size and make-up of each police force are not a matter for the Home Office but a matter for chief constables to decide on locally in conjunction with their police and crime commissioners. Indeed, and Labour Members might be interested in some of these facts, a large number of the police officer reductions since 2010—8,153 officers, or 48% of the total fall—were lost in the 13 areas controlled by Labour police and crime commissioners. Nowhere is this more the case than in neighbourhood policing. Between 2012 and 2014, Conservative PCCs increased the number of neighbourhood officers by 5,813, yet over the same period, Labour PCCs cut them by 701. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asks where these statistics come from. They should be familiar to Opposition Members, because they were released in response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) earlier this year. As Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said repeatedly over the past five years, what matters in policing and in the safety of communities is not how many officers there are in total, but how they are deployed. Since 2010, the proportion of officers deployed to the frontline has increased from 89% of officers to 92%—the highest level on record.
Andy Slaughter
I am sure that the Home Secretary will therefore join me in congratulating Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which is now funding 44 police constables on the beat in Hammersmith. At the same time, though, the Mayor of London has destroyed neighbourhood teams, is about to get rid of all PCSOs, and is closing two out of the three operational police stations in the borough. How can neighbourhood policing survive in that climate?
Mrs May
It is interesting to look at the Met, because it has been recruiting more officers, as is the Lancashire force, which I mentioned earlier. It is wrong to assume that the service that is offered by police officers is best judged by the number of police stations. Many forces up and down the country have sold off their police stations but have given the public better access to the police—as I saw when I visited my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) prior to the election—by siting them in council offices.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that more can be done on collaboration between the police and the fire and ambulance services so that efficiencies can be made?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are very good examples of where that is taking place. I referred to Hampshire. Northamptonshire is also doing this, and there are other examples of where there are real opportunities for savings to be made and for a better service to be given to the public as a result.
Secondly, the motion suggests that there is evidence that crime is rising, including increases, in the most recent police recorded crime statistics, in very serious crimes such as knife crime and sexual assault.
Mrs May
I am going to make progress.
The right hon. Member for Leigh and others are right when they say that those crimes are serious, and it is absolutely right that the police are recording more incidents of each, but it is wrong to suggest that an increase in police recording necessarily means more crime in communities. As the independent Office for National Statistics said last month:
“as well as improvements in recording, this is also thought to reflect a greater willingness of victims to come forward to report such crimes.”
Victims of crime—often very vulnerable people who have endured horrendous suffering and torment—are coming forward to tell their stories to the police and to put the perpetrators of their abuse behind bars. Members across this House should welcome that and not seek to manipulate or use it for their own ends. As I said earlier, according to the independent crime survey, crime is down by more than a quarter since 2010.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman says that crime is changing and traditional crimes such as burglary and car theft are being replaced by modern criminality like cybercrime. Crime is indeed changing, but the level of some digital crimes in no way compares with the dramatic falls in conventional volume crimes over the past five to 10 years. Crime survey data also show that the proportion of plastic card users who were victims of fraud is currently around 25% lower than its peak in 2009-10.
This Government have not failed to recognise the changing nature of crime; we have faced up to it. In 2012, we set up the National Crime Agency to lead the fight against serious and organised criminality. In 2014, we brought Action Fraud into the City of London police to better co-ordinate the response to fraud and financial crime. Our national cyber-security programme has invested nearly £900 million in protecting British people, businesses and state assets against cyber-attack. For the first time ever, the Office for National Statistics now publishes an estimate of the number of cybercrimes and frauds experienced by members of the public, making us the first major western country to capture the changing nature of crime.
Mrs May
I want to make progress because I am conscious of those who wish to speak.
However, it is the crux of the motion that I find most troubling—that is, the concern among Opposition Front Benchers that the police may endure spending reductions in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. As I have said, in the previous Parliament we successfully halved the deficit. In a few weeks’ time, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out how we will finish that job in the comprehensive spending review. In doing so, he will show that this Government recognise the value of balancing the books, spending within our means, and lowering taxes for hard-working people, because the deficit is still too high, and it is right that police forces share in that effort, as they have done in the past five years. To echo the shadow Home Secretary’s speech to the Labour party conference, savings are still there to be made. The limit of those savings is not the arbitrary 10% that he sets out in his motion. Let us remember that usable financial reserves for police forces in England and Wales stand at just over £2.1 billion right now—built up, in part, to help soften the impact of future spending cuts. These reserves increased by nearly £100 million last year—up in 26 forces across England and Wales. Capital reserves are approximately £240 million in 2014-15—roughly the same as the previous year.
Nor can we forget the extraordinary savings and operational benefits that can be made, as several hon. Friends have said, from better collaboration between forces and effective joint working with other local services. Only last week, Cleveland, Durham and North Yorkshire constabularies announced a £5 million saving by bringing together their dogs units, while still maintaining a 24-hour service across the three forces. There are efficiencies afforded by better technology. Cambridgeshire police have saved an estimated 240,000 officer hours a year and over £7 million by rolling out tablet and mobile devices to officers to allow them to work better on the road and away from the police station.
Graham Stuart
I add to my right hon. Friend’s list the police and crime commissioner for Humberside, Matthew Grove, who is working hard with the fire service to have a joint service centre for vehicles across the two services, saving millions of pounds in capital and revenue terms over the years. We have not heard much today about Labour’s U-turn in recognising that greater democratic oversight of local policing has been a significant contribution to better policing and improvements in crime figures across the country.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend Matthew Grove for the work that he is doing in Humberside, particularly in collaboration with the fire service. My hon. Friend reminds me that Labour Members have done a complete U-turn on directly elected police and crime commissioners. They were implacably opposed to them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, the former Policing Minister, will know from the time when he took the legislation on police and crime commissioners through the House, and now they have suddenly decided that they are a good thing and they should carry on.
Catherine West
The Home Secretary is painting rather a rosy picture of everything. What does she say to the orphans of Erdogan Guzel, who was tragically shot in Wood Green in the summer? The culprits still have not been brought to book because the police locally do not have the resources, despite the fact that the local authority, which is under immense strain, has pitched in and given them extra resources. Those orphans want an explanation as to what happened to their father and why that crime remains undetected because the follow-up work has not been done.
Mrs May
Obviously, I am very sorry to hear of that particular incident and the effect it has had on that family. Nobody wants to see anybody deprived of one of their parents through an attack of the sort described by the hon. Lady. I am very clear that I want the police to investigate such crimes and to be able to do so. That is partly why I stood here earlier to make a statement on a draft Bill that will ensure that our police have the powers they need to access certain data that they currently use to investigate crimes, but that, as modern technology develops, they are unable to access.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I did say that I would make progress and I am conscious that time is getting on.
I have just quoted a few examples of how collaboration can benefit forces and represent savings. They collectively represent opportunities worth billions of pounds in savings for policing, without the loss of operational capability and without cutting corners on the service the public expect. Policing has risen admirably to the challenge of lower budgets and a changing landscape in the past five years, and I have no doubt it will continue to do so in the next five.
Before I finish, I want to address the final point in the motion. Police Scotland has previously been held up—including by shadow Front Benchers—as a better alternative to the model of police reform this Government have pursued in England and Wales. If on nothing else in today’s debate, I agree with what it says about Police Scotland, because I firmly believe that the amalgamation of eight local forces into a single body was mistaken.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I refer the right hon. Lady to her party’s 2011 manifesto, which said that it would agree to the creation of a single police force. If it was good enough in 2011, why is it not good enough now?
Mrs May
Top-down restructures of police forces do not deliver the benefits they supposedly promise. We as a party here have said that if forces wish to come to us and say that they have a business case and local support for a merger, we will look at it. On top-down restructuring, however, the economies of scale invariably do not appear. The complexity of bringing together distinct organisations can distract from the day-to-day business of fighting crime, and the most precious element of policing by consent—local accountability—can be lost. We must go further to drive deeper collaboration, better sharing of back-office services and a more intelligent approach to where police capabilities sit, to generate savings without the loss of local accountability and identity.
Andy Burnham
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way one last time. We agree that savings can be made, but what we disagree on is the extent to which they can be made safely. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said that the Home Secretary is painting a rosy picture, and I think that police officers watching this debate will conclude that she is not living in the same world as them. This is not about what we on the Labour Benches are saying; chief constables from London to Lancashire are saying that the safety of their public will be compromised if the cuts go ahead. Does the Home Secretary think that those chief constables are scaremongering?
