Policing in England and Wales (Annual Assessment)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary has today laid before Parliament his annual assessment of policing in England and Wales in accordance with section 54 of the Police Act 1996. Copies are available at: www.hmic.gov.uk and in the Vote Office.
This report forms a part of HMIC’s first police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy (PEEL) assessment. The PEEL assessment represents a radical shift in how police forces are held to account by enabling the public to see for the first time how well their force is performing when it comes to cutting crime, providing a service that is fair and providing value for money. The individual force assessments are also available today at: www.hmic. gov.uk
Pre-Council Statement
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 4 and 5 December in Brussels. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
Justice day on 4 December will begin with the Italian presidency seeking a partial general approach on chapter IX of the proposal for a general data protection regulation. This deals with personal data processing for statistical, scientific and medical research purposes as well as provisions dealing with freedom of expression, employment and social protection. The presidency is also looking to secure a partial general approach on the issue of public sector flexibility within the instrument. Although progress has been made in improving some aspects of the text, the Government are against the use of partial general approaches with regard to this dossier, given the amount of technical detail on which disagreement remains.
Separately, they will hold an orientation debate on the regulatory one-stop shop which is intended to clarify in which member state regulatory decision-making should take place where there is a cross-border element to the processing of personal data.
The presidency will also provide a state of play update on the proposal for a data protection directive, covering the processing of personal data in the investigation and detection of crime. At this stage, it is not looking to secure any agreement as there has been more limited progress than is the case on the proposed general data protection regulation.
There will be an orientation debate on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) proposal. The UK does not and will not participate in the EPPO. Debate will centre on the EPPO’s nomination and appointment procedures and how best to deliver independence within the “college” structure. While the UK plays an active role in the negotiations as a non-participating member state, to shape and protect our position, we do not anticipate a need to intervene on these internal matters.
The presidency will present a partial general approach in relation to the Commission’s proposal to reform Eurojust, covering Chapters I-III and V-IX—omitting the chapter on data protection—of the proposal with all references to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) removed. Given that Eurojust’s relationship with the EPPO is not covered in the revised text, it is impossible to take a definitive view on items such as governance arrangements. However, the presidency text provided is broadly positive from a UK perspective. One of our key concerns was to ensure that member states are not obliged to give additional powers to their national members. The presidency text is much improved in this regard.
The presidency will be aiming for a general approach on the directive on presumption of innocence. The UK has not opted in to this proposal though monitors negotiations.
This will be followed by a state of play debate on the directive on legal aid; again the UK has not opted in to this proposal. The Council also seeks an update on the state of play for the draft directive on the fight against fraud by means of criminal law following the European Parliament’s first reading position of April 2014; the Council continues to discuss the content of the directive ahead of trilogues.
Next, there will be a political agreement on the proposal for a revised regulation on insolvency proceedings. This represents the end of negotiations which began in January 2013 following a proposal from the Commission to modernise the existing regulation, particularly to expand its scope to ensure businesses in the EU are rescued where possible and jobs preserved. The Council is being asked to reach political agreement on the text with a view to adoption in 2015. The UK Government support this revision.
There will be orientation guidelines on the regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. This measure aims to abolish the process of “legalisation” of certain public documents. Legalisation is the formality to confirm the authenticity of an official signature or seal. The regulation also proposes establishing EU multilingual forms. The Government support the principle of reducing red tape and costs and welcome recent amendments to both parts of the proposal which have limited the list of documents in scope to core civil status documents, such as birth, death and marriage certificates. They also welcome ongoing discussions to replace the proposed multilingual forms with simple translations of the original national documents rather than creating translated standalone forms with their own evidential value.
The presidency hopes to obtain a general approach to amend the European small claims regulation. From a UK perspective the negotiations have been successful in achieving our main objectives, including returning to the current definition of what constitutes a cross-border case and ensuring that no arbitrary cap on court fees is imposed on member states. The Government would have preferred a higher threshold for a small claim than €4,000 but understand that a compromise had to be found between the different positions of the member states.
The presidency is to provide a state of play report on the negotiations of the proposals on matrimonial property and the property consequences of registered partnerships. This is likely to state that while most technical issues have been finalised agreement on the proposals has not yet proved possible because of political concerns from some member states regarding the status of same-sex relationships. As these proposals will be decided under the special legislative procedure for family measures, agreement must be obtained by unanimity. The UK has not opted in to either proposal.
Under AOB, there will be an update from the presidency on the outcome of proceedings of the EU-US justice and home affairs ministerial meeting which took place in Washington DC on 12-13 November 2014. Finally the Latvian delegation will give a presentation on their incoming presidency programme.
The interior session on 5 December will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland—non-EU Schengen states. We expect the Council to focus on the implementation of October’s JHA Council conclusions on the response to migratory pressures, in particular those from the Mediterranean. The UK will press for full implementation of the conclusions, in particular supporting further action in key countries of origin and transit, offering further support for the new Frontex operation in the Mediterranean, and pressing for further efforts to ensure member states are meeting their responsibilities in the area of asylum and illegal migration.
The Commission will present the latest biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, and Council will be given the opportunity to discuss its content. Although the UK does not participate in the border and visa elements of the Schengen acquis, the Government maintain a strong interest given the effect of illegal migration transiting the Schengen area on UK borders. We will call for the EU to consider the role that Schengen visa liberalisation with non-EU member states can play in creating opportunities for immigration abuse, including the abuse of free movement rights by non-EU nationals.
Ministers will be invited to note a report highlighting the achievements of 15 years of Schengen evaluations under the Council’s management. Council conclusions will then be discussed, to allow the continuation of the relevant evaluation working group beyond 27 November. This will retain Schengen evaluation expertise within the Council structure and assist Ministers in effective delivery of the new Schengen evaluation mechanism. The UK supports this move.
The presidency currently plans a debate on Bulgarian and Romanian accession to Schengen, at the request of Romania and Bulgaria, who are seeking to finalise their accession to the border aspects of the Schengen acquis and then lower border controls with their EU neighbours. While the Italian presidency would like to see this issue resolved at Council, accession remains blocked by a minority of member states. The presidency may well withdraw it from the agenda—as it did in October. If the debate goes ahead, Bulgaria and Romania are likely to express their frustration. As this currently concerns only borders elements of Schengen, the UK does not have a vote.
Over lunch on the interior day there will be an update on passenger name records (PNR). The Council will consider how to proceed on PNR given the recent decision by the European Parliament to refer the EU Canada PNR agreement to the European Court of Justice. It is possible the LIBE Committee will use the referral to further delay progress on the draft PNR directive. The UK supports speedy adoption of the PNR directive, but we are clear that it should provide for intra-EEA PNR.
The Council will return to the issue of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq. Member states will be invited to discuss a number of issues based on a presidency paper, as called for at the June European Council. The Council will also be asked to adopt the guidelines which accompany the EU strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism, following the adoption of the updated strategy earlier this year. The UK supports the guidelines and has taken an active role in negotiations at working level, drawing on the UK’s experience of Prevent.
Under AOB, there will be an update from the presidency on the outcome of proceedings of the EU-US justice and home affairs ministerial meeting which took place in Washington DC on 12-13 November 2014. The Latvian delegation will give a presentation on their incoming presidency programme.
G6 Paris
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the six largest European Union countries held its most recent meeting in Paris on 6 November 2014. Representatives of the United States of America, Canada, Turkey and the European Commission attended for part of the meeting.
The summit was chaired by the French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve and I represented the United Kingdom. The other participating states were represented by Jorge Fernandez Diaz (Spain), Teresa Piotrowska (Poland), Angelino Alfano (Italy), and Thomas de Maiziere (Germany). The USA was represented by Alejandro Mayorkas (Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security) and Eric Holder (US Attorney-General). The European Commission was represented by Dimitris Avramopoulos (Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship) and the European Union by Gilles de Kerchove (EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator). In addition to the usual attendees Efkan Ala (Turkey) and Steven Blaney (Canada) were present.
The first session of the day was on priority issues for the next European Parliament. The discussion touched on border checks and the importance of balancing security and liberty but focused mainly on the passenger name record (PNR) directive. Delegates agreed on the importance of making quick progress to conclude the PNR directive.
The lunchtime discussion was on migration flows. The group collectively agreed the importance of implementing the JHA Council conclusions of 10 October covering action in co-operation with third countries; reinforced management of external borders and Frontex; and action at member states’ level-reception and fingerprinting. The European Commissioner (Avramopoulos) said the implementation of the conclusions would be a priority for the Commission. Conversation in this session also touched on the importance of securing borders and the need for fingerprinting asylum seekers at their point of entry to the EU.
The first session after lunch was titled “Radicalisation via the Internet”. Delegates noted the positive progress that had been made following discussions with internet service providers (ISP) and agreed the need for joint working.
The final session of the day was on the issue of foreign fighters. A number of countries reported developments and M. Cazeneuve (France) noted their new legislation which enables them to ban people from leaving the country if they thought they were involved in terrorism by way of withdrawal of their passport and ID card. He concluded by suggesting that all countries would benefit from a power to revoke passports and that it was vital that information sharing be improved. He noted that there must be progress on PNR and border checks and strengthening of co-operation with Turkey.
In my interventions, I supported the need for an EU PNR directive which included PNR on intra-EU journeys, supported the JHA Council conclusions of 10 October on future migration policies and set out the action which the UK has taken to tackle the problem of returning foreign fighters.
It was announced at the meeting that the next G6 will take place in Dresden in Germany on 1 and 2 June 2015.
EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is right. The truth is that the Home Secretary’s handling of the whole thing has been chaotic from start to finish. We have had no proper opportunity to debate the subject and have a vote at the right time and we have had confusion about when we were going to have the votes at the wrong time. We had parliamentary confusion, votes in chaos, Tory MPs scuttling back from their dinners, champagne banquets abandoned and a humiliated Prime Minister returning to the House of Commons with his tails between his legs.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I think I heard the right hon. Lady say just a few moments ago that one of the measures she wanted to debate was the European Police College. Perhaps she has not noticed that CEPOL is not in the list of 35 measures that the Government are rejoining, because it has been “Lisbon-ised” and does not need to be in the list. It falls out of the opt-out altogether.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary knows that an awful lot of the measures she has removed from the 35 are in fact measures that she plans to continue to co-operate with. There is a whole series of different aspects of guidance and pledges for co-operation across the policing and Eurojust world that she plans to continue to co-operate with. However, she has told her Back Benchers that she will not co-operate with them at all so that she can promise them a grand repatriation, when in fact it is the equivalent of repatriating the “Yellow Pages”.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
We return to an issue that has been much debated in the House. Last Monday was the sixth time that it was debated on the Floor of the House since the Government announced that they were minded to exercise the opt-out in October 2012. We had debates that month, in June and July 2013, and in April, July and November this year. The Government have published two Command Papers providing the House with the provisional and final lists of measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and with full impact assessments on the final list. We have responded to four parliamentary inquiries on the matter and to the joint report of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees in April. I am grateful for the scrutiny that those Committees and other hon. Members have given to this important matter, and I am happy to return to it today.
This is an issue that the shadow Home Secretary judges so important that she curtailed debate about it last week; so urgent that she strung it along for another week; and such an issue of principle that she is determined to try to score political points about it even though we agree on the substance of it.
As the Justice Secretary and I made clear to the House last week, and as I made clear to the right hon. Lady in an open letter the day before, the Government saw last Monday’s debate and vote as being about the whole package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, that we want the UK to remain part of in the national interest.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary clear up for the benefit of the House the simple fact that there was no reference to the European arrest warrant in the Government’s motion in the House of Commons last week, but there was in the motion in the House of Lords? Will she please explain why that was the case?
Mrs May
What I have just said about our view of the debate—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to be a little patient and wait for my answer to his question. As I have made clear, we felt that the debate was on the 35 measures, and Mr Speaker made clear that hon. Members could speak about all those measures in the debate. In the House of Lords it is open to the Government to amend an affirmative motion—something not open to the Government in the House of Commons—so when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), said that there were different procedures, she was absolutely right.
Last week we had the opportunity for a full day’s debate. The hon. Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) complained about a lack of debate last Monday, but that was because the shadow Home Secretary moved a motion that cut short the whole debate. We are now able to debate today’s motion, and as the right hon. Lady has made clear, there is nothing in it for the Government to disagree with, so we will support it.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Does the Home Secretary think that the wording of the motion last week was in the spirit of what her Back Benchers understood when the Prime Minister offered a debate and vote on the European arrest warrant? Did it reflect what he said to the House of Commons, and does she think her Back Benchers believed that?
Mrs May
I am clear that there was no requirement on the Government to bring the measures, other than those in the regulations, to the House, or to hold a debate on the Floor of the House on those regulations. There would normally have been an hour and a half debate upstairs in Committee, but we chose to bring it to the Floor of the House and to use a business motion to extend the debate. We chose to say to the House that we were clear that because the debate was about only those measures in the regulations that required a legislative instrument, we would nevertheless be bound by the vote on the whole package of measures, including the European arrest warrant.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary surprised, as I am, that the shadow Home Secretary’s speech was all about procedure, not the policy area? She did not mention the fact that one major concern of a number of us on the Government Benches is that we are ceding powers to the European Court of Justice for the first time, and therefore taking away some parliamentary supremacy. I would like to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am well aware that for a number of right hon. and hon. Friends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is key. I have been clear—as I was in previous debates—that the issue of our relationship with the European Court of Justice should be in the work that we will do as a Conservative Government after next May’s election to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. That, of course, is not in the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) today, and there is no reference to it or to the overall opt-out issue.
I think I am right in quoting the right hon. Lady as saying that the opt-out was an opt-in, opt-out “hokey cokey”. I remind her that that opt-in, opt-out hokey cokey was negotiated by the previous Labour Government. I am not sure from her comments whether she now supports our decision to exercise the opt-out, which, as I have said, the Labour Government negotiated, voted against last year, and have never said whether or not they would use. Is she congratulating the Government on successful negotiations in Europe and bringing back a deal that is good for the UK? Does support for our package mean that she supports the return of around 100 powers from Brussels and the largest repatriation of powers since this country joined the EU?
I am pleased that today’s motion supports all 35 measures, because last time the Opposition called a debate on this matter in June last year they highlighted only seven measures that they wanted us to rejoin. The list did not include Eurojust, which the right hon. Lady has now said that she supports, or the prisoner transfer framework decision, which allows us to send foreign criminals home to serve their sentences. It also left off the asset recovery office, which allows law enforcement to pursue the criminal proceeds of crime.
Yvette Cooper
Can the Home Secretary give a single example of a moment when she has put to Parliament the opportunity to vote on any of those measures?
Mrs May
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We were very clear that the only measures that needed legislative motions in this House were those in the regulations. We would be bound by the vote on those regulations as a vote on all the other measures in the package of 35. As I have said, this is the sixth debate we have had on this matter.