Mrs May
I will repeat the point that I have already made: if the right hon. Gentleman would care to look back to 2010, he will see that chief constables were making very similar points then and they have dealt with the savings. As he himself accepts in the motion, policing has not been damaged by the budget savings made over the past five years. Otherwise, he would not be able to stand up and say that further savings could be made.
Over the past five years, officers and staff have worked day in and day out to cut crime. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners have demonstrated true innovation and creativity in meeting the challenge of lower budgets, and in doing so they have shown that that greater efficiency, improved effectiveness and strengthened legitimacy are possible, all at the same time.
For the Government, the job is not yet done. We are currently consulting on a new funding formula so that the police grant is allocated fairly and in a transparent way between police forces. We have made proposals to allow much deeper collaboration with fire and rescue services and ambulance services—to save money and improve the operational response—and later in this Session, the Police and Criminal Justice Bill will give police officers much greater professional discretion to allow them to make savings, cut crime and improve services for the public.
Police reform has worked. That is the lesson that the Labour party has not yet learned, but in this Parliament—under this Government—police reform will continue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Modern Slavery: Transparency in Supply Chains
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today, the transparency in supply chains statutory guidance is being published in line with section 54(9) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The guidance has been developed in consultation with a range of business representative groups, trade bodies and non-governmental organisations. The guidance is available on the gov.uk website.
Copies of the statutory guidance will be made available in the Library of the House.
[HCWS277]
Police Custody: Deaths and Serious Incidents
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I announced on 23 July my intention to commission an independent review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody.
I am pleased to announce to the House that the review will be led by Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC.
I said that the chairman would be someone with the ability to work closely with victims, families and the police alike, and with a proven track record of being willing to ask difficult questions.
Dame Elish has all of these qualities. She was installed as Solicitor General for Scotland on 5 December 2001, and Lord Advocate on 12 October 2006. Since September 2012 she has been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford. In June 2015, she concluded an independent review for the Metropolitan Police Service into how it and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate and prosecute rape cases. I am grateful to Dame Elish for agreeing to take on this important work.
Police custody is fraught with complex issues. It is the place where dangerous and difficult criminals are rightly detained, where officers and staff regularly face violent, threatening and abusive behaviour, and where the police use some of their most sensitive and coercive powers. But it is also a place where, unfortunately, vulnerable people, including all too often those with mental health problems, are taken because there is no other place to go.
Thankfully, deaths and serious incidents in custody are rare. No one—least of the police—wants such incidents to happen, and I know everyone involved takes steps to avoid them. When such incidents do occur, they are a tragedy that has the potential to undermine the relationship between the public and the police.
As Home Secretary, I have been struck by the pain and suffering of families still looking for answers. That is why I believe we need to do more, and why I announced the establishment of this independent review.
I can also inform the House of the terms of reference of the review. They will be:
To examine the procedures and processes surrounding deaths and serious incidents in police custody, including the lead up to such incidents, the immediate aftermath, through to the conclusion of official investigations. It should consider the extent to which ethnicity is a factor in such incidents. The review should include a particular focus on family involvement and their support experience at all stages.
To examine and identify the reasons and obstacles as to why the current investigation system has fallen short of many families’ needs and expectations, with particular reference to the importance of accountability of those involved and sustained learning following such incidents.
To identify areas for improvement and develop recommendations seeking to ensure appropriate, humane institutional treatment when such incidents, particularly deaths in or following detention in police custody, occur. Recommendations should consider the safety and welfare of all those in the police custody environment, including detainees and police officers and staff. The aim should be to enhance the safety of the police custody setting for all.
Furthermore, I can announce that INQUEST—an organisation that has long campaigned on these issues—has agreed to have a formal role in the review to ensure that the voices of families who have lost loved ones in police custody are heard. Therefore I am also pleased to announce that INQUEST’s director, Deborah Coles, will be a special adviser to the chairman of the review.
In addition, INQUEST shall:
Facilitate family listening days so that the chairman can hear evidence first-hand from those who have lost loved ones in police custody to ensure their views are taken into account.
Play a leading role on an advisory board which will offer expert advice to the chairman during the course of the review.
I wish Dame Elish every success as she delivers this important review.
[HCWS256]
Counter-Extremism Strategy
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to today publish our counter-extremism strategy.
Extremism poses a serious threat to this country. Our diverse society thrives because of the values that unite us, including democracy, the rule of law, free speech and mutual respect. Extremists threaten these values and can cause enormous harm to individuals and communities.
Their ideologies promote hatred, intolerance and division. They have inspired hundreds of Britons to travel to Iraq and Syria to join a brutal regime under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). They have motivated acts of unspeakable violence, including the murder of 30 Britons in Tunisia in June.
The damage extremists do reaches beyond these tragedies. Neo-Nazis spread bigotry and abuse, including anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Semitism. Women are told they do not deserve the same rights as men to education, work or justice. People withdraw from the mainstream, sowing fear and isolation.
I am therefore today publishing a strategy to defeat all forms of extremism: violent and non-violent, Islamist and neo-Nazi. The strategy will improve our understanding of extremism and take action in four principal areas: we will confront the extremist ideology head-on, promote mainstream voices, disrupt extremists, and build stronger and more cohesive communities.
This work will be delivered through a partnership of all individuals and groups who want to defeat extremism. The strategy sets out how we will build this partnership and together make Britain stronger.
Copies of the strategy (Cm 9145) will be available from the Vote Office. It will also be published online at: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications.
[HCWS250]
Wilson Doctrine
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I recognise that there has been much lively interest from Members of this House on the matter of the Wilson doctrine, and I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing it.
It is right that the House should be debating this important issue, touching as it does on the ability of hon. Members to do their duty as Members of Parliament, the need to protect civil liberties and, just as important, the need to protect national security and to keep our constituents safe from harm. As the hon. Gentleman set out, and as the House is aware, the doctrine refers to the general policy outlined on 17 November 1966 in this House by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. The policy has become known as the Wilson doctrine.
It is important to quote exactly what Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he was to become, stated. In the opening section of his speech, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) quoted only the beginning of the statement. Harold Wilson said
“that I should give this instruction that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that is our policy. But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]
Since that time successive Prime Ministers have been asked questions in this House in relation to the Wilson doctrine, and successive Prime Ministers have confirmed that the doctrine continues to apply. That position remains unchanged, as the Prime Minister himself has confirmed in this House on a number of occasions.
Although it is clear that the Wilson doctrine continues to apply, I understand the significant interest of the House following the judgment given last week by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the case brought by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), her noble Friend, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, and a former Member of this House, George Galloway. I hope it will be helpful if I set out for the benefit of the House the Government’s position in relation to that judgment. Indeed, I believe there have been a number of misconceptions about the judgment that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has made and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.
Let me begin by saying that it is important to note that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found against the claimants in all respects. It agreed with the Government’s interpretation of the Wilson doctrine. The position therefore remains unchanged and—I stress this—the protection for MPs’ communications which the doctrine offers remains unchanged. However, it seems that there has been an element of confusion about what the Wilson doctrine actually means. On that, let me say first that it cannot be the case that MPs can never be the subject of interception. Members of this House are not above the law or beyond the scope of investigatory powers. I hope that the whole House will understand this important point. From the nods from a sedentary position, I understand that hon. Members accept that.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that, but he also interpreted the Wilson doctrine as meaning that there would never be any interception of Members of Parliaments’ communications. That was not what the Wilson doctrine said, and it has not been the position. Indeed, last week’s judgment from the IPT quoted a statement that I made last year in response to an intervention from the current deputy Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). It might be helpful if, for the benefit of the House, I repeat what I said:
“Obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian”.—[Official Report, 15 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 713.]
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I have gained the impression so far that we are all agreed that parliamentarians are not above the law, and if there is reasonable suspicion of serious criminality or a threat to national security then they should have their communications intercepted. I think we are also all agreed that powers should not be used to intercept parliamentarians’ communications to find the source of whistleblowing leaks or to see what their tactics are going to be when criticising Government errors or whatever it happens to be. Will the Home Secretary get rid of the whole problem by agreeing that she will eventually bring forward a form of the Wilson doctrine in the Bill that she is about to produce? Then the status of the doctrine can be debated properly and clarified, and I think she will find that there is not a very wide range of views about what it should and should not apply to.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He sets out exactly why it is important that there is a high threshold for decisions in relation to Members of Parliament, as in relation to certain other categories of individual. As he said, we will be bringing forward the investigatory powers Bill. In response to the hon. Member for Rhondda, it will not simply be introduced and then immediately debated in this House because it will be subject to consideration by a Joint Scrutiny Committee of both Houses of Parliament before it comes to this Chamber and the other Chamber for consideration in the normal way. We will look at the issue of safeguards in relation to the Bill; I can give my right hon. and learned Friend that guarantee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Following on from the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), does the Home Secretary view it as desirable to have judicial oversight of any decision to intercept Members of Parliaments’ correspondence and communications?
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, all three reviews of investigatory powers that have taken place came out with a different solution on the oversight and decisions authorisation process for warrants. This is still under consideration, but when the draft Bill is published he will be able to see what the Government have decided.
Chris Bryant
At the beginning of her speech, the Home Secretary chastised me for not reading out the whole of Harold Wilson’s comments and read out the lines where he continued that
“if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]
She seemed to be suggesting that there has been a change but she does not want to tell us about it because it is not compatible with national security. Is that really what she is saying?
Mrs May
The point I am making is about the interpretation of the Wilson doctrine that the hon. Gentleman set out at the beginning of his speech—that is, that there absolutely would not be, and never could be, any interception of communications of Members of Parliament. That is not the correct interpretation of the Wilson doctrine, as the statement from Lord Wilson of Rievaulx makes very clear.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
As part of the consideration of the Bill, might it be worth thinking about introducing a triple lock that would involve the Home Secretary, a judge and the Speaker of the House of Commons having to sign a warrant in order to try to give greater comfort to Members?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion; he might see the interest that is being shown by Members. One of the three reviews that took place—the Royal United Services Institute review—suggested a hybrid solution with not just Secretary of State authorisation or judicial authorisation but a mixture of the two. As I said, when the draft Bill comes out Members will be able to see what the Government have decided to do in relation to that.
Mr Bone
I follow the line that the shadow Leader of the House took. When I heard what the Home Secretary said, my conclusion was that over the years a number of Prime Ministers have authorised the interception of Members’ telephone calls and decided that it was not in the national interest to reveal that, which would keep it completely within the Wilson doctrine. Am I right in thinking that?
Mrs May
We never speak about whether a particular interception has taken place; indeed, there is a RIPA requirement in relation to that. Lord Wilson said that if there was a change and it was not compatible with national security to bring that change to the House, then it would not be brought to the House, but if it was compatible with national security to bring it to the House, then it would be.
The Wilson doctrine set out by Lord Wilson of Rievaulx has remained in place, and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal identified it as remaining in place. The tribunal confirmed that it continued to apply in respect of targeted interceptions of parliamentarians’ communications. It said that the agencies must comply with the relevant RIPA codes of practice and its own guidance. That guidance makes it clear that if it were proposed to obtain a warrant to target a parliamentarian’s communications, the Prime Minister must be consulted, exactly as the Wilson doctrine originally set out, and accordingly prime ministerial oversight remains in place.
The judgment also considered interception under section 8(4) of RIPA, which relates to external interception, also called bulk interception. The tribunal found that at the point of collection of such material the Wilson doctrine could not sensibly apply because the material is not in any way examined at that point. However, the judgment confirmed that for the examination of any material that has been collected, the spirit of the Wilson doctrine continues to apply.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am intrigued by the use of the term “the spirit of the Wilson doctrine”, because we have a very different constitutional architecture now than we had at the point when the doctrine was first promulgated. Will the Home Secretary clarify the position with regard to parliamentarians not in this House or the other place but in the other Parliaments and legislative Assemblies that are now part of the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
Yes, I am happy to do that. The position was set out in in this House in 2008 by a former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who said that the doctrine did not apply outside Parliament. The draft interception of communications code of practice says:
“Particular consideration”
must
“be given in cases where the subject…might reasonably assume a high degree of privacy, or where confidential information is involved.”
It refers to Members of Parliament and includes Members of Parliament from the European Parliament and the devolved Administrations. We will be giving further consideration to this matter.
Mr Carmichael
Surely if the spirit of the Wilson doctrine is to be observed then it should apply to parliamentarians whether here or in one of the devolved Administrations.
Mrs May
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I need to make some progress, because this is a time-limited debate and I am sure that a number of Back Benchers wish to speak. She may catch my eye further on in my speech.
I want to turn to the question of legality. Some concern has been expressed about the legal effect of the doctrine, and it is right that these matters should be debated. As I am sure the House is aware, the tribunal found that the Wilson doctrine was a political statement and, as such, has no legal effect. Perhaps that is not surprising because it has not been put into any Act passed by this House. The tribunal was also clear that the security and intelligence agencies must comply with— and, indeed, are bound by—the draft interception code of practice published in February 2015, which I have just referred to, and their own internal policies on the doctrine, which I have just described.
In addition, Members should be clear that there is no absolute exemption when a serious criminal or terrorist is the target of an interception warrant and communicates with his or her Member of Parliament. I am sure the House will appreciate that it cannot be the case that those communicating with parliamentarians should be above the law simply as a result of the act of speaking to a Member of Parliament. If a terrorist or a serious criminal contacts an MP, it cannot be the case that they are considered beyond the scope of investigatory powers; but, of course, in such circumstances additional safeguards will apply. The draft interception code of practice is clear that particular consideration should be given where communications between a Member of Parliament and another person may be involved.
That consideration also applies in other cases where the subject of the interception might reasonably assume a high degree of privacy or where confidential information is involved. That includes where the communication relates to legally privileged material; where confidential journalistic material may be involved; and where interception might involve communications between a medical professional or a minister of religion and an individual relating to the latter’s health or spiritual welfare. The code sets out the additional safeguards that apply in those circumstances, just as it does for MPs’ communication with their constituents.
As I have already indicated, the judgment of the tribunal bears close reading. The Government are, of course, considering it very carefully. As I said in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Government propose publishing a draft Bill on investigatory powers very shortly and we will be looking at further safeguards in the Bill.
Lady Hermon
I am genuinely grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Could she clarify a small but interesting point relating to her comment about the devolved institutions? A number of Members from many parties also sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly—it was not popular with the public, but they held a dual mandate—so if the Wilson doctrine did not apply to Members of the Assembly, was that just set aside because they were also MPs? Which prevailed—their membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly or their membership of this House?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady has identified a conundrum, which perhaps makes it all the more significant that we look at the issue in due course.
I reiterate that the protection offered by the doctrine remains in force and nothing in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling changes that position. These are serious matters that touch on the wider debate about the right balance between privacy and national security.
Chris Bryant
I am terribly sorry to be so irritating to the Home Secretary, but she said that the protection still applies to parliamentarians. Precisely what is the protection afforded to parliamentarians by the Wilson doctrine?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman himself made reference to the Wilson doctrine and I have read out what Lord Wilson said. I am perfectly happy to do so again. He said that
“I should give this instruction that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that is our policy. But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]
I have also alluded to other safeguards as a result of the change—
Mrs May
Yes, I am going to use the word “change”. The legislative framework in which these matters are dealt with has changed over the years—more than once, I suspect, but most recently in 2000, with the introduction of RIPA, which contained a number of safeguards in relation to these matters. As I have indicated, and as the IPT repeated, the draft code, which was published in February 2015, makes very clear that particular care has to be taken if it is proposed that certain communications of certain categories of people should be intercepted.
These matters touch on the wider debate about the balance between privacy and national security, and the first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens. I have repeatedly stated my determination to ensure that the police and security agencies have the powers, support and capabilities they need to keep us safe.
In recent years, however, we have seen many wild and inaccurate allegations about the extent of surveillance carried out by the agencies, the legality of the intelligence agencies’ actions and the effectiveness of the oversight of their actions. Recently, three independent reviews have considered the investigatory powers used by the police and security agencies.