Sir William Cash
As my right hon. Friend knows, I accused her and the Government last week of chicanery, which, put another way, means relying on legal quibbles to try to achieve an objective. The fact is—I am sure she will accept it—that these issues involve the application of the European charter of fundamental rights. In that context, is she now going to tell us that the charter of fundamental rights does apply to the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend that I suspect he knows more about legal quibbles, and has more experience of them, than I do. I have to say to him that the view the Government take on the charter of fundamental rights is the same view. We are consistent in that view: we consider it to be declaratory only and we do not consider that it applies to the United Kingdom. I know he has a different view on this, but that is the consistent view the Government have taken on this matter.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary now says that her position is that she does not actually have to offer the House of Commons a vote on anything and therefore we should be grateful for the 11 measures we got to vote on last week. When did she say that to Parliament? Is it not the truth that she said repeatedly, over many months, that she would give the House a vote on the measures? She did not say that she would not give the House a vote because she did not have to; she said she would give the House a vote. If she has changed her position, why did she not say that before?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady really needs to understand the difference between a requirement on the Government to bring a vote to this House and a decision by the Government to bring a vote to this House, which we did last Monday. I also say to her that for most people looking at these measures, the issues are whether they are important measures for the Government to opt back into and whether they are important measures for law enforcement. It sounds as though we have absolutely the same opinion on that and I would be happy to be able to get on to questions about the measures themselves.
Mr Raab
On the opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, this is not a matter of political opinion anymore, because Justice Mostyn has made it very clear that our opt-out does not apply. Whatever one’s view on the implications of that, it leads to the argument, at least in this House, that we should be sceptical about opt-ins and the relationship with the EU on these matters. There is a constant salami slicing of both our opt-outs and our democratic control.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has made a considerable study of these matters, as the House is aware, but I have to say to him the same thing I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash): the Government’s position on the charter of fundamental rights has not changed. We have maintained a consistent position and our position is not changing.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I must say that many of my constituents who take a great interest in this issue will be very frustrated that the Labour party seems only to want to discuss process and not talk about the really important issues. My right hon. Friend will recall that recently I raised with her the concern of my constituents who found themselves living alongside a convicted murderer from Latvia, about whom they had no idea and nor did the local police. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents that it would be absurd not to opt back into the system for sharing information on criminal records? Does she also agree that, if anything, the system needs to be more rigorous and comprehensive to be more useful?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opting back into the European criminal records information system, which is one of the 35 measures we wish to opt back into, and to the exchange of criminal records is very important. We need to enhance our ability to exchange criminal records with other member states. Going back into Schengen information system II will also enable us to have more information of this sort at the border. We are doing a project with the Latvians and one or two other member states to improve our ability to deal with these issues, but there are challenges. For example, some countries have a different attitude from us to criminal records—in some countries, as soon as somebody is out of prison, effectively there is no criminal record—and as part of our discussions, we have to deal with those differences if we are to do what we all want to do, which is keep people safe.
I welcome the fact that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position on opting back into the 35 measures. It is a pleasure to agree with the right hon. Lady so often in one week: I understand the Labour party thinks that immigration was too high and out of control under the last Government; that it was a mistake not to have the full transitional controls to stop significant migration from the new member states; and that we must take action to reform European free movement rules. As a final step, perhaps she could ensure that her party agrees with the Conservative party’s commitment to an in/out referendum so that we can get on with the good work of negotiating a better deal for the British people.
Yvette Cooper
Will the right hon. Lady tell us the level of net migration now and how it compares with her target—her “no ifs, no buts” promise?
Yvette Cooper
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it came down by a quarter under the last Labour Government and that net migration is at exactly the same level now as it was when she became Home Secretary?
Mrs May
The fact I quoted is absolutely correct: net migration is down by a quarter from its peak under the last Labour Government. Furthermore, net migration from outside the EU is down to the levels of the late 1990s—something that never happened under the last Labour Government and has only happened because of the action taken by this Government to control immigration.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s support for the package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, which help us to tackle serious crime and keep this country safe. I think that the right hon. Lady’s commitment to the arrest warrant would carry more weight if, when in government, she and her party had taken action to address the concern that many people raised about how it was being operated—concerns that were eroding the public’s trust in this important measure.
Since 2010, we have made the important reforms that the Opposition failed to make in the previous eight years, and our law enforcement and prosecution agencies, the devolved Administrations, the Extradition Law Committee in the House of Lords and other experts, including the Lord Chief Justice, all wish us to continue to use the arrest warrant to bring offenders to justice and keep our country safe. That is not the arrest warrant bequeathed to us by Labour, but the arrest warrant that now has proper protection for those wanted for extradition, including British citizens. We have taken positive action to address the issues that have caused people such concern.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
How confident is my right hon. Friend that after 1 December, when the Court of Justice of the European Union will decide whether an arrest warrant issued by another member state is valid, the protections brought into domestic British law will prove to be robust?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Home Secretary has mentioned the importance of contact with the devolved Administrations and police services in other parts of the UK. What contact has she had on these issues with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
There has been considerable contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland; there has been contact with all the devolved Administrations on this matter. I have personally had a discussion with the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland about it. If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I will refer to the difference that the EAW makes to extradition as between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, and if we were to come out of the EAW, it would be a matter of concern both to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland.
Mr Clarke
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the valuable improvements she has made to the arrest warrant were achieved by negotiations with other member states—they were Europe-wide—and that we were strongly supported by, for example, the German Government who also had concerns about the proportionality of the arrest warrant and by many member states regarding the problem of the Polish constitutional position, which did not fit in with everybody else’s. All this was sorted out in a perfectly friendly negotiation, led very much by my right hon. Friend, and its enforcement would be guaranteed by the jurisdiction of the European Court of law if that were ever called upon, which is very unlikely. Better that, however, than 28 separate Supreme Courts putting their interpretation on the rules that we have now sorted out.
Mrs May
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that we have had discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. Indeed, some other member states, notably Poland, will take steps themselves to change the way in which they approach this particular issue in their legislation. That would mean fewer trivial or smaller cases resulting from the European arrest warrant. The changes we have made are, of course, changes we have made in domestic legislation here in the United Kingdom. The House has had the opportunity to vote on them and to put them through.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Further to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I do not think that he and I have quite the same touching faith as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in the European Court of Justice. Is it not the case that however we see the ECJ interpreting things now, by opting into this European arrest warrant now, we do so in perpetuity and we will for ever be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—unless we leave the European Community? What upsets and concerns so many Conservative Members, and indeed people across the country, is that we are surrendering a power to the ECJ over which we have no control whatever. It is a surrender of sovereignty that many of us just feel unable to accommodate, even though we understand the forceful argument on security that the Home Secretary makes.
Mrs May
Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I did to a previous intervention, that I fully accept the concerns that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but this is not an issue confined to the measures we are considering today. As part of the opt-out/opt-in decisions we take for measures brought forward in the justice and home affairs area post-the Lisbon treaty, we look at the question of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the ECJ applies to those measures as well. We have opted in to a number of measures on the basis that a balanced judgment of the importance of those measures and the benefits they bring outweighs the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. He uses the term “in perpetuity”, but as I said, if we have a Conservative Government after May 2015, we will have the opportunity to renegotiate a relationship with the European Union and a number of issues can be dealt with within that. Both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that we think free movement should be included within it, and I believe that our relationship with the European Court of Justice is another candidate for consideration in those negotiations.
Sir Alan Beith
I want to point out that the Government were right not to opt in to a series of standards measures where we are already well above the standards precisely, because it unnecessarily imported European Court of Justice jurisdiction into our own system.
Geraint Davies
The Home Secretary—who has not given way to me until now—has just said that she is in favour of opting back into the 35 measures. A moment earlier, she said “If you vote Conservative, we may end up with a renegotiation”, which implied that she would reconsider whether to support those 35 measures. Which is it?
Mrs May
I have made clear my view that our relationship with the European Court of Justice could well be one of the measures that should be part of the renegotiation and part of the process of looking again at our relationship with the European Union, which would happen after the election of a Conservative Government in May 2015, leading to an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. I hope that that is now clear to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to discuss some of the issues surrounding the European arrest warrant, given the degree of concern that it has raised among Members in the past. One such issue is that of lengthy pre-trial detention, which was highlighted by the case of Andrew Symeou—a case that has been championed relentlessly by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) in the interests of his constituent and his constituent’s family. Our reforms of the arrest warrant mean that, when the requesting country is not trial-ready, we will not extradite people. Had the measures that we have now passed been in place at the time, they would have allowed Mr Symeou to raise, in his extradition hearing, the question of whether a decision to charge him and a decision to try him had been made. It is very likely that they would have prevented his extradition at the stage at which he was due to be surrendered, and could have prevented it altogether.
We have reformed the arrest warrant to make it possible for cases to be heard in the requesting country before an extradition hearing, either by video conference or by temporary transfer, with the consent of the person concerned. That may lead to a withdrawal of the arrest warrant in some cases. We have also reformed it so that British citizens, and others, can no longer be extradited for minor offences. The reform came into effect in July, and has already resulted in the turning down of 21 arrest warrants. That has freed police and court time so that more serious matters can be dealt with, and, crucially, has protected individuals from the sledgehammer of extradition for minor offences.
The Government have reformed the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants when it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.
Our reforms have been implemented, and they are already making a difference. I believe that the arrest warrant is operating more fairly, and it is British judges who have the final say on whether or not to extradite people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—whose wife is an extradition judge—said last week,
“The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1228.]
That is absolutely right, and, thanks to our reforms, British judges are now better able to protect the interests of British citizens.
I am also pleased to have the opportunity to remind the House of a few of the problems involved in the alternative system of extradition that we would have to fall back on if we were not part of the arrest warrant, namely the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition. First, returning to that convention would require changes to domestic legislation in a number of member states. While we would be able to control our own legislative urgency, we would not be able to control what other member states did. For some, it would take months or even years to make the necessary legislative changes. The Netherlands, for example, has made it clear to us that it would take at least 18 months for it to change its domestic legislation, which would mean that UK criminals could travel to Holland with impunity and vice versa. That would have made the UK a virtual “safe haven” for some of Europe’s most dangerous criminals, and would have allowed UK criminals to hide from the law, which is certainly not an option that appeals to me.
Secondly, using the convention would mean a return to the days when extradition requests were sent to Ireland, perhaps more in hope than in expectation. Before the introduction of the arrest warrant, fewer than 10% of our requests to Ireland for individuals connected with terrorism resulted in their being returned to this country. Members should compare that with the present situation. We are not aware of a single request to Ireland for terrorism-related offences that has been refused. That is surely why—as I said earlier—the authorities in both Dublin and Belfast are such strong supporters of the arrest warrant and our continued participation in it.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Home Secretary accept that the comparison she is making is not a fair one, given that many of the extradition requests that were made to the Irish Republic were turned down often on political grounds? Of course, those grounds have now been removed because of the constitutional changes that have been made recently.
Mrs May
I understand that the political scenario has changed over the years, but the Justice Minister in Belfast and the Justice Minister in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland have been keen to impress on the Government their concern to ensure that the UK remained in the European arrest warrant, precisely because it now provides a much smoother and easier process to enable extraditions to take place successfully.
Mike Gapes
The Home Secretary is making an excellent case for the European arrest warrant. Why did she not put that forward two weeks ago? She could have made the case then.
Mrs May
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I cannot remember whether he was in the Chamber for the debate a week ago on Monday. However, I made exactly these sorts of argument in that debate. Other right hon. and hon. Members would have been able to express their concerns about or support for the European arrest warrant had that debate not been curtailed by his Front-Bench team.
Mrs May
We have not yet notified the European Union. [Interruption.] Someone says, “Why?” It is partly because the timetable has not required us to notify the European Union by that point.
Thirdly, under the convention, we would return to a system where 22 other member states would not extradite their own nationals to the UK and where, owing to constitutional bars, there would be no hope of that situation changing for some countries. In the last five years alone, those 22 states have extradited 105 of their own nationals to us to stand trial. That would end if we returned to the 1957 convention, and victims, and their families, would suffer as a result.
The convention would also mean that, if there is a long delay between the offence occurring and the extradition request being made, extradition can be refused because of the length of time that has passed under a state’s statute of limitations.
Mrs May
May I first give a concrete example of that? Last month, Philip Gordon Knowles was jailed for eight years after being found guilty of four counts of gross indecency with a boy under the age of 14 and eight counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 16 in the St Helens area in the 1970s. His conviction followed his extradition from Spain using the arrest warrant. In an earlier age, Knowles would have escaped justice. Under the 1957 European convention on extradition, the length of time that had passed between his offences and his extradition being requested would have rendered him immune to prosecution by the Spanish authorities, and he could not have been extradited. It is thanks to the arrest warrant that Knowles is now behind bars.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. She has made two cases—the reason for opting in and what would happen if we went back to the 1957 protocols—but there were other choices. A couple of years ago, there was the chance to try to have a bilateral treaty with the EU, or indeed individual member states within it. Equally, as the treaties stand, there are transitional arrangements under which the current arrangements could continue. Could she comment on those? I know that the commonly held view in her Department was that the transitional arrangements would be quite short, but I have gathered from the European Commission that they could go on for quite some time. I would appreciate her view on that.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised two important points. I will address both of them. He refers to the temporary transitional extension. The option that is proposed to extend that transitional period for a significant time would require secondary legislation to override the primary treaty right of the UK to opt out of measures and would effectively override the opt-out itself. That is a precedent that no one would want to set. A transitional decision is proposed by the European Commission. We have no vote on its adoption. We would have no power to amend the drafting of the decision and it could extend to all 135 measures and make them subject to ECJ jurisdiction to boot. That would effectively hand over our power on this matter to Brussels, which would determine it for us. I think that that would run entirely counter to our aim of bringing powers back from Brussels.
The other point is that it has been clear in discussions we have been having with the European Commission that the purpose of the transition arrangement was, for a very limited period, potentially to ensure that while the process of opting in was taking place there was no operational gap, so that we would make sure there was no point at which it was possible for somebody to claim that an arrest warrant, for example, was no longer operational as a result of the decisions we had taken.
In relation to the suggestion that we could have negotiated a separate treaty with the European Commission, reference is often made to the Danish position on that, but in fact that is different as the Danes have no alternative option for participating in the JHA measures. Protocol 36, the opting-out decision protocol, sets out our ability to opt out and to rejoin these JHA measures, so it puts us in a different position. The EC argues that that provides us with an adequate ability to go into these measures, and therefore renders a third-country agreement unnecessary.