In March, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its “Privacy and Security” report, which set out a comprehensive review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy frameworks that govern their use. In June, David Anderson published his report on the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and the separate issue of communications data. This summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), reported on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes and assessed how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
What the Home Secretary quoted from Harold Wilson’s response to a question from Tom Driberg was, of course, correct, but he also said, in the same answer:
“I am aware of all the considerations which I had to take into account and I felt that it was right to lay down the policy of no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]
Surely the point is that neither he nor successive Prime Ministers—nor, indeed, Ministers in any other Department—have made a statement changing what was said by Lord Wilson.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman refers to Lord Wilson’s statement, from which I correctly quoted with regard to changes.
The three reviews represent a substantial independent review of the frameworks and oversight governing the use of investigatory powers. As the three reports make clear, the use of investigatory powers by the police and the security and intelligence agencies is absolutely vital for national security, in the fight against crime, and if we are to protect the people of this country from harm.
In addition to those reports, I today welcome the fact that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found no suggestion of improper activity by our security and intelligence agencies. I am pleased to say, once again, that an independent tribunal has declared their activity lawful, and I am grateful for this opportunity to put on record our gratitude to the men and women who, necessarily out of the limelight, do so much to keep the people of this country safe.
The Wilson doctrine recognises the special nature of parliamentary communications and affords parliamentarians important protections. However, as I have said, it can never be the case that MPs can consider themselves above the law. That is a position I hope the whole House can well understand. It is right and proper that we are discussing these issues today, and I look forward to hearing the remaining contributions to this debate.
Joanna Cherry
I was not in the House at that time, but I watched it on the television. I am aware of that, but I am giving the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt, because she has indicated that it will be a draft investigatory powers Bill.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving me an opportunity to restate what I actually said earlier in response to a comment by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We are committed to and will shortly bring forward a draft investigatory powers Bill, which will be available for scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The expectation is that it will report sometime in the new year, with a view to our introducing the Bill for its passage through Parliament. The aim is to make it a carry-over Bill, with a deadline of December 2016.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for confirming that. I fully understand the concerns of those who were Members of the previous Parliament. If things were to be done in such a manner again, there would clearly be an enormous public outcry.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
First I would like to send my apologies that a pre-Council letter was not sent ahead of the Council on this occasion. This is a rare occurrence owing to a combination of late finalisation of the agenda for Council, and conference recess.
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council took place on 8 and 9 October in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.
The interior session on 8 October began in mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) where the presidency provided an overview of their paper on the future management of the EU external border. The subsequent discussion saw calls for enhanced collective responsibility for the external borders, including some support for the Commission’s calls for a fully-fledged EU border and coast guard and an extended mandate for Frontex, although the presidency was clear that member states must retain primary responsibility for controlling their own border. The Commission also drew attention to the role of EU smart borders and the Schengen information system in balancing border management and security, and the need for further consideration on whether more was needed to ensure the proper functioning of the Schengen acquis. The October European Council will return to this subject.
There was also an update on the relocation mechanisms agreed at the 14 and 22 September extraordinary JHA Councils, and the implementation of the ‘hot spots’ screening centres in Italy and Greece, with calls for all member states to provide Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) with additional personnel and resources. There had been some progress, with implementation underway in Italy and starting in the Greek islands imminently, but it was clear more work was required, including on the return of those not requiring protection. Concerns were also raised regarding the likely effectiveness of intra-EU relocation and further secondary movement. Discussions on an agreed list of safe countries of origin and a permanent crisis mechanism for relocation (amending the Dublin regulation) would continue at official level.
The UK was clear that the current situation required a new international approach- strict enforcement of rules was required for those who abuse member states’ asylum and migration systems but we should be generous to those who needed our help. Economic migrants needed to be returned swiftly, including from hotspots, so that the right messages were received by those intending to set out for Europe. The UK would continue to support EASO and Frontex and will offer additional assistance, building on the offer already made this summer. I also made it clear that the UK would be willing to use its expertise in helping Greece set up the necessary systems and structures.
Returns were the subject of a separate debate, with the Commission introducing an EU action plan on returns, Council conclusions on the future of EU returns policy and a returns handbook, and stating that by the end of October there would be 10 joint EU return flights to African and Western Balkan countries. An EU returns office will be established within Frontex to co-ordinate all returns action and better use will be made of existing tools such as SIS and EURODAC databases. The main challenge remained countries of origin not accepting their nationals back, despite recognised international obligations for them to do so, leading for calls for greater use of conditionality in broader relations with key third countries.
The UK reiterated the importance of returning those not requiring international protection, in order that help could be focused on those in greatest need, which meant that effective returns of those not requiring international protection in Europe was vital. Identifying safe countries of origin was welcome, but the EU needed to go further.
I, also suggested that considering claims from certain countries as inadmissible except in exceptional circumstances could be the next step in tackling abuse, and that the use of detention was also necessary. The UK argued that it was important to consider seeking leverage with third countries to secure co-operation, that detention was often necessary and that the EU should take forward discussions on multi-purpose centres and safe zones outside of Europe to which economic migrants could be returned. I expressed the Government’s support for improved returns mechanisms, in particular at the EU external border and noted that the UK will carefully consider all current and future proposals.
The presidency sought a steer from Ministers on its proposals to unlock discussion on the “visa package”—a recast of the union code on visas (“the visa code”) and proposed touring visa. The Commission and member states had been deeply divided on the proposals. There is no impact for the UK as we are not involved in either of these measures because they build on those parts of the Schengen acquis in which we do not participate. Ministers endorsed the presidency’s proposals for continuing discussions at official level.
The lunchtime discussion was on migration and development. Following a briefing by Luxembourg’s Development Minister, interventions veered to familiar ground on hotspots and relocation. The UK supports the hotspot proposals and continues to push for their rapid implementation, but we continue to oppose relocation.
The Europol Director (Rob Wainwright) updated Ministers on the recent Blue Amber operation, a series of joint operational action weeks co-ordinated through an operations room at Europol. The presidency concluded that the Committee on Internal Security (COSI) would continue to prioritise serious organised crime under the EMPACT priorities.
During a discussion on the fight against terrorism, the council adopted conclusions calling for an improved firearms intelligence picture and robust standards on firearms deactivation. The UK supports the Council’s position and has urged member states to prioritise the actions set out in the Council conclusions. The Commission is undertaking a study into further proportionate measures that can ensure greater passenger security. The UK called for the sharing of best practice in relation to rail security.
The Council agreed to step up the voluntary removal of terrorist propaganda through the Europol Internet Referral Unit (IRU). The UK welcomed the results achieved by the IRU so far and supported the upscaling of the programme, calling on more member states to second national experts to the unit. The Council agreed to enhance counter narrative work with the Syria strategic communication advisory team (SSCAT)’s support. The Government welcome the SSCAT 2016 project as a tool to support member states to improve their capacity to deliver strategic communications campaigns to counter the influence of violent extremists.
The presidency updated Minsters on the implementation of the renewed internal security strategy 2015-2020. The presidency had set the following priority areas for implementation under their tenure 1) fight against terrorism 2) tackling illegal migration 3) completion of the Europol regulation 4) completion of the EU PNR directive. The following presidency trios were encouraged to continue with a six monthly implementation plan, but also to establish an 18 month joint implementation strategy to retain continuity over the medium term.
The presidency updated on progress on the Europol and passenger name records (PNR) trilogue negotiations. Both the presidency and the Commission urged member states to continue lobbying their national Members of Parliaments to ensure they fully understand the value of PNR. I reiterated the need for intra EU data to be included for any directive to be effective.
Justice day started with a ministerial breakfast meeting on the implications of the Taricco judgment in relation to the draft directive for the protection of the union’s financial interests. There was broad agreement to retain the title V legal base and the UK, supported by other member states continued to oppose the inclusion of VAT fraud in the directive protecting our red line.
The presidency reiterated its aim to complete negotiations on both the general data protection regulation and the accompanying law-enforcement focused directive by the end of the year. With a general approach on the regulation secured in June, the presidency presented a compromise text on the directive and sought approval from Ministers to enter trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament as soon as possible. The Commission welcomed the text, noting the delicate balance that had been achieved between operational effectiveness and privacy for data subjects, and the need to create a level playing field across the EU, for all forms of data processing.
The UK welcomed the changes made during expert discussions and urged the presidency to defend the Council position during trilogue, particularly the ability of law enforcement agencies to withhold information where appropriate for operational reasons, and to transfer data to third countries. Most other member states agreed and considered the draft to be a good balance between the rights of data subjects and needs of law enforcement agencies. The general approach was agreed.