Given my hon. Friend’s interest in European Court of Justice jurisdiction, the other point I would make is that in all the measures Denmark has negotiated separate arrangements on with the EC, it has been required to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That has been the price of getting the negotiated agreement with the European Commission, so I really do not think it is an option that resolves the issues my hon. Friend and others have concerns about.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend’s speech is taking a long time because it is so interesting and important. Following on from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), I wanted to say that there are three points the Home Secretary has just mentioned where Her Majesty’s Government have negotiated with the Commission and have accepted the Commission’s no as authoritative without really pushing. This does not bode particularly well for an attempt to renegotiate the treaties after the next election.
Mrs May
The fact is that we have been able to go into the negotiation with the European Commission and other member states, wanting to rejoin 35 measures, and the package we have brought back is rejoining 35 measures and not more measures. Many people said to us, “You will not be able to negotiate 35 measures. The European Commission and other member states will require you to join more measures.” They have not done so. The negotiation in that sense was successful, and contrary to what my hon. Friend says, I think that bodes well for the future.
I want to say a little more about some of the other 35 measures. I have mentioned already that they include important tools such as SIS II, the second generation Schengen information system. We are scheduled to join it shortly. It further strengthens our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.
When the UK connects to the system, we will gain access to 51 million alerts, including on individuals who pose a very real security risk, such as foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria and Iraq and who could pose a serious risk to this country on their return. It is a tool that I am sure the whole House will want us to have at our disposal.
The package of measures also includes the Council decision on child pornography, which ensures that international co-operation to tackle this abhorrent crime is prioritised and that collective pressure is put on internet companies to tackle the disgusting crime of online child sex abuse wherever it takes place.
The package also includes Europol, which does excellent work to tackle cross-border crimes—under its British director, Rob Wainwright—and Eurojust, which often operates hand and glove with Europol, such as during the horsemeat scandal early last year. As I have already said, the package includes the European criminal record information system—ECRIS—as well, which has dramatically increased the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals, and also the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails.
The package also includes joint investigation teams, which allow our police and their European counterparts to co-operate in cross-border operations, such as Operation Birkhill which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland into the UK.
These are all vital measures which the Government were clear we should remain part of in the national interest. We have exercised the opt-out, which the Labour party negotiated but voted against using. We have brought back some 100 powers from Brussels which the Labour party gave away. We have negotiated a good deal to remain part of a much smaller package of 35 measures in the national interest, despite being told by the Labour party that we should have sought “guarantees” that they did not bother to negotiate into the Lisbon treaty.
It is this Government who are providing leadership on European issues. We have cut the EU’s budget, secured an exemption from the new EU bank bail-out fund, vetoed a new treaty and secured a position of real influence in the Commission. That is leadership—an issue I know the Labour party might not want to discuss at the moment. Where this Government are leading, I am happy to see the Opposition follow, so I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford today, but given her party’s failure to reform the arrest warrant, her opposition to our exercising the opt-out, her refusal to back the repatriation of powers and her continued efforts to deny the British people their say through an in/out referendum, it is clear that the Labour party can never provide the leadership that this country needs on Europe.
Police Reform
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 22 July, I informed the House that I intended to reform elements of the police disciplinary system to improve transparency and justice and to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. Today I am launching a six-week public consultation on these measures. Subject to the consultations I intend to implement these measures before the end of this Parliament.
The integrity of the men and women who work in the police service of England and Wales is critical to public trust in policing. Real or perceived misconduct or corruption dents that trust and makes policing by consent more difficult. The vast majority of police officers behave appropriately and conscientiously, which makes it even more important to root out misconduct and malpractice and hold those responsible to account.
I want to ensure that the systems and processes that deal with misconduct by police officers are robust, independent and transparent to the public. In July I commissioned Major-General Chip Chapman to review the police disciplinary system. His report has been completed and I will consult on his recommendations for wide-ranging reform shortly. That consultation will also include proposals to fundamentally reform the police complaints system and further protections for police whistleblowers.
The consultation I am launching today focuses on specific reforms that can be made in the short term that will have a significant impact in making the current system more robust, independent and transparent until such point when more fundamental reforms can be implemented.
To improve justice, I am consulting on a power for disciplinary hearing panels to remove or adjust the compensation payments due to chief officers on termination of their appointment where a disciplinary finding is made against them.
To introduce greater independence into the way police disciplinary hearings are conducted and ensure judgements are legally sound, I am consulting on the introduction of legally qualified chairs to conduct police disciplinary hearings.
To strengthen protections for police whistleblowers and ensure they can come forward with confidence, I am consulting on proposals to ensure whistleblowers will not be subject to disciplinary action for taking the necessary steps to report a concern and that any reprisals against them will be taken seriously.
Finally, to improve transparency and accountability to the public and ensure that the robust response that the police take to misconduct is both visible and open to public scrutiny, I am consulting on holding police disciplinary hearings and appeals in public.
I hope that all those with an interest in these matters will respond to the consultation.
A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Library of the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
1. What steps she is taking to end modern slavery.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
This Government are determined to stamp out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Bill will give law enforcement agencies the tools to tackle modern slavery, and enhance support and protection for victims. We will shortly publish our modern slavery strategy setting out wider work to tackle these terrible crimes. I was pleased to announce on Thursday the appointment of Kevin Hyland as designate independent anti-slavery commissioner.
Pauline Latham
Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that Government alone cannot end modern slavery and we also need businesses to take a lead and play their part in this? What steps has she taken to achieve that?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree that dealing with this crime is about more than action by Government. That is why I am pleased that we have introduced into the Modern Slavery Bill a clause that requires larger businesses to show what they are doing to ensure that slavery is not taking place in their supply chains. We must all work together on this issue. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce that amendment, and I am sure that it will be supported throughout this House.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The national referral mechanism, which is one of the ways of identifying victims, is flawed—as, indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent report implies. What is she going to do to make sure that victims, whatever their immigration status, are identified and effectively protected?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady is right. Concerns about the national referral mechanism have been raised for some time. That is why the Government had a review of the NRM undertaken. That review has now been published, and we will set out our response to it in the modern slavery strategy that will, as I said, soon be published by the Government. We recognise the issues that have been raised in the review of the NRM, and I am pleased that it has taken place. We will of course put support for victims at the heart of what we are doing.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment as anti-slavery commissioner designate and expand a little on how his role will help to stamp out this dreadful crime?
Mrs May
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kevin Hyland on his appointment. Many people in this House who have been involved in looking at the issues around human trafficking and modern slavery will know of the very good work that he did as a detective chief inspector in the Metropolitan police, particularly on human trafficking matters. As the anti-slavery commissioner, he will be able to ensure that the agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies, are doing what they need to be able to do tackle this crime. As right hon. and hon. Members may have seen, he has already said publicly that one of his concerns about identifying this crime is ensuring that when victims of trafficking and slavery come forward, the police are able to recognise that they have been victims.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
As the Government have been so open in getting outside views, as well as views from this place, in building up their Bill, might not the Home Secretary adopt the same strategy with the implementation of the Bill that she has promised us in December? Would it not be possible to make that a Green Paper and for her then to come forward with her final proposals when, I hope, she secures Royal Assent in February next year?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has given considerable time and effort to this issue. We are grateful for the work that he has done with the Government in challenging us on the Bill and on the measures we are undertaking. The strategy has been developed with outside input; the Government have not just developed it themselves. I am sure that when the strategy is published, and as it is implemented, he will be very willing to come forward and provide views to the Government on it.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
2. What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of crime.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
7. What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of crime.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Police reform is working. Crime is down by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. England and Wales are safer than they have been for decades, with the survey showing crime at its lowest levels since the survey began in 1981.
David Rutley
I would like to acknowledge the important role and hard work of the Cheshire constabulary in reducing crime in Cheshire by 17% since 2010. I also acknowledge the important role of the reforms in policing that this Government have taken through, with a more targeted approach to measures, stronger accountability, and a greater emphasis on innovation. What further steps are this Government taking to improve the effectiveness of policing in the fight against crime?
Mrs May
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the officers and staff of the Cheshire constabulary on the very good work they have done in helping to ensure that crime in that county has fallen by the percentage that he mentioned. We continue to work on driving out crime and on helping the police to be able to deal with crime. The College of Policing is further professionalising the police. The police innovation fund is genuinely looking for ways in which police forces can be provided with funding for innovative ideas to find new ways of dealing with crime and ensuring that we are able to drive crime down even further.
Stephen Mosley
This Friday the Cheshire police commissioner John Dwyer and I will hold a meeting with members of the Chester Asian community who are concerned about a recent spate of burglaries aimed at Asian families by people looking for gold and jewellery. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to people who are concerned about this spate of crime?
Mrs May
I congratulate my hon. Friend on arranging that meeting to look at a particular problem that affects the Asian community. There are, of course, other communities that are also particularly affected by gold theft. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the crime prevention panel, which we have set up at the Home Office and which is looking at further ways to prevent crime from happening, is looking at that very issue. It is looking in particular at issues relating to the safe storage of gold and other similar valuable items in homes and external locations, and it hopes to be able to report on the matter in the new year.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Online child abuse is a horrendous and growing problem. Does the Home Secretary agree that those guilty of online child abuse should be barred from working with children?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree that all child abuse is a particularly abhorrent crime and, obviously, that which takes place online is no less abhorrent than that which takes place offline. That is why the Government have put a particular emphasis on dealing with online child abuse. A number of steps have been taken by the Government, led by the Prime Minister. I am pleased to say that next month the Prime Minister will also lead an international conference on online child sexual exploitation, endeavouring to further increase our ability to deal with these issues.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Given the importance of the European arrest warrant in bringing people to justice and reducing crime, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why today’s motion in the House of Lords gives peers a chance to vote on and specifically endorse the European arrest warrant, when last week, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, MPs were denied such an opportunity?
Mrs May
I was very clear about that. In fact, we spent a considerable amount of time last Monday discussing the Government’s motion. We were very clear that that motion would be binding on the Government in relation to the package of 35 measures. The regulations are now being discussed by the House of Lords. Sadly, of course, this House did not have a full opportunity to debate those matters last week, because the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), chose to move a closure motion to stop debate.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the Northamptonshire police, including not only Chief Constable Adrian Lee and Deputy Chief Constable Martin Jelley, but particularly officers of all ranks, on the fact that the crime rate in Northamptonshire is down by 21% since June 2010?
Mrs May
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating not just the chief constable and his deputy, but officers of all ranks in the Northamptonshire constabulary on the work they have been doing to bring down crime to the extent of 21% over the past four and a half years. That is excellent news for members of the public. Once again, I congratulate the officers on the hard work they have done that has led to that fall in crime.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that the National Crime Agency has the details of between 20,000 and 30,000 people who have accessed child abuse images online. There have been 600 arrests. What action is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the many other thousands of perpetrators of this vile crime are brought to justice?
Mrs May
I am pleased to say that the National Crime Agency has enhanced the ability of police in this country to deal with these particularly abhorrent crimes. By bringing the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre under the NCA, it is now able to have access to the tasking powers of all police forces and to the national cyber crime unit and other functions within the NCA. The NCA is very clear that it is looking at all the evidence brought before it. I am pleased that it has already made the number of arrests that the hon. Gentleman has referred to and, as I have said, it will look at the evidence brought before it and take action appropriately.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
3. When she next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss student immigration.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Over the weekend we saw yet another brutal murder at the hands of ISIL, that of United States aid worker Peter Kassig. Both the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the Minister for Security and Immigration, referred to it earlier. I am sure the House will agree that, along with the recent shocking attack on the Canadian Parliament, it demonstrates the deadly threat that we face from terrorism at home and abroad. That is why protecting the British public remains the Government’s No. 1 priority, and why we are taking urgent action to ensure that our police and intelligence agencies have all the tools that they need to keep people safe.
As I have told the House previously, and as the Prime Minister confirmed in Australia last week, we will shortly introduce a counter-terrorism Bill which will include new powers to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight as well as their ability to return here, and will combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. The legislation will strengthen our armoury of powers, which will be among the toughest in the world in terms of cracking down on returning foreign fighters.
Heidi Alexander
May I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about recent international events?
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children recently launched its “flaw in the law” campaign, which rightly demands legislative change to make it illegal for an adult to send a sexual message to a child. When will the Home Secretary give the police the power to intervene earlier, rather than leaving them unable to act until a child has been coerced into sharing an indecent image, lured to a meeting offline or, in the worst cases, sexually abused?
Mrs May
I agree that we need to be able to intervene earlier, so that we can ensure that predatory behaviour is tackled before children are put at risk. Officials had a further meeting with the NSPCC as recently as last Friday to discuss the matter further. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we will complete our consideration of the issue as a matter of urgency, so that we have the opportunity to table an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill should we wish to do so.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
T3. As the Minister will know, over the last few months I have been chairing an inquiry in which a cross-party group of Members of Parliament has been investigating immigration detention and the treatment of detainees. We have heard some very disturbing evidence from detainees themselves about the impact on their mental health, and also from representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatry and the British Medical Association. The panel would like an opportunity to discuss the Minister’s written evidence with him in person. May I encourage him to come and give evidence to our inquiry? We should be very happy to work around all manner of difficulties in his diary.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T4. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme, to use stop-and-search less and more fairly, saving police time and further increasing the trust between the police and the community they serve so well?
Mrs May
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme. I am very clear that the police should be using stop-and-search powers lawfully in a targeted, intelligence-led way. We want to ensure that local communities can hold their force to account for its use of the powers, and the scheme is part of a package of reform that will contribute to a significant reduction in the overall use of stop-and-search, but also the better use of stop-and-search and improved stop-to-arrest ratios. I also congratulate Leicestershire police on the fact that over the last four years crime has fallen by 22% in their force area.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I join the Home Secretary in passing on the thoughts and prayers of those on the Opposition Benches to the family and friends of US aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig, murdered in an act of vile barbarism by ISIL?
This morning, we learned that a British terror suspect has left Britain, reportedly to join ISIL. He was previously on a terrorism prevention and investigation measure which, under the Home Secretary’s reforms, ran out in January. We understand she had already taken his passport away. She has told us that
“there has been no substantial increase in overall risk since the introduction of TPIMs”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 25.]
She told us, too, that when TPIMs ran out either people were no longer at risk or there would be sufficient surveillance and restrictions by the police and Security Service to manage the risk. How come that has completely failed in this case?
Mrs May
Of course, this country is now facing a more severe threat than it has in recent years. That was reflected in the fact that back in August the joint terrorism analysis centre raised the threat level from substantial to severe. That reflected concerns about western attack plans that were being put together in Syria and elsewhere. As the right hon. Lady knows—I referred to this in my answer to the first topical question—the Government are looking at further legislation that is needed and we will be publishing a counter-terrorism Bill so we can take this through this House. I look forward to her supporting the Government in taking further measures to ensure that we can deal with terrorists.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary did not answer the question about what has happened to this man who has left the country to fight with our enemies, and I think Parliament has a right to know whether her change to the legislation made that possible. She talked about there being a more serious threat, but it is significant that there are hardly any TPIMs in use, raising serious questions about whether they are fit for purpose at the moment. Two terror suspects have absconded—one in a black cab and one in a burqa—because the Home Secretary removed the relocation powers and now another has absconded because there were not sufficient checks in place once the TPIM ran out. So will she agree as part of that legislation to reverse the Government’s position on the two main changes she made—first, to restore relocation powers and, secondly, to provide additional controls where needed once TPIMs run out, before any more terror suspects are able to run away?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady will know that both I and the Prime Minister have made it clear that in the new counter-terrorism Bill we propose to bring forward the Government will be looking at the issue of TPIMs and looking to see whether any further measures are necessary. A number of proposals in relation to TPIMs have been made by the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson, and the Government are looking at the package of proposals he has put forward.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
T7. What scientific and medical issues is the Department considering in relation to the introduction of water cannon in England and Wales, and what is the time frame for a decision on their introduction?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
T9. Given the 400% rise in anti-Semitic incidents this summer, I was pleased to hear that the Home Secretary had met representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and of the Community Security Trust. Will she tell us what discussions she has had with Twitter and Facebook on this matter?
Mrs May
As the Minister for Crime Prevention has said, we have had discussions with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the CST on the various issues that they have raised concerning anti-Semitic incidents, and in particular on how the police are responding to them. The extremism taskforce has been looking at how social media companies respond to Government requests relating to extremist material and hate crimes. We have initiated discussions on that matter and more generally on how extremist material can be taken down from such sites, and we will be progressing that work.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Home Secretary will know that at least four people have recently been killed by a substance known as DNP, including, tragically, my 23-year-old constituent Sarah Houston. The substance is readily available on the internet, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency cannot ban it because it is not a pharmaceutical product. Will she look again at reclassifying this substance as a class C drug so that no further young lives are so tragically lost?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the work of North Yorkshire police? They have launched a street triage scheme in which York-based mental health professionals join police officers on their patrols. That partnership will allow vulnerable people to receive immediate assistance and a proper mental health assessment at the scene.
Mrs May
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating North Yorkshire police on the work they have done on this new street triage scheme in York, and indeed the other local parties who have made it possible. The changes the Government have introduced through the street triage pilots, which are now being taken up by a number of other forces, are having a significant impact on the way the police are dealing with people with mental health problems. That presence of a health care professional means that in many force areas we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of people who are being taken to a police cell as a place of safety. That is better for not only the police, but, crucially, the individuals themselves.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
In condemning, like everybody else, the barbaric murder carried by out by the ISIS gangsters, would the Home Secretary consider that the various aspects of the counter-terrorism Bill the Prime Minister referred to in Australia should be examined by various Committees of this House, particularly the Home Affairs Committee? Does she accept that there must be concern about police officers, instead of her, having the right to take away passports and about the whole question of whether people should be rendered stateless? I do not minimise the danger of those returning from Syria, but I hope the Home Secretary will bear it in mind that there are implications that should be examined by the various Committees.
Mrs May
When we publish the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see the details of our proposals, including on the temporary seizure of passports, which I have spoken about, as has the Prime Minister. The Bill will, of course, receive proper scrutiny in this House and in another place as it goes through its various stages. I do not think it is the job of the Home Secretary to suggest to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee whether or not he should have an inquiry into this Bill. I have noticed that the Home Affairs Committee is not backward in coming forward on looking at matters the Government propose.
Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC Review
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 7 July, Official Report, column 23, I announced to the House that Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC would be conducting a review of two independent reviews that were commissioned by the permanent secretary at the Home Office in relation to child abuse. The full report by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC will be placed in the Library of the House today and will also be available on gov.uk.
In response to public concern, Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC were asked to lead this work to address the allegation that, in the 1980s, the Home Office failed to act on information received in respect of child sexual abuse.
They have concluded that, in respect of the first review commissioned by the permanent secretary,
“the conclusions were reasonably available to the Reviewer on the information then available”,
and that they “agree with recommendations made”. In respect of the second review commissioned by the permanent secretary, Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC make it clear that they,
“have seen no evidence to suggest PIE was ever funded by the Home Office because of sympathy for its aims.”
Their review makes three recommendations for the Department, all of which have been accepted. These were that:
They endorse the recommendations made in the first review.
Where an allegation of child abuse is made it must be recorded and the file marked as significant. That significance should then inform the Department as to how to handle that file, its retention and the need to record when—if at all—it is destroyed. This approach is relevant, not only to the Home Office, but could usefully be adopted across Government as well.
There should be a system within the Home Office of recording what information is sent to the police and then a formal procedure of confirming what the result of that reference is.
My officials have already implemented the recommendations from the first review commissioned by the permanent secretary, which have now been endorsed by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC. They will work to implement recommendations two and three of Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC’s review as soon as possible.
I have also written to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC today on two particular aspects on which I am seeking further reassurance. First, their consideration of how the police and prosecution authorities handled any material that was handed to them at the time. The Home Office will publish its response to this question, to ensure full transparency on this point.
Secondly, I have asked them for similar assurance in relation to the full unredacted final reports of the first investigation, and the list of the 114 files considered in their review, to establish whether any of the material mentioned in these was ever passed to the Security Service and, if so, what action the Security Service took in respect of this material.
Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC’s full report, which is being placed in the Library of the House today, contains a number of annexes. These annexes include copies of the full reports from the first review that the permanent secretary commissioned. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam have made only the redactions that they judge are necessary to ensure publication does not jeopardise any future criminal investigations or trials.
Publication of this review today is an important step in ensuring institutions take seriously their duty to protect children from abuse and to learn lessons from any failures.
Modern Slavery
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Following my statement on 9 April this year announcing a review of the national referral mechanism, I am pleased to announce that the review has concluded, and its report is published today. The review examined whether the national referral mechanism provides an effective and efficient means of supporting and identifying potential victims of human trafficking and whether it can, or should, cover all victims of modern slavery.
The review team has undertaken extensive research, and engaged with a wide range of organisations from across the UK and beyond. The review has made some sound recommendations, focused on improving the victim experience, which I welcome. The report also makes recommendations specifically aimed at protecting child victims of trafficking. These proposals, other than those concerning support, will apply in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It should be noted that Scotland and Northern Ireland have differing support arrangements for victims.
Strengthening support for victims of modern slavery and human trafficking is a major part of our response to this evil crime, which we are tackling through both legislation in the Modern Slavery Bill, and non-legislative work. A copy of the review will be placed in the Library of the House and our response will be set out in our strategy on modern slavery which will be published shortly.
Wanless Review
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the Wanless review.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In July I told the House that the Home Office permanent secretary had commissioned Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, QC, to conduct a review of two existing independent reviews into how the Home Office had acted—or failed to act—on information it had received in the 1980s about child abuse. The full report by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, QC, has been published today. A copy has been placed in the House Library, and I want to place on the record my gratitude for their thorough work.
In terms of the first review considered by Wanless and Whittam, which was about the extent to which the Home Office acted on the “Dickens dossier”, they say that
“we found nothing to support a concern that files had been deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse”.
In terms of the second review considered by Wanless and Whittam, which was about whether the Paedophile Information Exchange ever received any funding from the Home Office, they say they
“have seen no evidence to suggest PIE was ever funded by the Home Office because of sympathy for its aims”.
Wanless and Whittam have made three sets of recommendations for the Home Office, all of which relate to the way the Department deals with sensitive allegations, how officials pass such information on to the police and how the details are properly recorded. The permanent secretary has accepted all three sets of recommendations.
I want to make sure that we leave no stone unturned when it comes to the work Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam have undertaken. So I have written to them today to seek further reassurance that the police and prosecutors acted appropriately upon receiving information relating to the “Dickens dossier” or related matters from the Home Office. I have also asked them for a similar assurance about any such information that was passed to the Security Service, if any such information was indeed passed to it.
I should also make it clear that the Wanless and Whittam work is about how the Home Office responded to information relating to the “Dickens dossier”, how the police acted on any information passed their way and, because of concerns expressed by many people, including Members of this House, how the Security Service responded. Their work does not relate to wider allegations about child abuse or the failure of institutions—including the police, prosecutors, security and intelligence agencies, and Government Departments—because those are matters for the inquiry panel that I have established, whose work is now under way.
Many people who have made allegations relating to child abuse and the failure of the authorities to prevent abuse have been ignored for far too long. Some have even been written off and traduced as conspiracy theorists. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one with any information about child abuse should be ignored, no one should be written off or dismissed, and no one should be left to themselves. If we want to get to the bottom of what has been going on in our country for too long, we need to come together, work together, and listen to what survivors and witnesses have to say. That goes for all of us who are in positions of responsibility: the police, prosecutors, Government officials, Members of Parliament, public servants in a range of institutions, and people beyond those categories.
The Home Office permanent secretary commissioned Wanless and Whittam to establish what the Department did and did not know, and does and does not know. Their work shows that the original reviews did not cover anything up, but neither do they prove or disprove that the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s. Likewise, they do not prove or disprove that public money ever found its way to the Paedophile Information Exchange. That is no fault of Peter Wanless or Richard Whittam; they have been investigating old files, many of which seem no longer to exist. I know that that is a cause of frustration for everyone, but it is not the only aspect of this case. As several Members have pointed out previously, there are other allegations, other lines of inquiry and other possible evidence that need to be considered.
The right place for consideration of these matters—apart from live criminal allegations, which should be dealt with by the police—is the panel inquiry into child abuse that I have established. That inquiry will be comprehensive: the panel will look at institutions in this country, gain access to all relevant paperwork and take evidence from survivors and witnesses, so that we can expose what has been going on. It may take time, and I know that we have slipped twice in our attempts to get this right, but I am determined that we will succeed in doing so, and I know that the whole House shares my determination.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Home Secretary for her response. As she will know, we supported her statement last week in which she told the House that she was delaying publication of the Wanless review because she wanted us to be able to scrutinise it properly. I put the urgent question today to call her to the House so that Members could do exactly that. It is unfortunate that the review was published only just before Peter Wanless appeared before the Select Committee. Given that there have been so many allegations of cover-ups and secrecy, I urge the Home Secretary to go the extra mile in keeping the House informed and making proper scrutiny possible. Everyone in the Chamber abhors the terrible abuse of children, both in the past and today. Survivors need support and justice, and children need protection right now.
The Home Secretary is right to thank Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, QC, for their detailed work, which will need further consideration. We note their key conclusions: that they have found no evidence of systematic cover-ups, but that it is not possible to say that that never happened, because the information that is available remains very limited, and too little is still known about what happened and why. The Home Secretary is also right to accept their recommendations, and to ask further questions about the role of the police, prosecutors and the security services. Let me, however, ask her the following questions. The first concerns the remit of the review, which was narrow. It was a review of a review, which concluded in some areas that matters were not within the authors’ terms of reference. Has the Home Secretary asked them whether they came across any matters that should be further investigated, although those matters were outside their terms?
Secondly, can the Home Secretary clarify exactly how historic allegations about cover-ups are now being investigated? She referred to the work of the panel, but she will have heard, for example, the comments of journalist Don Hale, who says that he had a file of allegations from Barbara Castle, but it was removed by the police after threats and an approach from Cyril Smith. These are immensely serious allegations, so can the Home Secretary tell the House who is investigating them now—the police, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, this Wanless review, or the national overarching inquiry that has not yet started—because they must be investigated by someone? We presume that the police will be investigating specific allegations of abuse, but can the Home Secretary clarify who will be investigating specific allegations of cover-ups? Will that be the police or the inquiry, and if it is the inquiry, will it have the full investigative powers it needs?
Finally, the Home Secretary will be aware of concern from police forces across the country about the lack of resources they have for investigating both historical and current abuse cases. Will she tell us whether she believes the police and prosecutors currently have enough resources in place to properly investigate these terrible crimes?
There are still clearly so many unanswered questions and the Home Secretary is right that the whole House will unite in its determination to get to the truth. Survivors of abuse, and all of us, need to know that we now have the most effective possible system in place to pursue truth and justice and protect our children for the future.
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: I did want this report to be published separately today. I thought it was appropriate to do so, rather than publishing it on the same day that I was making the statement about the panel inquiry, so that there are opportunities for this House to look at the document, which has been put in the Library. I recognise that hon. Members at this point will not necessarily have been able to look at the inquiry report as fully as I have, but obviously that opportunity will be open to them.
The right hon. Lady said the review terms of reference were too narrow. I disagree. The review was set up to give the public confidence that the reviews that had been commissioned by the permanent secretary were rigorous and fair, and the review confirms that they were. Unfortunately, of course, it does not prove or disprove that the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s, but, as I said, that is not the only aspect of this case, and we should not give up now.
The right hon. Lady asked about the historical allegations and how they were being dealt with. A number of historical allegations are already being dealt with and are under police investigation. For example, there is Operation Pallial in north Wales and there are also all the Operation Yewtree investigations around the Jimmy Savile case, and, indeed, we have seen some historical allegations against individuals being brought to court already and some people being prosecuted as a result of that work.
In relation to the specific question about Don Hale and the comments he made, I did not hear his whole interview on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning, but I recognise the allegations he has made, so my office has been in discussions with the Metropolitan police today and the Metropolitan police have agreed that they will now look into those allegations.
The right hon. Lady referred to investigating cover-ups. The point about the panel inquiry is that it will be looking at what the institutions did: it will look at what happened and ask, for example, why was it that children in care homes were abused to the extent that they were; why was it that allegations were not properly dealt with; and why was it that institutions—bodies of government, of the state—that were there and should have been protecting people, and investigating and properly dealing with allegations of criminality, did not do so? Sadly, obviously as we have seen in relation to the Rotherham inquiry and the work in Greater Manchester, some of these issues still pertain today. So that is what the inquiry will look at. Of course if it uncovers anything that relates to criminal activity that has taken place, it will be appropriate for that to be properly investigated by the police. I have said before that I am discussing the question of resources in relation to this, and I have already had a conversation with the national policing lead about these matters.
I want to confirm two further things. Some people have expressed concern about what evidence can be given to these inquiries in relation to the former officials who had signed the Official Secrets Act. I am very clear that the Official Secrets Act should not get in the way of anybody giving evidence to the panel inquiry or bringing forward any evidence that they have that is relevant to this issue. If anyone who knows something is worried about the Official Secrets Act, they should come forward and speak out.
Also, in their report Wanless and Whittam found that there was no inappropriate behaviour or cover-up when the Home Office recently reviewed these matters. However, as I said, that does not prove or disprove allegations about the Home Office in the 1980s. Their verdict is “case not proved”, rather than “not guilty”. I cannot stand here and say that the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up during the 1980s. There might have been a cover-up, and that is why we have set up the inquiry into child abuse. We are determined to get to the truth.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to leave no stone unturned in addressing the deficiencies of the Home Office’s record keeping in the period between 1979 and 1999. Will she give me an assurance that the recommendations of the report have now been adopted, that child abuse allegations received by the Home Office are being marked as significant, that a record is being kept of what is passed on to the police and that there is a procedure for following up what happens after that?