The Commission updated Ministers on the recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to strike down the EU-US “safe harbour” agreement, which established a framework for the transfer of data from the EU to the US. In its view, the ruling was a clear statement on the importance of data protection as a fundamental right, and validated the Commission’s to review the safe harbour agreement. The Commission acknowledged however, that the invalidation of safe harbour would require data controllers to rely on other legal grounds for the transfer of data to the US, such as contractual clauses, binding corporate rules, or consent. The Commission assured member states it wanted to see uniform application of the ruling, and expected that national data protection authorities would provide consolidated advice to business through the article 29 working party.
The Commission reiterated the need to work with the US on a revision of the safe harbour agreement. It noted that negotiations on a revised framework had been ongoing for almost two years. The Commission felt that the ruling would ensure greater clarity about the safeguards that a revised agreement would need to provide.
The presidency sought Council agreement to certain articles of the proposed regulation establishing a European Public Prosecutors Office (EPPO). The Council expressed provisional agreement. The UK does not participate in the EPPO. We noted our non-participation and registered our strong interest in ensuring that the scope of any EPPO does not go beyond the treaties.
During lunch, the presidency presented a progress report on the work of the EU accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and a summary of the problems with the draft accession agreement identified by the CJEU in its opinion of December 2014. There was some support for the presidency’s proposal that the EU reaffirm its commitment to the accession process. The UK, along with the Council legal service, highlighted the profound challenge presented by the Court’s opinion. The discussion concluded with the Commission recognising the difficulties faced, but agreeing to provide technical papers to assist the Council in identifying solutions to the issues raised by the CJEU.
Ministers discussed the migration situation, and the particular challenges it raises for judicial cooperation and tackling xenophobia. This included the role Eurojust might play in supporting member states in tackling these issues.
Additionally, there was a general discussion in response to the immigration crisis and best practice in co-operation between Governments and internet service providers to tackle hate speech online.
Under AOB, the Commission reminded member states that the victims’ rights directive would be coming into force on 16 November 2015. The UK is committed to transposing the victims’ rights directive by the deadline.
[HCWS249]
Immigration Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
If we are to continue building an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and people who come here legitimately to play by the rules and contribute to our society, we must ensure that it is balanced and sustainable, and that net migration can be managed. When properly managed, immigration enriches this country, as we benefit from the skills, talent and entrepreneurial flair that people bring to our society. But, as I said in my recent speech, when net migration is too high, and the pace of change is too fast, it puts pressure on schools, hospitals, accommodation, transport and social services, and it can drive down wages for people on low incomes. So we must achieve the right balance, rejecting both extremes of the debate, from those who oppose immigration altogether to those who want entirely open borders. That is why, since 2010, we have worked to build an immigration system that works in the national interest, one that is fair to British taxpayers and legitimate migrants, and tough on those who flout the rules or abuse our hospitality as a nation.
Over the past five years we have taken firm action to reform the chaotic and uncontrolled immigration system we inherited, and to ensure that people are coming here for the right reasons. We reformed the immigration rules for migrant workers and students, while continuing to welcome the brightest and the best. We have struck off nearly 900 bogus colleges since 2010, and at the same time we have seen a rise of 17% in the number of sponsored student visa applications for universities and a rise of 33% for Russell Group universities. We transformed the immigration routes for migrant workers and introduced a cap of 20,700 for non-European economic area migrant workers, and we have seen an increase in sponsored visa applications for highly skilled workers. We reformed family visas, to prevent misuse of that route, and we have made sure that people can financially support family members coming to the UK. We have also protected our public services from abuse by making important changes to the way people access benefits and the NHS.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
It will not have escaped the House’s attention that the Home Secretary has struck a markedly different tone in her opening remarks this afternoon from the one she struck at her party conference in Manchester last week. The change in tone is very welcome, but she said at her conference, in contrast to what she said just a moment ago, that the overall economic benefit of migration is “close to zero”. Can she today give the House some evidence to back up that claim?
Mrs May
Nice try, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should read the speech I gave last week, as he would see that I am saying exactly what I said then. In that speech, I also quoted the many reports, from the OECD and others such as the Migration Advisory Committee, that have made that judgment in relation to the economic benefit of migration.
The Immigration Act 2014 put the law firmly on the side of those who respect it, not of those who break it. We made it easier and faster to remove those with no right to be here, streamlined the appeals process in order to curb abuse, and restricted access to bank accounts and rental properties for people here illegally. Thanks to our reforms, more than 11,000 people who were in the UK illegally have now had their UK driving licence revoked.
New powers have already enabled us to deport more than 1,000 foreign criminals, requiring them to make any appeal from outside the UK after they have left. More than 8,000 proposed marriages have been referred to the Home Office, with 120 of them being identified as shams. More than £100 million has been injected into the national health service as a result of the new immigration health surcharge. Those achievements are helping us to build an immigration system that is fairer, stronger and more effective.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
How can the Home Secretary describe those things as achievements when she has so lamentably failed to keep the promise that she made at the election before last, which was to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands? The figure has in fact gone up to more than 330,000.
Mrs May
I can easily describe those things as achievements. They are achievements that the Labour Government, which ended in 2010, signally failed to secure. That Government did nothing, for example, about people coming to use the health service and then failing to contribute to it. We have changed the rules and more than £100 million has been injected into the national health service.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Home Secretary not recognise that this is a nasty, punitive Bill that will inevitably risk yet more racism and discrimination and undermine the social cohesion that she says she cares about? At the very least, will she guarantee full financial compensation to anyone whose livelihood is undermined by action taken by immigration officers that later turns out to have been falsely and wrongly taken?
Mrs May
I will tell the hon. Lady what impacts on social cohesion. It is when our constituents see people here in this country illegally and able to continue to be in this country illegally. It is fair that we deal with those who abuse our system and who do the wrong thing. It is fair not only to people who have been born and brought up in the United Kingdom, but to those who have legitimately migrated to the UK, have played by the rules and have done the right thing.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
On my right hon. Friend’s particular answer to that question, the problem is that it is very difficult for someone to see that a person is an illegal immigrant. What they see is someone who is different. Does she not accept that, within this law, there is the potential for discrimination to be increased if this is pursued too aggressively?
Mrs May
I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend shows in relation to these issues. He has taken a particular interest in matters relating to immigration, but I will repeat what I have just said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas): it is only fair to people who come here, who make their contribution to our society and who play by the rules that we take efforts to ensure that those who have no right to be here and who are abusing our systems are dealt with appropriately. That is why it is important that we have taken action on things such as access to bank accounts and driving licences.
Graham Jones
The Home Secretary says that this Bill is the answer, but only 12 months ago we had another Immigration Act that was the answer. How many more Immigration Acts will we have from this Government in the next five years?
Mrs May
I sat in this Chamber for 13 years while a Labour Government were producing Acts time and time again. One thing that one learns in this role is that, in the immigration arena, one has constantly to be looking to see that the system is what it should be. There were some things that we were not able to do in the last Immigration Act that we are now able to do in this new Bill.
Mrs May
I am sure that my hon. Friend will try to catch my eye later on. I will make a little more progress if I may.
I referred to our achievements and said that they were helping us to build an immigration system that is fairer, stronger and more effective, but if we are to ensure that we can protect our public services from abuse and that the system works in the national interest, and if we are to tackle the illegal labour market where vulnerable people are often exploited by unscrupulous employers and subjected to appalling conditions, then further reform is needed. The new Immigration Bill will help us to do that in a number of ways.
Part 1 is about tackling illegal working and preventing the exploitation of workers. The House will appreciate that illegal working is one of the principal pull factors for people coming to the UK to live and work illegally, but those who do so are particularly vulnerable and can find themselves living and working in dangerous and degrading conditions. The illegal labour market can also depress or hold back pay and conditions for the local sector, and undercut reputable businesses. Increasingly, we are seeing labour market exploitation becoming an organised criminal activity, and it is clear that Government regulators responsible for enforcing workers’ rights are in need of reform.