Mrs May
As I said earlier, the permanent secretary has accepted all the recommendations, and they are being put into place at the moment to ensure that the systems record information appropriately in the way that Wanless and Whittam have recommended, so that it will be possible to follow through any matters that are passed to the police to ensure that they are being properly recorded and dealt with.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee this morning. We gave the Home Secretary the opportunity to appear before us, before they came to see us, but she declined to do so. In my seven years as Chairman of the Committee, such occurrences have been extremely rare. It is important that Ministers should submit themselves to proper scrutiny by Select Committees on issues of this importance. Perhaps the only way to achieve that is to table an urgent question, and we will consider doing that in the future. When Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam gave evidence, they said that it was the Home Office’s shambolic record keeping over 30 years that had led them to believe that they could not rule out the possibility of a cover-up. The Home Secretary has said that she is writing to them with further information. When will she do so? Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), we want the new system set out in recommendation 2 to start today. Can this be done, please?
Mrs May
I would not normally reveal the interaction between myself and the Home Affairs Committee in relation to an appearance, but as the right hon. Gentleman has made reference to it, I think I should clarify the matter for the House. I am happy to appear in front of the Committee on these matters, but I did not feel that it was appropriate to do so before the report had been published. I would have been asked questions that it would not have been appropriate for me to answer, given that I had not yet made the report public. However, I look forward to receiving an invitation to appear on a separate date.
The right hon. Gentleman is right on the issue of record keeping, and the matter is being addressed in the Home Office. We want to ensure that this is done as quickly as possible, but we also want to ensure that the system that is being put in place will work, that it will be sustainable over time, and that everyone who is working in it understands it and deals with it appropriately. That is not something that can be done at the click of one’s fingers. It takes a little time.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
When we heard from Wanless and Whittam at the Home Affairs Committee this morning, they told us that their report had been submitted to the Home Secretary on 15 October. They also told us that they had wanted it to come out as quickly as possible and did not know why it had not been published until today. They said that the timing of its publication had been nothing to do with them. The Home Secretary has a track record of delaying reports that she is concerned about. Why did it take so long to bring this one out?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attending the Chamber when matters relating to Home Affairs are being discussed. I made it clear then that I did not want to publish this report on the same day as the statement, and that I wanted to publish it later. I said that I would publish it this week, and I have kept that commitment to the House. Also, when I receive a report it is important that I read and consider it. As a result of having done so, I asked a number of questions of officials. That has resulted—this answers part of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—in my writing today to Peter Wanless to indicate that I would like him and Richard Whittam to give a reassurance about the extent to which they were able to reassure themselves that the police had dealt appropriately with matters that were handed over to them. The reason I have done that is simple: I do not want a situation where people simply say, “The Home Office can absolve itself of responsibility because it handed things to the police.” We want to make sure that those allegations were dealt with appropriately, and I think it is entirely right that I have written to them for reassurance on that.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
This morning, our Committee heard from the victims groups, which expressed reservations about some members of the panel for the overarching inquiry and suggested three names for the chair. Two of them, Nelson Mandela and Theresa May are obviously not possibilities—[Interruption.] Sorry, I mean Madam Theresa—[Laughter.] Mother Teresa! But they did suggest one sensible name, Michael Mansfield. Will the Home Secretary assure me that she will give full consideration to what the victims groups are saying about who should be chairing the panel and that she will re-examine its members?
Mrs May
I had a sense of déjà vu then, because when I was a councillor in the London borough of Merton the then leader of the Labour group sometimes used to call me Mother Theresa. The hon. Lady did raise a serious point, because we need to ensure that the panel of inquiry and its chairman have the confidence of survivors and victims, so that they can have confidence in the outcome of the panel’s work. The name she mentioned has been raised by others, but so have a number of other names. Hon. Members are making proposals, as are survivors groups and individual survivors. The Home Office is collating all the names that are being suggested as a possible chairman and, appropriately, we will look into those individuals in due course. I hope that this will not take too long, but we will need to do the necessary work to bring a further name forward.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to implement the report’s recommendations swiftly. However, in evidence today, Wanless and Whittam were clear that these recommendations have relevance across government. Will she today commit to impressing on her Cabinet colleagues the importance of these recommendations for every Department, so that survivors of child abuse can have confidence that wherever an allegation of child abuse is made to government it will be acted on swiftly and appropriately?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I am very happy to commit to doing that. I will be writing to the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that all Departments and agencies co-operate fully with the child abuse panel inquiry, and I am very happy to put in that letter as well my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the Wanless and Whittam recommendations on record keeping should be applied across the whole of government.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Don Hale was given a huge number of Home Office minutes by Barbara Castle that directly related to allegations of child abuse by prominent people, including many prominent MPs. Those minutes were seized virtually straight away by three special branch officers. Why is it appropriate that the Metropolitan police should now be investigating this, rather than inviting those special branch officers to the inquiry in order to give their explanation of why they were instructed to take those files and where they took them?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has raised points that I think are relevant, but they are separate points in relation to what evidence can be given to the inquiry. It would be entirely open to the inquiry, if it chose to do so, to ask Don Hale, and indeed others involved in this, to come before the inquiry to give evidence to it. That is not a matter for me; it will be a matter for the inquiry panel to decide whether it wishes to pursue that course of action. Having been made aware of the allegations that Don Hale had made this morning, I felt that it was right that there should be a police investigation into this, which is why the Metropolitan police will be looking into it.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I wish to ask the Home Secretary about the security services. It is my understanding that, in the 1980s and at other times, copies may have been made of files that have been established by this review as now missing from the Home Office. Those copies may have been taken by the security services. Will she ensure that further inquiries are made to establish that there are not copies of these old files somewhere else? As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, may I confirm that the Home Secretary is a very regular attendee, whereas her shadow has not been once in the time that I have been in the House?
Mrs May
I understand that in their work, Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam did investigate whether files were held by a number of other Government Departments and agencies. I have in my letter to them today made it clear that I would like further reassurance on the role of the Security Service. I trust that they will be able to look into that further and report back to me.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Greater Manchester police admit that they failed to pursue perpetrators of child sex grooming gangs despite allegations being made to them about those gangs over a decade or a more. Our admirable friend the shadow Home Secretary has pressed the issue about the lack of police resources, so will the Home Secretary now say more about providing those resources, because Greater Manchester police will need them to investigate the levels of current and historical sex abuse that we have had in that city?
Mrs May
I will repeat what I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary. I have spoken with the national policing lead on this matter, who is looking at all the investigations that are taking place in forces across the country, and on what is needed to ensure that those investigations can be undertaken. One issue that has clearly emerged from the Rotherham report and from the work that the shadow Home Secretary did in relation to Greater Manchester police and the issues around child sexual exploitation was not about resources but about an attitude which did not believe or listen to the victims and was not prepared to investigate their cases. We must change that attitude of mind and change that culture.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
In the interests of clarity, may I ask the Home Secretary on what date she instructed her permanent secretary to check and order the preservation of each and every file containing documents relating to any allegations of abuse, so that the independent panel has access to them? Destroying any documents would be against section 29 of the Data Protection Act, which should protect them in the interests of justice.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On Friday, given the discussion that was going on in the media about this report, I raised a point of order in the House. Although I welcome the detail that the Home Secretary has given us today, I remain somewhat confused as to why she did not choose proactively to make a statement to the House. There are issues of confidence and assurance that concern both victims and Members from all parts of the House. Will the Home Secretary reassure us that she will take a proactive approach in coming to this House with information on these serious issues?
Mrs May
I have come to this House on a number of occasions to deal with these matters and to talk about the work that the Government have put in place in relation to these very serious allegations—be it in response to the Rotherham inquiry or to the child abuse inquiry panel that the Government have established. It is absolutely my intention that the work that has been put in place by this Government will get to the truth. Survivors of child abuse will have the opportunity to put their case and to see a thorough consideration of these issues so that we can identify what went wrong, why they were not protected by the very institutions that should have protected them and what further lessons we need to learn for the future. I will undertake to update the House on a regular basis, when it is possible to do so.
The independent panel will be conducting its work independently. It is not for me to determine when it may make public statements about the work that it is doing. One issue that I wish to raise with it is exactly this question about how it can ensure that people are aware of the work that it is doing while it is doing it, so that people can have confidence in it and see what is being done.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Wanless report has been published and the Home Secretary and others have confidence in it. Has she considered appointing either Peter Wanless or Richard Whittam, or indeed both, as chairman or co-chairman of the independent panel inquiry?
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the Wanless review looked at the situation in Wales? Did it consider the role of North Wales police and the work of the Wales Office at that time? I tabled an early-day motion in 2012, just before the Waterhouse review was set up, which made it clear that
“the police have lost the confidence of the public by their apparent failure properly to investigate the full extent of the paedophile activity in North Wales; and similarly that the Crown Prosecution Service has inexplicably failed to prosecute on a number of occasions despite clear evidence and a large number of allegations”
North Wales police lost documents, photographs and statements. Who is looking into that?
Mrs May
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s specific question on the Wanless and Whittam review, it looked at information held in the Home Office—what information it had and how it dealt with it. If the information in those files related to Wales, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, of course it would be within the review. The purpose of the review was to look at how the Home Office handled that information. I can assure her that the independent panel inquiry’s terms of reference explicitly state that the inquiry will cover England and Wales, so matters relating to child abuse that might have taken place in institutions in Wales will be covered.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the establishment and publication of this review are an important step in ensuring that institutions up and down our country take seriously their duty to protect children from abuse, and to learn any lessons from their failures, because one of the most shocking aspects of this story over the past few months has been how those institutions let children down, and let them down terribly?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is shocking that we have seen bodies of the state—institutions, Government Departments and agencies—that should have been protecting children failing to do so. That is clear from the historical cases of child abuse we have seen, which were not followed through or considered properly. Sadly, it is also what we have seen from the more recent cases in Rotherham and Greater Manchester. Indeed, there are other cases currently being taken forward by police investigating child sexual exploitation in these matters. It is essential that we recognise that there are still problems, which is why it is important that the inquiry finds out what went wrong and identifies the lessons we now need to learn and what we need to put in place to ensure that we stop that in future.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Although many of the files may no longer exist, it has been suggested that there are plenty of officials, or at least retired officials, still around who are fully conversant with their content. Were any of them interviewed as part of the Wanless review? If not, in the interests of getting to the bottom of this, does the Home Secretary think that it might be an idea to interview them now?
Mrs May
It was open to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam to interview any individuals they felt it was appropriate to interview. For example, they interviewed the former official who had indicated that he had information relating to money going to the Paedophile Information Exchange. It is also open to any official who has information or knows of something that happened in relation to these matters to come forward and give evidence to the panel inquiry. As I said earlier, I am very clear that the Official Secrets Act should not prevent anybody from bringing such evidence forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly the evidence emerging from both Rotherham and Manchester shows the systemic failure of public services to treat allegations of child sexual abuse seriously. Will my right hon. Friend now reiterate the view that anyone who has any evidence whatsoever of child sexual abuse, or who has been the victim of child sexual abuse, should come forward so that these allegations can be thoroughly investigated and their minds can be put to rest?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the extent to which children have been failed, both in the past and more recently, as we have seen from the cases he mentioned. I am very clear that anybody who has any evidence should come forward. I want people to feel confident that they can come forward in the knowledge that the intention of the inquiry we have set up is to get to the truth. If there were cover-ups among Government Departments or others in relation to these matters in the past, that should be exposed and we should ensure that that cannot happen in future.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
My question takes that one step further. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the overarching inquiry into child abuse, when up and running, will examine the role of Whitehall and its authorities, because that is a critical question for many people?
Mrs May
Yes, it absolutely will. As I have said, the inquiry will be comprehensive when it comes to the institutions it looks at. It will look at state and non-state institutions, because there have clearly been failures not only in state-run care homes, for example, but in other areas of life, such as the Church. The review will be comprehensive.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The Home Secretary has rightly pointed out that the report identifies no clear evidence of cover-up, but I want to draw her attention to a reference it makes to a letter that the then Home Secretary wrote in reply to Mr Dickens on 20 March 1984. It states that a dossier of letters provided by Mr Dickens was passed to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that, as the review states,
“in the view of the DPP, two could form the basis for enquiries by the police and have been passed to the appropriate authorities.”
If that is true, it is very hard to understand how there can be no evidence of those letters. That is exactly the kind of loose end that the inquiry will have to resolve if it is to have any credibility at all with victims and the wider public.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is precisely those sorts of issues that have led people to query what has happened, question the attitude taken to these matters and ask the very question he raises about why there do not seem to have been any prosecutions off the back of it. Wanless and Whittam were specifically asked to look at how the police and prosecuting authorities dealt with any reference that had been made from the Home Office because, as I said earlier, in my view it is not good enough for the Home Office to say, “Well, we’ve reviewed what the Home Office did.” We need to know what happened to the evidence that the Home Office passed on. It is in looking at what further action was taken that I have gone back to Wanless and Whittam in the letter I sent them today.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary shed any light on recent press reports that the Dickens dossier might be held in the files of Barbara Castle at the Bodleian library in Oxford?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary remains so hungry to find the truth about this situation. I am a little puzzled, because the period of the review stretches from 1979 to 1999 yet there is such a heavy dependence on paper-based records, even though the use of computing within public administration would have been widespread for a good deal of that period. Why is that the case?
Mrs May
I am afraid that Governments spend a lot of time working with paper-based methods. Indeed, much of the material available to Government is still paper-based, rather than in digital form. Obviously, increasingly the balance is changing, but the records kept at that time were almost invariably in paper form. Indeed, many records are still kept in paper form.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary have any lessons from this inquiry with which to reassure people about the wider inquiry, given the apparent absence of good record keeping in the past? How will people be kept on board so that they have trust in the process, rather than awaiting something and then, at the end, crying, “No, that can’t be right”?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It will be for the inquiry panel to determine how it is going to report, how frequently it will report, and in what form it will report the work that it does. My personal view is that because of the nature of these issues, the comprehensive nature of its work, and the need for confidence in it that she mentioned, I would like it to report to people on a fairly regular basis so that it can show what it is doing. Indeed, there may be a benefit to that, because if it reports on a piece of work that it has done on, say, identifying a certain set of institutions, that may trigger other people to come forward with further evidence. This will be a matter for the inquiry panel, but I have made clear my view that they should be doing it regularly.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The Wanless review continually highlights the fact that in the 1980s data relating to parliamentary questions and information about constituents submitted by MPs to Ministers were retained for only two years. What is the position now? Following on from the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), would it not make sense to store these data digitally so that they are available for future generations?
Mrs May
If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend about the current procedures that are followed by Government Departments in relation to retention of records. The length of time for which a document is kept is determined by its status. There have been a number of models for this across the intervening years. I fully accept that maintaining material in digital fashion is the way forward. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), the Government still—how can I put it?—like the paper form and are still, in many cases, keeping the material available to them in that form, but they are moving towards more digitisation.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the sickening case of the Crown Prosecution Service supporting the charges against Eleanor de Freitas of false allegations of rape that resulted in her suicide. What assurances can the Home Secretary give to victims of public figures who abused them that the CPS will not pursue counter-claims against them that might lead to deterrence or, indeed, their suicide?
Mrs May
I will not comment on the individual case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am very clear, and it is very clear in the request that I will put to the Cabinet Secretary, that Government Departments and agencies—all aspects of Government—should be working to help the inquiry to get to the truth and to ensure, in doing so, that any evidence is available to it. The Crown Prosecution Service is an independent body in relation to decisions that it takes about prosecutions. Certainly, the message we will be sending from the Government is that in matters relating to the inquiry we want Government Departments to come forward with the information they have to ensure that we can get at the truth.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the approach that the Home Secretary is taking, and I understand why she wants to be absolutely sure that the systems that are in place are going to work. Will she confirm that the recommendation that a record is made of what happens to something that is passed to the police will be put in place as soon as possible, without waiting for the full inquiry?
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
May I return to the question by my fellow Birmingham MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)? We have clearly lost a lot of paper files, and only one official who would have been expected to know what went on, even in the absence of files, has voluntarily come forward to give information. Would it not therefore be appropriate to have a more systematic scroll through those who might have known, and rather than wait for them to come forward, to ask them proactively?
Mrs May
As I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam were open to decide how to do the work of the review; it was for them to determine how best they could ensure that they were doing their job thoroughly, as I believe they did. As for whether there are officials who would, or should, come forward to give evidence to the inquiry panel, that is a separate question. I am very clear that any former official who has any information should feel able to come forward and not feel that the Official Secrets Act will get in the way of their doing so. It is important that we hear all the evidence that is available.
Criminal Law
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 2 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 draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.
Protocol 36 is the part of the Lisbon treaty that relates to the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the policing and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the treaty came into force. The opt-out provisions are unique to the United Kingdom, and were negotiated by the previous Administration. Under the terms of protocol 36, the UK had to decide before the end of May 2014 whether it wished to opt out of all the police and criminal justice measures—some 130 in all—that predate the Lisbon treaty. The opt-out had to be exercised en masse; we could not simply leave the measures that we did not like.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I want the Home Secretary to be very clear, and give a yes or no answer. Will the House get the chance in the next couple of weeks to vote on the European arrest warrant?
Mrs May
The House is getting a chance today to debate the European arrest warrant. The House has been clear that it wished to have such a debate. We were very clear during the debate on the business motion that regulations are before the House, and the House will vote on those regulations. I have also been very clear about the Government’s position. We have brought those particular regulations before the House because they are the only ones that we need to transpose into UK legislation. I will come on to comment on the European arrest warrant. As I said earlier, I am very clear that the vote today relates to whether or not the UK opts back in to the package of measures that we have negotiated. The package comes together; it is not an a la carte menu from which one can pick and choose.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary telling the House that she disagrees with the ruling made by the Speaker—yes or no?
Mrs May
No. I can tell the right hon. Lady that I would certainly not stand at the Dispatch Box and disagree with the Speaker’s ruling. The Speaker’s rulings are about what happens in this Chamber and what votes are on. In fact, the words I have just said agree with the Speaker’s ruling—that the vote will be on the regulations on the Order Paper. We have tabled the motion because we believe it right that the House, in debating and considering the package of measures that we want to opt back in to, sees very clearly what legislation is necessary to transpose certain measures.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
But the Speaker has said in terms that we are not voting on the European arrest warrant. Is the Home Secretary now arguing that by voting for the regulations tonight we are joining the European arrest warrant?
Mrs May
I have been very clear that the formal vote before the House is on the regulations. I have also been clear that the Government—I will come on to explain our timetable, which has some relevance to this matter—want to opt back in to measures that are in a package. If the House votes against transposing some of those measures into UK legislation, it is effectively voting against our package of measures. On that basis, we can speak about all the measures within the package of 35 measures.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Why did the Home Secretary not just include the European arrest warrant in tonight’s motion?
Mrs May
I have explained that the statutory instrument transposes those measures that require legislation. I repeat—I am happy to speak about this again later—that we are not required to transpose the European arrest warrant into UK legislation because it is already in UK legislation, in the Extradition Act 2003.
We had an opportunity to exercise the opt-out, and we did so. We have brought back more than 100 powers from Brussels.
Mrs May
I will make some progress, because the time for the debate is now more limited and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
As the Prime Minister says, we have overseen the biggest return of powers since this country joined the EU, but we have always been clear that we wanted to remain part of a smaller number of measures that give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical help in the fight against crime. This Government and this party will never put politics before the protection of the British public and that is why we are seeking to remain part of a package of 35 measures that help us to tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the event the House votes down these 11 measures, she will still be free to opt in to the European arrest warrant and, what is more, she will still be free to move forward with those 11 measures through other parliamentary means? That is the case, is it not?
Mrs May
We have been very clear that we have brought before the House tonight those measures that are required to be transposed into UK legislation. We have also been clear that in the Government’s view, a vote against those regulations is a vote against the package of 35 measures. I have been very clear that the 35 measures hang together. Even though only a small number require transposing into legislation, they are a package of measures and not a pick and mix.
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress.
The package is the product of careful deliberation in this House and beyond. It follows consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, our security and intelligence agencies, the devolved Administrations and the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the Government of Gibraltar, victims’ groups and many more. It has been scrutinised by Committees in both Houses of Parliament and the Justice Secretary, and I, along with other Ministers, have appeared before those Committees to give evidence on the Government’s approach. We have also published two Command Papers on the issue.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I am pleased that we will, I hope, opt in to a range of these measures. As the Home Secretary says, this has taken a huge amount of time, effort and negotiations with Europe. How much benefit is there, given that most of the measures to which we are not opting in have expired?
Mrs May
There is considerable benefit, and I point my hon. Friend towards the measures on minimum standards for the justice system—there are about 20, I think. It is not the view of the Government, and it is certainly not the view of the Conservative party, that we should be part of the European justice system that some people think some of Europe wishes to introduce. Coming out of the minimum standards measures was an important part of ensuring that we did not go in that direction.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the scrutiny process, but, as she well knows, all three Select Committees—the European Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Justice—have said that there has not been proper consultation with Parliament on these matters. What has happened today amply demonstrates our concerns and nothing has emerged to change our view. Will my right hon. Friend explain how on earth all this has happened?
Mrs May
I am aware of the views expressed to this House by my hon. Friend and by the Chairmen of the Justice and the Home Affairs Committees. I remind my hon. Friend that I, the Justice Secretary and other Ministers have appeared in front of the Select Committees of this House, of the European Scrutiny Committee and of Committees of the House of Lords on a number of occasions on the subject of these measures. We have also held a number of debates on the Floor of the House and varying views have been expressed from both sides of the House about the measures that have been proposed.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Given that the Home Secretary wrote yesterday in The Sunday Times that the European arrest warrant and 34 other measures were in the package proposed by the Government, and given that she knew that the European arrest warrant was one of the most controversial of those measures, will she explain why she has included those issues in the regulations that we are discussing today but left out the European arrest warrant?
Mrs May
It has been made clear that it is possible to discuss the other measures in our debate today, and I have explained why the regulations include only certain measures—those required to be transposed into UK legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to refer to the package of 35 measures being the product of tough negotiations in Europe. In July, when we last gave Government time for a debate on the issue, I informed the House that good progress had been made in negotiations with the European Commission and other member states and that we were close to reaching an in-principle agreement. The matter had been discussed at the General Affairs Council in June, but some member states had expressed technical reservations. I published Command Paper 8897, which included the full list of measures discussed at the General Affairs Council and impact assessments of each of those measures. I had hoped to be able to return the matter to Parliament for consideration before the summer recess, but the reservations expressed by other member states meant it was not possible to do so. In September, two of those member states lifted their reserves and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that on Friday, Spain, the one remaining member state blocking the deal, formally lifted its reservation in Brussels.
I believe that the deal we have negotiated in Europe and that we are bringing before the House today is a good one for the United Kingdom. It includes important tools such as SIS II, the second-generation Schengen information system, which the United Kingdom is scheduled to join shortly. That will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.
The package of measures we have negotiated includes Europol, which does excellent work under its British director, Rob Wainwright, to tackle cross-border crimes. Three weeks ago, for example, Europol played a key role in Operation Trivium, a UK-wide operation led by West Midlands police that saw police forces from 14 European countries jointly targeting foreign criminals in the UK. Senior officers from across Europe came together at the control centre in Edgbaston to witness the operation in action and Europol provided a mobile unit to co-ordinate activities on the ground. In the first 48 hours of the operation, more than 700 suspected criminals were arrested and a further 950 were handed on-the-spot fines for minor offences, cautioned or summonsed to court. They included a 51-year-old Polish man arrested on suspicion of involvement in a fraud of more than £11,000.
Europol also played a key part in tackling the horsemeat scandal that so appalled this House and the British public last year, as did Eurojust, another of the measures in our package.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Home Secretary keeps talking about a package of measures, but, of course, this is not a package of measures but things that she has bundled up into a package. As she appears to be making up parliamentary procedure as she goes along, will she explain how on earth those people who agree with some of the measures but not others should vote this evening?
Mrs May
I described them as a package because that was what was open to us under the terms of the Lisbon treaty negotiated by the previous Labour Government. We have to opt back in to a group of measures. There are measures in the package that interrelate. For example, the European supervision order relates to the European arrest warrant. We cannot simply pick and choose individual measures; many of them interrelate and should be considered together.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Home Secretary made but a fleeting reference to consultation with the devolved institutions, but since Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land frontier with another EU member state, will she take the opportunity to put on the record that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, David Ford, and the Assembly support the measures before us this evening?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The Justice Minister in Northern Ireland supports the measures, as does the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland, Frances Fitzgerald, who has made very clear the consequences if the House rejects the measures and if the Government do not opt in to them.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Home Secretary may recall that she and I stood on the same Conservative manifesto, which said very clearly that a Conservative Government would reassert the “ultimate authority” of the House of Commons over important matters and repatriate powers in criminal justice. Does she not see the danger that if we opt back in to 35 measures, without having any legislation to assert our primacy, our criminal justice system can be entirely controlled from Brussels?
Mrs May
I will refer later to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and what that means in relation to the measures before us. This is a simple decision about whether we want to be part of practical law and order measures that make a difference to the ability of our law enforcement agencies to catch criminals.
The support and co-ordination provided by Eurojust were invaluable to the UK’s law enforcement agencies and prosecutors during the fraud investigation that followed the revelation of the horsemeat scandal. Eurojust was extremely proactive and offered immediate assistance to the prosecutors in our Crown Prosecution Service, and provided vital information on investigations that were being carried out right across Europe.
Mrs May
I will make a little progress before I take more interventions.
The assistance of Eurojust has proved instrumental in the prosecution of animal rights extremists in the UK. Through its facilitation of meetings between the relevant European jurisdictions, evidence was obtained of the existence of an international conspiracy to blackmail the suppliers and customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences which was used in the UK trial.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I ought to declare an interest because my wife is a judge who deals with European arrest warrants on a regular basis. The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense. Please will my right hon. Friend stick to her guns, because I do not want this country to become a haven for foreign criminals?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I assure him that I will refer to a number of measures that will ensure that there is judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant and proper consideration of such cases in the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right about another thing. The Government have negotiated this package and are bringing it to the House because we believe that these measures are necessary to ensure that we can continue the job of keeping people safe and bringing criminals to justice.
I will outline some of the other vital measures in the package of 35 measures. However, I said earlier that I would say a little about the timing of today’s debate, which I think is relevant to the consideration that Members have given to the motion. Now that the final reservation has been lifted on our deal, which, as I said, happened on Friday, we must allow for discussion at a Council in Brussels before the month is out. Very few appropriate options remain. We must add items to the agenda of a Council 16 days in advance to guarantee their inclusion. That means that we do not have long to complete our domestic processes. To avoid an operational gap for our police and law enforcement agencies, we must complete the entire process before 1 December. That involves formally notifying Brussels about the measures that we wish to remain part of.
Mrs May
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for just one moment. He will know that I am usually very generous in giving way to him during debates on European matters, even though I sometimes disagree with the points that he makes. However, the point that I am about to make is important too.
If we do not complete the entire process before 1 December, including notifying Brussels of the measures that we wish to remain part of, we will have an operational gap, which I believe would be a real problem for our police and law enforcement agencies. We must be ready to transpose those measures fully into our domestic law. That is why it is important that we hold votes in this House and the other place, and complete the necessary legislative steps as soon as possible—hence the motion before us.
Sir William Cash
In the light of what has happened so far and the fact that we do not have the opportunity to vote on the European arrest warrant, as Mr Speaker has indicated, will the Home Secretary confirm that we will have an opportunity to do so, as was promised not only by her, but by the Prime Minister? We have not had such a vote. Will she guarantee that we will have one after a proper debate on the matter?
Mrs May
I have set out quite clearly the Government’s view on the motion before the House and the debate that we are having. I will attempt to make progress, because I want to get on to some of the other issues, including the European arrest warrant. I recognise the degree of interest in that and the concern that remains among some hon. Members. That is why I wish to have time to speak about that particular measure.
Steve Rotheram
Following on from what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, when the Prime Minister was offered parliamentary time to debate the European arrest warrant by the Leader of the Opposition, he said:
“There is only one problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s …question: we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election—his questions have just collapsed.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
What has changed, Home Secretary?
Mrs May
We are having a vote on the regulations tonight and it has been made very clear that people are able to discuss the European arrest warrant in the debate.
If we were to vote against the motion tonight and did not opt back in to the measures—because a vote against the motion tonight would be a vote against the package of 35 measures—we would find ourselves kicked out of Europol within weeks and our extradition arrangements would be thrown into legal uncertainty, potentially for years. That would risk harmful individuals walking free and escaping justice, and would seriously harm the capability of our law enforcement agencies to keep the public safe.
Mrs May
I will make a little more progress and will then give way to my hon. Friend.
For the reasons I have just given, the Government have always been clear that it is in our national interest to remain part of these vital measures and to do so without an operational gap.
Over the past four years, and particularly since we announced our intention to exercise the opt-out in July 2013, a number of hon. Members have proposed alternative courses of action to me and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary as we have undertaken our negotiations in Europe. A number of hon. Members are interested in the position of Denmark with regard to justice and home affairs matters. Some have said that it provides a potential model for the UK to follow. I believe that it is a false comparison. Denmark has a separate protocol to the Lisbon treaty that excludes it from participating in post-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures. It has concluded third-country agreements with the EU because it has no other way to participate in those measures.