In June 2014, the independent Migration Advisory Committee called for better co-ordination between the various enforcement agencies so that employment rights can be enforced more effectively. Members of this House have pressed that issue on many occasions. In our election manifesto, we committed to introducing tougher labour market regulation to tackle illegal working and exploitation. This Bill will allow us to do that. It establishes a new statutory director of labour market enforcement who will be responsible for providing a central hub of intelligence and for facilitating the flexible allocation of resources across the different regulators. In addition, this morning we published a consultation on the future of labour market enforcement, and I will place a copy of it in the House Library.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I welcome these measures to crack down on exploitative and illegal working—they are wholly admirable—but is not the easiest way to deal with illegal migration to say to someone when they first arrive in our country without the right papers, visa or permissions that they should leave then and not give them entry?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is right. If somebody is admitted at the border, or is found at the border without the right papers, without their visa and without the right to be here in the United Kingdom, they may be turned around and returned to the country from which they have come. As he knows, if somebody is able to come into the country by other routes and get here illegally, identification is rather harder.
Mr Charles Walker
What we must do in this country is get better at removing people when we discover that they are here illegally. What frustrates my constituents and their Member of Parliament is that the appeals process can go on for year after year. People have worked out that, once they have arrived in this country, it is very difficult for us to remove them.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We have already been able to take some action in this area. We have reduced the number of appeals routes, from 17 to four, and, in the previous Immigration Act, we took some action with the “deport first, appeal later” arrangements, but that was restricted to a particular category of individuals. We will extend that in this Bill. Once again, we will ensure that it is easier for us to remove people who have no right to be here, without them having this continuous process of appeal after appeal.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
One major achievement of this Government is the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As that was her legislation, the Home Secretary will know that it had specific defences for those who had been trafficked into the UK as a result of slavery. Will those defences be carried through in this Immigration Bill?
Mrs May
The defences that we have written into the Modern Slavery Act will still apply. Indeed, there are other areas where, if we take action in relation to abuse of certain parts of the system, that defence and that issue of trafficking will continue to apply. I spoke last week of using the so-called Spanish protocol. For example, if someone comes to the United Kingdom from another European Union country and tries to claim asylum, the claim would initially be determined as inadmissible, but if there were evidence that someone had been trafficked, we would look again at the issue. Certainly, we will continue to have defences for those who have been trafficked.
I was talking about the establishment of the new director of labour market enforcement and the consultation document we have issued today. Once we have considered the responses to that consultation, we will strengthen the Bill further.
The Bill will also allow us to make illegal working a criminal offence. That will not only make Britain a less attractive place for people to come and work illegally, but will provide a firmer legal foundation for seizing earnings from illegal working as the proceeds of crime. Most employers obey the law, but we believe that a number of employers are deliberately turning a blind eye and not checking whether their employees have the right to work in the UK. That is not acceptable, so we will introduce tougher sanctions for these employers and make it easier to bring criminal prosecutions against them. We also know that a significant proportion of illegal working happens on licensed premises. Measures in the Bill will ensure that those working illegally or employing illegal workers cannot obtain licences to sell alcohol or run late-night takeaway premises. Immigration officers will also have new powers to close businesses where illegal working continues to take place.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The creation of the statutory director of labour market enforcement is very welcome, but to whom will he or she be accountable and through what mechanism will he or she report either to Parliament or to the Department?
Mrs May
There will be joint accountability to Secretaries of State—to me, as Home Secretary, and to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. That is important, because some of the operation on labour market enforcement takes place in the Home Office through the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and some through bodies in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so there will be a joint reporting mechanism.
Mr MacNeil
I have raised this matter with the right hon. Lady during Home Office questions, and it concerns fishing boats, particularly on the west coast of Scotland. Those on the boats, and the communities and I, welcome migrants who come to work. Migrants have been deported against what we feel are the community’s wishes and the wishes of those on the boats and the migrants. Migrant workers come here to work for a short period and get the money, and they usually go back to the Philippines and west Africa to work. What will she do to ensure that the community’s wishes are respected? Can we have a situation like that in Switzerland, where visas are spread through the cantons? The Scottish Government want to enable people who are wanted in Scotland to come to work in Scotland, but the argument in England is somehow stopping that, damaging our economy and tying up fishing boats as a result.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the operation of visa arrangements for the United Kingdom enables people who fit the requirements—for example, as a tier 2 worker—to come to the UK. However, on illegal working, there are parts of the fishing industry in which we have seen examples of people effectively being trafficked into slavery. It is important that we can undertake the enforcement needed to protect those people and identify them.
Mrs May
I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I did say I was going to make some progress after I had responded to his intervention.
We have already begun to target illegal working through a co-ordinated approach that brings together agencies from across Government to prevent illegal working in high-risk sectors. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration met industry leaders from the construction industry this morning to identify how we can work together to root out that particular problem.
Part 2 of the Bill is about access to services. We will tighten up access to public and other services to protect them from abuse by people who are here illegally. We have already introduced a requirement for landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants. It is only right for people to be able to access private accommodation if they are in the UK legally. That is only fair on people who play by the rules, who scrimp and save to buy their first home, and who come here legally and work hard. I hope that that is a point on which all Members of the House can agree. That is why we intend to roll the requirement out across the UK. However, the immigration status of a current tenant is not enough to allow a landlord to regain possession of his or her property. The Bill will remedy that legislative gap and make it easier for private landlords to evict people who have no right to be in the UK.
We will also create new criminal offences to target rogue landlords who repeatedly fail to carry out checks or take steps to remove people who are here illegally. Let me be clear that this is not about asking landlords to become immigration experts. Those who want to undertake simple steps will have nothing to fear and will not face prosecution or penalties.
We will also build on our measures to prevent people from driving while in the UK illegally. Historically, it has been far too easy for people illegally in the UK to obtain a UK driving licence and that is why, as I mentioned earlier, we created new powers under the 2014 Act to revoke UK driving licences belonging to people who were here illegally.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Many of us live in areas, such as my constituency, that are already highly diverse. People who are foreign-born and black and minority ethnic residents of very long standing are disproportionately likely to be in the private rented sector. Can the Home Secretary assure me that the proposals do not act as a discriminatory measure against those people or prevent landlords from letting properties to those who are quite legitimately entitled to be here but who do not have the necessary proof? The Residential Landlords Association is deeply worried, so why has she not published the assessment of her own investigation?
Mrs May
We will. We made it clear yesterday during Home Office questions that we will ensure that evaluation results are published before the debate in Committee, so that people will be able to see what is happening. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that people in particular communities are perhaps more likely to rent than to buy or to be able to afford to buy their own properties. It is absolutely right that we should have a vibrant private rented sector, but it is in the interests of those who are here legitimately for places to be available for them that are not being taken up by people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom. That is what our Bill is doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. She will appreciate that a private sector landlord can have no knowledge of when a college has been deregistered by her Department and therefore when a tenant who is a student might be here illegally after the 60-day period has expired. That means that many landlords in student-dominated areas will be reluctant to take on tenants who have names that they regard as possibly foreign. That is the sort of discrimination that concerns many people in my area.
Mrs May
As I said earlier, we are not expecting landlords to be immigration experts. The Home Office has set up arrangements to provide the helpline and advice so that it is simple for landlords to contact the Home Office and get the information that will help them make a judgment.
I mentioned the measures on driving licences earlier, and the Bill takes them a step further. We will create new powers to ensure that revoked licences are taken out of circulation and to strengthen the consequences for people using revoked licences. We will also make it a criminal offence to drive while unlawfully in the UK and we will provide a power to detain and forfeit vehicles used in the offence.
We will further restrict access to banking services. Under the 2014 Act, we took necessary steps to prevent people in the UK illegally from setting up current accounts with banks and building societies. The Bill will expand on these measures by creating an obligation for banks and building societies to carry out periodic checks on the immigration status of current account holders. When an account holder is identified as in the UK illegally, following a court order the account can be frozen or closed by the bank or building society.
Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill are about removing from the UK people with no right to be here. Immigration officers already do an excellent job of enforcing our laws and where appropriate removing people who are in the UK illegally, but we must do more. The 2014 Act shows that “deport first, appeal later” works when foreign criminals make human rights claims. Our manifesto committed us to extending that to all human rights claims. The Bill will now deliver on that commitment, allowing us to remove people with no right to be in the UK before they can appeal, provided that does not breach their human rights or cause serious irreversible harm. The Bill will also ensure that when foreign criminals are released on bail, we can satellite tag them so that we know their whereabouts, and thus better protect the law-abiding majority.