By contrast, protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty sets out the process by which the UK can opt out of and rejoin justice and home affairs measures. There is no precedent for an international agreement between the EU and a member state that already has the ability to participate in EU measures by specific means. The European Commission argues that protocol 36 provides adequate provision and renders a third-country agreement unnecessary. Riding roughshod over that would involve walking away from a very good deal for the UK and risk damaging our support for future negotiations in Europe. Even if we could persuade the European Union, it would take years to thrash out, guaranteeing a lengthy operational gap in the fight against crime and a risk to the British public that would be unacceptable.
Finally, I hope hon. Members will heed the Danish example in full. Every agreement that Denmark has made separately with the European Union has required Denmark to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In effect, the Danish agreements that have caught the attention of some hon. Members simply bind Denmark to EU law by another legal means. I suspect that is not what those hon. Members had in mind.
I have explained that only a certain number of the measures require transposition through the regulations before the House. The regulations make provision to give effect to the European supervision order in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. That allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK, rather than spend months and months abroad awaiting trial. It will therefore stand alongside the reforms that we have made to the arrest warrant, making it easier for people like Andrew Symeou, whose case has been championed admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), to be bailed back to the UK and preventing such injustices from occurring in future. The connection between the supervision order and the arrest warrant, one of which is being transposed in the regulations and one of which is not, is an example of the inter-connectedness of the package of measures.
Sir Edward Leigh
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.
I mean this question completely sincerely. One reason why I passionately support the British courts and jury system is that one never knows when one might get into trouble or be wrongly accused oneself. I realise that it is extremely unlikely, and it is a personal question, but if she were wrongly accused of something in, say, Croatia, would she rather rely on British justice and traditional extradition procedures or on the say-so of a prosecutor in Croatia?
Mrs May
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come on to explain how we have changed the European arrest warrant so that British judges are now interposed in the system in a way that they were not always in the past. Those measures have been an important advantage, and some arrest warrant requests to the UK have already been rejected as a result.
I do not want to lose sight of some of the other measures in the package. For example, the regulations also cover the European criminal records information system. We are already taking steps to identify foreign nationals who are abusing our openness and hospitality by committing crimes in this country. Operation Nexus, a groundbreaking initiative taken by the Metropolitan police and immigration enforcement, helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. As I said, it began with the Metropolitan police, but it has recently been extended to the West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester forces and six other forces including Police Scotland, and we wish to extend its work to every force in England and Wales. ECRIS is a key tool that supports that operation and thereby helps to keep our streets safe.
As people find it easier to move around the globe, we must ensure that our law enforcement agencies can exchange information more readily too. In 2006, the UK made and received no requests at all for criminal records from other EU member states. In 2012-13 we made over 25,000 requests, and last year that figure was 41,500. I recently announced that the Government would increase the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals by introducing full checks on foreign nationals arrested in the Metropolitan police area. Given that 30% of those arrested in London are now foreign nationals, it is clear that that is an operational necessity. That is also why our package of 35 measures also includes the Swedish initiative, which simplifies the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement agencies, and the data protection measure, which protects personal data transferred in the fight against crime. Those measures both require transposition, and they are covered in the regulations.
Another of the measures in the regulations provides for joint investigation teams between our police and their European counterparts. It allows our police to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill, which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking into the UK of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland; and Operation Rico, which resulted in 110 arrests, mostly in the UK and Spain.
Dr Huppert
The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. She has made a strong argument for cross-border co-operation with our European partners, but one measure that she is not opting into is the internal security fund, which involves about £3 billion for measures across Europe to tackle cross-border crime. We are one of only two countries that have not opted into that; will she consider doing so, so that we can continue to work across borders?
Mrs May
We were clear about the package of measures that we wished to opt into—the 35 that we identified. We looked at all the 130-odd measures that were subject to protocol 36, and we believe that the package that the Government have published for Members is the right one to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need.
Another measure in the package is the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps to remove foreign criminals from British jails—prisoners such as Ainars Zvirgzds, a Latvian national convicted of controlling prostitution, firearms and drug offences and assault. In April 2012, he was sentenced to thirteen and a half years’ imprisonment in the UK, and in June this year he was transferred out of this country to a prison in Latvia, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence. Had it not been for the prisoner transfer measure, he would have remained in a British prison at a cost to the British taxpayer of more than £100,000.
As I indicated earlier, I have taken part in a number of debates on these issues. From those debates, and from the debate that we had earlier and the comments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today, it is absolutely clear that the measure that attracts the most interest from Members is the European arrest warrant.
Extradition is always an emotive subject. It raises important questions about the civil liberties of British citizens, the quality of justice in other countries, the role of our own courts and how we bring criminals to justice, and I understand those concerns. I remind hon. Members that I am the Home Secretary who blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States, and who reformed our extradition arrangements so that, when prosecution is possible in both this country and another, British courts can block extradition overseas if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so. I therefore share many of the concerns that have been raised about the European arrest warrant in the past. Indeed, as a member of the shadow Cabinet I voted against its transposition into British law by the last Labour Government. That is why, as Home Secretary, I have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections that we can offer to British people and others who are wanted for extradition.
The changes that we made through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the arrest warrant that sits in our package of 35 measures is a better and safer arrest warrant than the one operated over the past decade. Under the last Government, British citizens could be extradited for disproportionately minor offences, so the law has been changed to ensure that arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge must now consider whether the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate, and a British judge must also consider whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking a second intervention from me.
The Home Secretary knows well that a Mr John Downey walked free from the Old Bailey earlier this year. He had been charged in connection with the Hyde park bombing, which killed four innocent British soldiers, and was also sought in connection with the Enniskillen bombing and the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment men in Northern Ireland. He walked free because the Northern Ireland Office had signed off a letter in 2007—not during the current Administration—for a category of people known as the on-the-runs. Mr Downey is now enjoying the air of County Donegal. Would the UK opting into the European arrest warrant help the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland retrieve Mr Downey to face serious criminal charges if the Police Service of Northern Ireland had sufficient evidence?
Mrs May
I recognise the case that the hon. Lady raises and her concern about it. I do not think it would be right for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on an individual case, particularly one that involves certain other matters that are not only relevant to the measures that we are discussing. As she says, they relate to decisions taken some time ago about the issue of on-the-runs.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend and ask her to stick to her guns on this matter? She is delineating the changes that she has caused to be made to the European arrest warrant. It is different from how it was before, and we can and must support it in the interests of justice, because it will prevent this country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists and criminals. Furthermore, does she recall that Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, told the Committee that I sit on, the Home Affairs Committee, that he supported the European arrest warrant? He said that it was the best tool to accomplish what my right hon. Friend and the rest of the House want to achieve.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and as an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee he has looked at the matter in some detail. He is absolutely right that the Committee was clear about the benefits of the European arrest warrant. We have indeed made changes to it, thanks to which the National Crime Agency refuses requests before they even get to our courts in the case of the most trivial offences, freeing up police and court time for more serious matters.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you made it clear that reference to the European arrest warrant was to be made only in passing. The Home Secretary has been speaking about the European arrest warrant for the past 10 minutes. Is that not in total contravention of what you ruled earlier?
Mr Speaker
I said in my statement that I intended to offer latitude, so that the matters of which the House wishes to treat may be properly aired. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in seeking clarity from the Chair, but nothing I have heard so far has conflicted with that. I intended—and I intend—pragmatically to handle matters from where we are, which, as I think we all agree, is sub-optimal.
Mrs May
Our reforms have also clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so nearly 40 times since our reforms came into force in July. Under the old arrest warrant, people were being detained for long periods overseas before being charged or standing trial. We have changed the law to require that a decision to charge, and a decision to try the person, has been made in the requesting country before they can be extradited.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her personal interest in the case of my constituent Andrew Symeou, and to the Minister. On this point, which is often known as the Symeou clause, does she have confidence—this is something that I and my constituent lack—that the decision to charge and try will necessarily follow with the same speed and alacrity as in this country and many other countries? We are totally reliant on those other countries to enforce such measures quickly, else people will languish in jail because there is a difference between the decision to charge and the different decision to try.
Mrs May
In our changes to the legislation we are clear that this is about the decision to charge and to try. As I mentioned earlier, my hon. Friend has been assiduous in championing the issue because of the case of his constituent Andrew Symeou and we all recognise that that sort of circumstance led many people to query the European arrest warrant and be concerned about its operation. The legislative changes we have made allow a British court to decide that unless there is a decision to charge and try an individual, it can reject the European arrest warrant. In addition, we have also made changes so that an individual can be transferred temporarily to give evidence and be returned to the United Kingdom, or to give evidence by video link, for example, so that they do not need physically to be taken to the other country concerned.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s attempt to explain that point, but perhaps I can ask her about another issue. The courts are not allowed to take into account the record of a country in its effectiveness at pursuing a case from charge to trial-ready. Would such a requirement on the courts provide more confidence that they can look beyond the initial application to extradite and hold to account countries that fail to deliver?
Mrs May
I note my hon. Friend’s point, but I believe that the changes we have made are sufficient to ensure that our courts are able to make judgments on charge and trial, and therefore a judgment on whether a European arrest warrant should be put into place. I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Chris Bryant
I did not have to ask this time, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I fully agree with what she is saying about the European arrest warrant and with many of the changes that she has managed to introduce and negotiate with other countries. I agree with all that, but not with the process she is adopting. On 29 October, when asked about the European arrest warrant, why did the Prime Minister say not just once but four times:
“I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote on it…we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
The Speaker has already said that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. So that all Members of the House can at least reckon that they have had a fair deal, will the Home Secretary please give us a proper vote next week?
Mrs May
And the hon. Gentleman started off so nicely—such a disappointment. As I have said, the National Crime Agency is refusing arrest warrants in certain circumstances, and as I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), those require people to be able to be charged and stand trial. Some hon. Members were worried that arrest warrants were being used for investigatory purposes rather than prosecution, and, as I said, that is why we have allowed people to visit an issuing state temporarily to be questioned, or to do so via a video link without even leaving these shores.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
These post-July changes are extremely welcome, but one point that has not yet been made is that 95% of European arrest warrants that are applied for from this country are for foreign nationals. It is foreign countries wanting their nationals back to prosecute them—these are foreign nationals, foreign criminals, who have come to the United Kingdom because they think that it can be a safe haven. The European arrest warrant is enabling the countries where the offences were committed to get their nationals back—95% of those warrants do not apply to UK citizens but to foreign citizens.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is prescient because it was a point to which I was coming soon in my speech, and it is an important statistic. Sometimes people think that the European arrest warrant is just used to extradite United Kingdom citizens from the United Kingdom, but that is not the case.
Hon. Members have expressed concerns about people being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they consent to extradition, so we have lifted the requirement that individuals lose their right to “speciality protection” when they consent to extradition. Those changes have been made in UK law, and came into effect earlier this year. They are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The concept of proportionality is hard to define and therefore hard to understand. The Home Secretary has already given examples of cases that have been refused on the basis that they are too trivial. Can she give an example of the least serious offence where extradition has been possible since July?
Mrs May
I do not have a list of all the European arrest warrants that have been refused, but there are two steps to the proportionality decision. The first is an administrative decision taken by the National Crime Agency as the body that initially receives the request. Then there is the possibility for the courts to make a determination about proportionality, and they will consider a variety of issues. It is not a tick-box approach; the courts will make judgments not just about the nature of the crime but about the nature of the disposal available in the other member state in relation to that crime, so that they can decide whether the arrest warrant is appropriate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) indicated that the vast majority of people extradited from the UK—more than 95%—are foreign nationals. They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults and seven terrorism cases. In the same period, the arrest warrant has been used to return 647 people to this country to face justice. The list includes 51 suspected killers, 80 suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs, and one suspected terrorist.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has come to the issue of the United Kingdom causing the extradition of others from abroad. Does she accept that the European arrest warrant brought an end to the rather hideous spectacle of well-known criminals living off their ill-gotten gains and sunning themselves on the Costa Brava?
Mrs May
I say to right hon. and hon. Members that I am conscious of the time I have been speaking for. I have taken a number of interventions, but I wish to make progress because others wish to speak in this debate.
Some opponents of the European arrest warrant say we should refuse to remain part of it and instead rely on the European Council convention on extradition of 1957. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) noted on the radio last week:
“If we have to fall back temporarily on the old Council of Europe conventions, extraditions will be slower.”
That view was echoed today by the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee, which stated that
“there is no convincing case for disagreeing with the conclusions previously reached by the European Union Committee that ‘If the United Kingdom were to leave the EAW and rely upon alternative extradition arrangements, it is highly unlikely that these alternative arrangements would address all the criticisms directed at the EAW. Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.’”
Mr Raab
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s elucidations. What I am seeking to understand is why we cannot opt out of all the measures, including the EAW, and negotiate a bespoke arrangement without the erosion of democratic control through the European Court of Justice and other means. I listened very carefully to what she said earlier—the Commission’s view that this was unprecedented—and I appreciate it would take time and a lot of diplomatic elbow grease, but can she confirm that there is no legal bar to that course of action and that it is a question of political will?
Mrs May
I recognise my hon. Friend’s point. It is one he has made to me on a number of occasions. I have addressed the two areas where people have sometimes said that alternative arrangements could be made. The first is that we would fall back on the Council of Europe convention of 1957. I have been absolutely clear in the remarks I have just made that there is one crucial aspect that would cause us problems: the length of time that extradition procedures would take. As the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee has just said, that could undermine public safety.
There is another aspect in which that would be problematic were we to be negotiating with other member states. Without the arrest warrant there are 22 member states in the EU, including France, Germany and Spain, that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK. In the past five years alone, more than 100 people from those countries have been returned to Britain to face justice, many for serious crimes including rape and murder. One of those was Andreas Ververopoulos, a Greek, who committed a violent and sickening sexual assault on a 16-year-old girl in Hampshire in 2007 and then fled home to Greece. In July 2013, Hampshire police linked him to the crime using DNA and an arrest warrant was used to return him to the UK. In April this year, he pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The judge in the case said it was
“an appalling attack on a young and vulnerable girl”.
After seven years of further suffering, the victim and the victim’s family finally saw justice done.
Yvette Cooper
I, too, have looked at that case. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an appalling example of a terrible crime. The European arrest warrant was rightly used in that case. Will she say why the EAW is not on the Order Paper?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady knows that I have answered that question previously.
The right hon. Lady is right that the case I cited was a particularly difficult and awful case in terms of the crime that was committed. Without the arrest warrant, the individual who committed that crime would still be in Greece today. Before it came into force, Greece did not surrender its own nationals. Indeed, it entered a reservation to the 1957 convention specifically barring the extradition of Greek nationals, so the victims of brutal crimes, such as in this case, would go on suffering. We owe it to them to heed the old warning that justice delayed is justice denied.