When people have no right to be in the UK, we expect them to leave, but some people are being sent the wrong message. The Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to providing support for destitute asylum seekers in line with our international obligations. However, those with no right to be here are expected to return home and the Bill will restrict the support we give to people who are here illegally.
Part 6 is about protecting our borders. It is imperative that we have control over our borders and know who is coming into the UK. Through the Bill, we will give our Border Force officers additional powers to intercept vessels at sea.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
I applaud the Home Secretary’s responsible measures in the Bill to control migration and I am sure that they will be widely supported throughout the country. Given that almost half of those settling in the UK last year were from the European Union, how can she achieve control of our borders without provisions in the Bill to control EU migration, notwithstanding our EU treaty obligations?
Mrs May
If I had been asked to put a bet on the subject that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise, I would have placed it on EU migration. As he knows full well, the Government have already taken some steps to reduce the pull factors for migration from inside the European Union through changes that we have made to the benefit system, and we have already set out further changes to the benefit system that we are looking to make in that regard.
Through this Bill, we will give our Border Force officers additional powers to intercept vessels at sea, as well as impose greater penalties on airline or port operators who fail to present passengers to immigration control. We must act now to prevent the unprecedented levels of people smuggling that we have seen recently and stop people unlawfully entering the UK—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress.
Not only is border security crucial for immigration purposes, but it serves a vital public protection purpose protecting both the British public and people making treacherous journeys to reach UK borders.
Part 7 is about the language skills of public sector workers. At present there are many customer-facing roles that do not require the jobholder to speak fluent English. Where communicating with the British public is a vital part of the job, fluent English must be a prerequisite.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress.
Through this Bill we will legislate to ensure that that becomes a reality. Today we have published a consultation on the code of practice that public bodies will have to comply with, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
Part 8 establishes a new immigration skills charge for businesses bringing workers into the country. Currently, many businesses are hiring workers from overseas, rather than taking the long-term decision to train our workforce here at home. We need to discourage a default position of looking overseas to fill the skills gap, and the Bill will remedy that by introducing a charge for employers recruiting from outside the European economic area, which will encourage businesses to source skilled labour from the domestic workforce. The funds raised from the charge will contribute to training domestic workers and, in particular, to funding apprenticeships.
Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight. Despite the positive progress that has been made over the past five years, the system we inherited was riddled with problems. We must act now to stop rogue landlords and people smugglers exploiting vulnerable people, to protect our public services from abuse and to ensure that people with no right to be in this country are not allowed to extend their stay. This Bill will build on the progress made through the 2014 Act, ensuring greater fairness for British citizens and legitimate migrants, and making sure that the law comes down firmly on the side of those who abide by our laws and play by the rules. I commend the Bill to the House.
Andy Burnham
I shall come on to that. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] It is a fair point and I shall come on to it. May I again refer the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the research? The UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration talks about the positive economic benefit of migration overall. He needs to concern himself with the evidence before he intervenes in the House.
As I said a moment ago, the House has not kept pace with public concern, and as I said in my speech to the Labour conference, I want to change that. People listening to debates in the Chamber or in the media will often hear politicians and business leaders make the point that I made at the beginning—that immigration provides an overall net benefit. Although this is true, and to take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, what such broad statements fail adequately to acknowledge is that the effect of immigration is not uniform across the country, but that it has a differential impact in different areas.
Some of the most rapid changes have been felt in the poorest areas and former industrial areas away from the big urban centres. In my constituency, immigration has had an impact on job security, wages, access to housing and public services, but Parliament has been far too slow to acknowledge and act on those concerns. The danger is that that creates a vacuum and allows myths to flourish.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman says that Parliament has been slow to accept that immigration can have an impact, particularly on people at the lower end of the income scale, driving wages down, and it can have an impact on public services. For the past five years, I and the parties in government have been saying precisely this, and the Labour party has been objecting and opposing that.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid I have to point out to the Home Secretary that she was not entirely factual at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. She said that the previous Government did nothing to restrict access to the NHS by illegal migrants. As Health Secretary I brought through measures to restrict access to the national health service. What I am setting out in my remarks today is a balanced approach, which she failed to do in hers. I recognised at the beginning the overall benefits of immigration to this country, but I am acknowledging that there are specific and legitimate concerns that need to be dealt with, because a failure to do that creates a vacuum and allows myths to flourish.
Given that, the right response is certainly not to respond in kind with rhetoric, but instead with practical and proportionate measures to restore public confidence that our system and our rules are both firm and fair.
Andy Burnham
I will make some progress before giving way again.
As our reasoned amendment makes clear, we are prepared to support practical, proportionate and evidence-based measures that will achieve the stated aims of tackling illegal immigration and illegal working.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way to me a second time. He refers again to the fact that he quoted the net benefit of migration in his speech. In 2014 the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, when looking at the fiscal effects of immigration to the UK, estimated that migrants contributed around £25 billion to the economy between 2001 and 2011. However, looking at all the migrants who had arrived since 1995, the estimates produced by that organisation suggested a net fiscal cost of around £114 billion. There is some evidence for the right hon. Gentleman.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has not learnt the lessons of her experience in Manchester last week, when she made a number of assertions without having the evidence to support them. She has got the evidence that overall there is a net contribution—she just quoted it. She, more than anyone else in this House, should stick to the evidence at all times and not resort to rhetoric.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
1. What modelling has been conducted by her Department on the potential effect on individual police forces of proposed changes to the police funding formula.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
How funding should be allocated to the police in future is a complex and important matter, and we conducted a detailed analytical review before launching a public consultation on reform of the current funding arrangements. We have considered carefully the responses received from that consultation, and my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister has written to all police and crime commissioners and chief constables with refinements to the proposed model in the light of the feedback received.
Nick Smith
In 2013-14, just 22% of the 7.3 million emergency and priority incidents that the police responded to were crime-related. The police are being asked to shoulder the workload caused by cuts in other Departments, and the Public Accounts Committee has stated that the Home Office has no data about that added burden. How will the Home Office work with other Departments to ensure that the impact of spending decisions is not borne wholly by the police service?
Mrs May
The Home Office is already working with other Departments to ensure that, if matters are better the responsibility of other Departments, those other Departments take them on board. A good example is what we have been doing for people with mental health needs. We have worked with the Department of Health, and it has provided funding to ensure more places of safety that are not police cells. We have significantly reduced the use of police cells for those in mental health crisis or with mental health problems. As a result resources have been released for the police and, crucially, there are much better outcomes for people with mental health problems and issues.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for police forces to spend their money effectively, and that the police innovation fund helps them to do that? Does she share my delight that Kent police have decided to issue every front-line officer with a body-worn camera that increases the effectiveness of police patrolling, as well as helping to keep officers safe?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I commend him for the work on the innovation fund that he did when he was Policing Minister. This is an important development and he is right to welcome and commend Kent police for what they are doing with body-worn video cameras. That is an important step forward. We are also looking at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that every part of the system can support the use of evidence from body-worn video cameras. I am sure the whole House recognises that that important step forward is of benefit to the police but also to victims.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Chief Constable Steve Finnigan of Lancashire police recently described the cuts to policing as “nothing short of madness”. Although I welcome the Government’s decision to consult on the funding formula, and the Policing Minister’s ability to engage with local forces, under the proposed model a constabulary such as Leicestershire could lose up to £700,000 a year, while others would gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is time to make the case to the Chancellor that the Home Office should be a protected Department because it deals with the security and safety of the British public?
Mrs May
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s question. In his capacity as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee he has previously questioned the funding formula for policing, and indicated that an alternative formula might be a better way forward. That is what we are doing; we are trying to find a formula that will work across police forces, and that is why we held and responded to a public consultation. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister has written to police and crime commissioners and chief constables with a revision of that formula, and he will discuss the matter with them.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Northamptonshire police have been particularly innovative in finding joint operational and cost-saving initiatives with the local fire service, but it faces a particular challenge involving violent crime. How might those two important factors be factored into the new police funding formula?
Mrs May
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on Northamptonshire police, who have indeed been very innovative. They have been at the forefront of work to join together the police force and the fire authority to ensure savings and a better service for the people of the county of Northamptonshire. We are trying to adopt a funding formula that is simpler than the previous one, that is fair across the board and that people can look at and understand; a funding formula where people can appreciate why the elements are in there. That cannot be said of the current funding formula.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of police and crime commissioners.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
18. What changes she plans to make to the investigatory powers of the police and security services.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government have been clear about the need to provide law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies with the powers they need to protect the public. A draft investigatory powers Bill will be published this autumn for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Mark Spencer
I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. I wonder whether she recognises the growth in internet-based communication systems, such as WhatsApp, Snapchat and many others, of which terrorists might be making use. Will she consider taking powers to support the security services in tracking relevant individuals who might want to do us harm?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New services are obviously being developed. The law makes it very clear that any communications service provider offering a service in the United Kingdom should be in a position to respond to a warrant when it has been decided that there should be access to intercept material on the basis that it is necessary and proportionate. That was made clear by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and we put it beyond doubt in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014.
Alex Chalk
Does the Home Secretary agree that it is incumbent on organisations such as WhatsApp and Snapchat, which routinely encrypt messages, to co-operate with the authorities to ensure that those who may do us harm are prevented from doing so?
Mrs May
I assure my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), that we want to ensure that our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies have the powers that are necessary to keep us safe. They do an excellent job, but it is our role, here in Parliament, to ensure that they have the legislative backing to enable them to do it. I believe, and the Government believe, that there should be no safe space for terrorists, criminals or paedophiles on the internet.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
In the light of the High Court ruling in July, may I ask the Home Secretary whether she will now do what should have been done in the first place, and ensure that access to our private data is authorised by a genuinely independent body or a court?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that each of the three reviews of the powers and legislation relating to interception of communications and access to communications data came up with a different answer in respect of the authorisation process for access to intercept material. David Anderson suggested that there should be a judicial authorisation, the Royal United Services Institute suggested that there could be a hybrid, and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament suggested that the authorisation should remain with the Secretary of State. We have been considering the matter very carefully, and, as I have said, a draft Bill will be published in due course.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Will the Home Secretary tell us which is more important to the Government, national security or accountability, truth and justice for victims?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
7. What steps the Government are taking to tackle hate speech.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the people of Turkey after the terrible attack that took place in Ankara at the weekend.
A week ago, in the small hours of the morning, Police Constable David Phillips was killed in the line of duty. PC Phillips’ death serves as a terrible reminder of the real dangers that police officers face day in and day out as they put themselves in harm’s way to deal with violent criminals and dangerous situations. The murder investigation is ongoing, Merseyside police have made arrests and I am sure that the whole House will agree on the importance of bringing his killers to justice.
Police officers put themselves in danger doing a vital job and it is important that we ensure that their families are looked after if the worst happens. As the law stands, widows, widowers and surviving civil partners of police officers who are members of the 1987 police pension scheme stand to lose their partner’s pension if they remarry, form a civil partnership or cohabit. In recognition of the level of risk that police officers face in the execution of their duty, the Government have pledged to reform the 1987 police pension scheme—
Mrs May
We will reform the scheme to ensure that the widows, widowers and civil partners of police officers who have died on duty do not have to choose between solitude and financial security. The Government will lay these regulations in the coming weeks and the change will be backdated until 1 April 2015.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Home Secretary has clearly brought great happiness to the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and that will be recorded in the Official Report. We are extremely grateful.
James Cleverly
I welcome the statement made by the Home Secretary, and I also welcomed the restatement in the Prime Minister’s conference speech of his commitment to end the brutal practice of female genital mutilation among British citizens and those living in Britain. What steps are being made by the Home Department to ensure that those commitments become reality?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I suspect that this might be the first time I have stood at this Dispatch Box and said something that brings happiness to the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), so the moment is historic and not just something to be recorded.
The Prime Minister has taken a particular interest in FGM and last year he co-chaired with UNICEF the girl summit, the first of its kind. At the time, we announced a number of steps that we would take on FGM. The Home Office has set up an FGM unit, focusing Government efforts in this area, and we have, for example, introduced the new protection orders, which we fast-tracked so that they were available in July and could be used to protect girls who might have been taken abroad during summer school holidays for the practice of FGM.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
On behalf of everybody on the Opposition Benches, may I echo the Home Secretary’s tribute to Police Constable David Phillips, who died working to keep the people of Merseyside safe? I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending a message of condolence to his family and of gratitude for his service to the public.
Today, the former head of the Supreme Court, three Law Lords, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, five retired Court of Appeal judges, a president of the European Court of Human Rights and 100 QCs who represent the Government have described the Home Secretary’s response to the refugee crisis as “deeply inadequate”. Why does the Home Secretary think that she is right and all of them are wrong?
Mrs May
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that asking as his first question one that has already been asked by the Scottish National party spokesman might not be a route he wishes to go down in future. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees has answered the question, but I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman.
This country and this Government can be proud of the efforts we are making to support refugees from the Syrian crisis. We have put £1.1 billion in for those in the refugee camps and in communities in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. We are the second biggest bilateral donor to the region and to those refugees after the United States of America. In addition, we have been operating our Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which we are expanding so that the 20,000 Syrian refugees who are most vulnerable will be brought to the United Kingdom over the course of this Parliament.
Andy Burnham
Let me tell the Home Secretary why I repeated the question. Could not the public have legitimately expected the Home Secretary to answer a question about the biggest humanitarian crisis since the second world war? Her response reveals her fixed mind on this issue, which is simply not good enough because she is not responding to the unfolding nature of the crisis. Her position is flawed for one reason: she is trying, out of convenience, to draw a false distinction between refugees still in the region and those who have arrived in Europe, whom she describes as the wealthiest, fittest and strongest. I say to her: look at the TV pictures today; these people are not wealthy, fit or strong. They are desperate and they need our help. Is it not time to stop digging in, show some humanity and reach out a helping hand?
Mrs May
The question was rightly answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees—an appointment, I remind the House, that the Prime Minister made recently to ensure that there is a very clear focus on the job of making sure that the 20,000 Syrian refugees whom we bring to the United Kingdom are given accommodation and other types of support when they arrive here. As I said, the UK can be justifiably proud of the work that it is doing, and of the people whose lives it is keeping going through the provision of medical supplies, food and water in the refugee camps. Through our scheme we are taking the most vulnerable—not those who have been able to reach the shores of Europe, but those who are not making that journey. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will send a very clear message that it is better for people not to try to make the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean and through other routes into Europe because sadly people are still dying doing so.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
T3. My right hon. Friend will be aware that most goods vehicles coming into the United Kingdom are operated by overseas companies. How can Her Majesty’s Government encourage those firms to operate appropriate levels of security to prevent people using those vehicles to gain illegal entry to our country?
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In about two weeks’ time we are expecting the return of the last British resident, Shaker Aamer, from Guantanamo Bay, and I thank the Government for their actions in support of that measure. However, the last 16 residents of Guantanamo Bay who returned to Britain had been subject to torture and were paid compensation by the Government. Can the Home Secretary tell us how many of those 16 were subject to gagging orders as a result of the settlement?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has just said that she does not want people to make dangerous journeys, but the family reunification rules are making them do exactly that. A 17-year-old Syrian boy whose parents have been killed and whose brother lives here was told that the only way he could apply was to travel in person to apply to the nearest embassy or consulate. On the way to Turkey to do so, he was kidnapped and tortured for four days. That was a very dangerous journey, required by the family reunification rules. Will the Home Secretary personally review this case and agree to look at the family reunification rules so that we can support more desperate and vulnerable families? I urge her personally to do this.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees referred earlier to the work that we are doing. Obviously, there are the existing family reunification rules, but we are also expanding the vulnerability criteria whereby we identify with the UNHCR those refugees who will be resettled here in the United Kingdom. That includes a category of vulnerable families.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has not personally authorised any intercepts of MPs’ communications? Perhaps after last week, will she confirm that any future Government that she may head will not intercept MPs’ communications?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend will be aware that we do not comment on individual applications for intercept. Indeed, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual warrant or an individual interception that takes place. The Wilson doctrine applies, but of course it is subject to proceedings that are taking place at the moment.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
PC David Phillips was the very best of all of us in Wirral. His death has shaken people everywhere, but especially his family and friends in my constituency. An amazing £145,000 has already been raised in his memory. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Government stand absolutely ready to assist Merseyside police in their efforts to bring the guilty to justice, to help PC David Phillips’s family and to properly mourn and praise this dedicated and courageous officer?