I want to come on to one final relevant point that was hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) earlier: the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This pass was sold when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) signed the Lisbon treaty. Our opt-out only applies to those policing and criminal justice measures that precede it. Since the Lisbon treaty came into effect, the UK has signed up to 90 new justice and home affairs measures, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ over them. We face the same choice today: whether to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ over the small package of measures that we wish to remain part of from 1 December, so that our law enforcement agencies can continue to use those powers to fight crime and keep us safe; or reject those measures and accept the risk to public protection that that involves. That invidious choice is the result of a poor treaty, badly negotiated. In my mind, however, it is clear: this is a vote about law and order, not a vote about Europe.
I am certainly no enthusiast for the European Court of Justice. The ECJ should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or our international relations. That is why, as I indicated earlier, 100 or so measures the Government have opted out of, and will not rejoin, include more than 20 minimum standards measures on sensitive matters such as racism and xenophobia. It is why we have opted out of, and will not rejoin, the EU-US extradition agreement. It is this place that should have the final say over our laws on these matters, and Her Majesty’s Government should be able to renegotiate such arrangements as they see fit.
I understand the concerns raised about the European Court of Justice in the many debates we have had on protocol 36. I believe we must look again at this matter in our renegotiations with the European Union before the referendum that a Conservative Government will deliver by the end of 2017. In the meantime, however, we must act in the national interest to keep the British public safe. We have therefore exercised an opt-out, which it seems no one else would have exercised. We have brought back more than 100 justice and home affairs powers that had already been signed away. We have listened to those who work tirelessly to keep us safe on which of the tools at their disposal are vital to their important work. We have gone to Europe and negotiated a good deal for the United Kingdom. We have won support from the Commission and other member states to remain part of a smaller package of measures in the national interest. Now we must vote to transpose those measures that require transposing and, in doing so, vote to seal the deal.
Yvette Cooper
Nice try. I will come to the issues that the Home Secretary has opted out of in a second, but the idea that the Home Secretary’s utter shambles today is the fault of the previous Labour Government is pushing the hon. Gentleman’s political argument to a ludicrous extreme.
The statistics are clear: the EAW helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists, and of the 1,057 people removed under an EAW last year, only 43 were UK nationals, and eight of those were connected to child sex offences. It is because the EAW and the other measures are so important that we should be having a vote on them now.
The Home Secretary has form. We saw it when she was asked about the net migration promise. No ifs no buts, the Prime Minister made a promise—a contract with the British people, he said—but she said it was no longer a promise but a comment. We saw it again today when she dismissed the Prime Minister’s promise to the House that there would be a vote on the EAW.
Frankly, the whole opt in, opt out process has been a con. It is an in/out hokey cokey back to where we started. On the measures to be opted out of, the Prime Minister promised the biggest transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain by opting out of more than 100 measures, but what powers in practice have been brought back? Britain will no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway; Britain will not sign up to having a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but the police and Border Force will still have one anyway; we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we will get someone to send it to us on the side; we will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures that apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway; we were already opting out of the European judicial network, and we will carry on opting out of it; and we will not be involved in setting up contact points to deal with the other countries in pursuing those responsible for genocide, but we will—quietly—let Europol know whom they should ring.
Time and again, the Home Secretary claims to be repatriating huge numbers of powers, when in fact she is simply opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate anymore or which cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out. So much for a repatriation of powers—it is a repatriation of other people’s phone numbers. She has taken back the Yellow Pages. Congratulations to her.
Yvette Cooper
Given the shambles the Home Secretary has presided over today, the idea that she wants to make this about the last Labour Government is frankly ludicrous, and it makes her look silly. She decided what she wanted to opt into and out of, and she then claimed to the House that she had repatriated powers and safeguarded the hugely important things she is still too scared to give the House a vote on.
Yvette Cooper
Now that the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have referred to this document, it really must be put in the public domain. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has kindly put it in front of the House so that that we can all consider it.
That demonstrates the chaos we are in. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet communications to Government Back Benchers were very clear that it was.
Let me now give the Home Secretary the opportunity to agree from the Dispatch Box that there will be a vote—an additional vote—on the European arrest warrant before the Rochester and Strood by-election. Let me give way to the Home Secretary so that she can do this. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] She has not done so, and that is really disappointing. Let me give her one further opportunity to do so, because it is a huge concern for this House if we do not have the opportunity to put the European arrest warrant beyond legal doubt—we know the mischief lawyers will make through judicial reviews. Let us have a chance to give a strong signal that we support all 35 measures, not just the 11 that appear on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary saying from a sedentary position that we will do that by voting for this motion, because Mr Speaker has said that it is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. We are therefore acting on advice from the House. I urge the Home Secretary again to stand up and say that she will withdraw this motion and give us the opportunity to vote on the full 35. I will let her do so.
Yvette Cooper
I have to tell the Home Secretary that this puts the House in an extremely difficult position. She has effectively said that Ministers are just going to make it up. The Speaker has been very clear that this motion does not include a vote on the European arrest warrant. The right hon. Lady has said that she is going to reinterpret this in any way she chooses. That is an irresponsible way in which to treat this House. If she brings this motion back tomorrow, with all 35 measures included, we will support it. We will work with the business managers, we will support it, we will vote for it. Then there would be no doubt that we had categorical support for all 35 measures. The Home Secretary should do that tomorrow. We will get it through—there is plenty of time. Will she do that tomorrow?
If the Home Secretary will not do that tomorrow, she is playing fast and loose with the criminal justice system and fast and loose with this Parliament. On that basis, Mr Speaker, I think we need further debate now, and to return to the issue tomorrow. We have loads of time tomorrow. There is plenty of time for the Home Secretary to do this tomorrow. We could get it all in place. On that basis, I move that the Question be not now put.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I put the Question, I want to hear from the Home Secretary.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that your clarification meant that it was now possible for speeches to be made in relation to the question that has now been proposed, which is that the question should not now be put. In that case, I am very happy to speak, and other Members may wish to do so as well.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that that is perfectly orderly. I did say that the question was debatable. No Member appeared to be standing, and Members seemed to be expressing a will to reach a decision by making their voices heard. However, the Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to speak on the matter, and she will now do so.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) appears to have been getting herself into quite a state about this particular issue. I am very happy to explain the position to the House again, very clearly. It is very simple. There is a timetable that we must follow if we are to ensure that we can opt back in to measures by 1 December—
Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather than the merits of what we have previously been debating.
Mr Speaker
I think that the context is germane to the question of whether the motion be approved, or not approved, as the case may be. I therefore think that an excessively narrow interpretation would be wrong. I think it only right for the Home Secretary, if she wants to speak to the Question that the Question be not now put, to have an opportunity, in an orderly way, to make her case. Let me now hear what I hope will be an orderly account.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on what matters are relevant to the speech that can be made in relation to the question that has now been put.
The motion is about whether or not we should vote on the regulations that are before the House today. As I have made very clear, we put those regulations before the House today because of the timetable with which we are dealing in relation to ensuring that we are able to opt back in to the measures that we need to opt back in to by the requisite date—1 December—if we are to ensure that there is no operational gap.
Sir William Cash
As my right hon. Friend will know, the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although several Select Committees have said that there should be?
Mr Speaker
I would have called the hon. Gentleman to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Home Secretary.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, including the European arrest warrant. However, I have also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the legislative process that would be put in place. There is no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put in place for us to remain party to the European arrest warrant.
Sir William Cash
I must point out, with great respect, that what my right hon. Friend is saying is, “We will go by prerogative.” That smacks of everything that is in direct contradiction to the evolving democracy of the House of Commons. The fact is that it was the prerogative that was displaced by parliamentary change and reform. What she is saying is that, on this particular matter, she will decide on behalf of the Government without regard to what Parliament has to say, and that is unacceptable.
Mrs May
I am not saying that. I suggest to my hon. Friend that I have been very clear about this matter. The Government have negotiated with the European Commission, and with other member states, a package of measures for us to opt back in to. We believe that those law and order measures are necessary for ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to catch criminals and to deal with matters of justice, which is why we have put before the House legislative measures that will enable United Kingdom law to accord with that package of 35 measures.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has dug herself into a hole. She will not allow the House to decide on the very important issue of the European arrest warrant. Why does she not simply support the procedural motion so that she can go away, have a think, and then come back and allow the House to vote on whether it wants to enter into the European arrest warrant or not?
Mrs May
The House said absolutely clearly that it wanted to debate the European arrest warrant, and we have been debating the European arrest warrant. I am very happy to speak about the issue, and I am sure that other Members wish to speak about it as well. I understand that, if the Question put by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is agreed to, the debate will be ended in relation to the European arrest warrant, and the debate will be ended in relation to the regulations.
Lady Hermon
May I take this opportunity to remind Members on both sides of the House that we in Northern Ireland face an unusual threat? [Interruption.] May I ask Opposition Front Benchers to keep quiet for a moment?
The situation in Northern Ireland is very serious. Dissident republicans—the Real IRA, or whatever they want to call themselves—hide beyond the border in the Republic of Ireland. They come into Northern Ireland, and they murder people. We had a prison officer murdered two years ago, on 1 November. If his widow and his family were aware that we are jeopardising the possibility of these measures coming into force, they would be deeply concerned, as I am. Let me say to Members on both sides of the House that we must make absolutely sure that there is no time gap between these measures, which we have all agreed that we support, and the debate in the House.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting that out so clearly, and she is obviously deeply concerned about that point. She intervened on me earlier in relation to a particular case, and I would add to that that while, of course, in any individual case it is up to the independent police and prosecution services to choose what to do, if we were not in the European arrest warrant it would, as she has indicated, be harder for us to extradite people who had committed offences in Northern Ireland and who were now in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland has been very clear that if there is any operational gap at all between being in the European arrest warrant and opting back in to it, which there would be if we reject the package of measures, that would have serious consequences because it would be assumed that the arrangements currently in place would no longer be extant.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is time tomorrow to debate this, and we would then be able to vote on the whole package of 35 measures, support all of them and have no operational gap by 1 December? Will she confirm there is time to do this tomorrow?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Lady is concerned about the operational gap, she is perfectly able to vote for the regulations we have put before the House tonight. She talks about wanting to have time for debate. I say to her that we had time for debate and what has happened is she has raised another motion that is interrupting that time for debate.
Michael Ellis
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an example of game-playing by the Labour party on a crucial matter of law and order and the national security of this country? Opposition Members stand up and say at length how they want to debate this matter, how they want to extend the debate and how they want to cover every angle of it, and then they use an arcane procedure, for which we have to look up the precedents in “Erskine May”, to curtail the debate, and they do so with a view only to obstruct the proper business of this House, against the interests of justice and law and order.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman can do so, but it is for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, no other debate is required, as has politely been suggested from a sedentary position. It is for the Chair to decide whether to accept what is effectively a closure motion, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that at this rather early stage in debating these particular matters—the previous question—I do not accept the closure motion. We are in the middle of a speech by the Home Secretary and there may be other contributions. A former senior Cabinet Minister wishes to contribute and possibly other Members, so I would take a view on that matter in due course, but not now.
Mr Redwood
As I understand it, if the Government defeat the Opposition motion there will be no further debate, which would frustrate debate on a very important matter on which the Government wish to have more time. In that event, will the Home Secretary make more time available if colleagues are going to help her vote down the Opposition motion?
Mrs May
I did not move this motion that the Question should not now be put. I was very happy for this debate to carry on this evening, because there are hon. and right hon. Members of this House who wish to contribute to it. The right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary has taken the decision that she wishes possibly to curtail the debate that takes place in this House today on this matter. We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm—
Mrs May
I will in just one moment.
We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm, after we had had the urgent question following questions. There was a good length of time available, in which hon. Members, with the degree of latitude you indicated you would give them, Mr Speaker, in relation to the motion on the regulations, would have been able to debate matters that were not just the measures in those regulations. We then went into a business motion debate, which took a considerable time. We have now got into the debate proper on the regulations, but what we have seen—
Mrs May
My hon. Friends are queuing up to intervene, so I ask my hon. Friend to wait.
What we have now seen is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to change the terms of this debate and to stop the debate taking place, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary that she says she supports the regulations and she says she supports the Government on what we wish to do, and in that case she should allow the debate to take place and vote on the regulations.
Margot James
I am very concerned that these measures have a deadline, which is beyond this House’s control, of 3 December, by which time we have to opt in. We have a recess coming up on Wednesday, and I do not share the confidence of the shadow Home Secretary that the Government could find time for a debate tomorrow. The House starts sitting late tomorrow—at lunchtime—so we have minimal time then. We have almost three hours left to us to debate these important matters this evening, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to take all of that time to debate the substantial motion?
Sir Tony Baldry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the House to ask you to say how many hon. and right hon. Members have written to you asking whether they might catch your eye in this debate, so that if this motion is agreed the House will know how many hon. and right hon. Members will have been prevented from contributing to the substantive debate we were having before the shadow Home Secretary moved her motion?
Mr Speaker
The answer is that a considerable number of Members have applied to speak in this debate. If memory serves, approximately 20, possibly slightly more, wished to speak in the debate as a whole, not in the debate on the previous question—obviously I have had no written applications on that, because it has only just been introduced. On the overall debate today, I had approximately 20 requests to speak. If those Members do not have the opportunity to do so, they will be denied the opportunity today, but they would not, of course, be denied the opportunity subsequently.
Sir Edward Leigh
On the point the Home Secretary has just made on the importance of debate and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), as I understand the procedure, now that we are debating this motion there will be no further debate regardless of the result of the vote we are about to have. Am I right in thinking that?
Mrs May
I hesitate to give an absolute ruling, because Mr Speaker has, of course, made it absolutely clear what would happen, but the Question is that the matter be not now put and, as I understand it, if that motion is passed, the draft regulations will not be put to this House. We have been very clear about the timetable we need in order to address this matter.
Sir Edward Leigh
We are in quite a serious position now. This is a very important matter and it looks as if, whatever happens in the vote in a few minutes’ time, there will be no further debate today. I beg the Government: this is an important issue and we can come back tomorrow. We can just set aside time, have a proper motion, and vote on the European arrest warrant. That is the clear, simple, honourable and direct way of proceeding.
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend, as I have been saying throughout the debates on the various motions tonight, that the Government have been very clear about why they have brought the regulations forward in the form they have done in relation to UK legislation, but we are also very clear that if this House votes in favour of the regulations, then it is endorsing the package of measures the Government have brought forward to ensure we can maintain the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with matters they need to deal with.
Yvette Cooper
So determined are we that the House should be able to debate and pass these regulations and the rest of the 35 measures that we will not jeopardise those regulations. We want to have a vote tomorrow. The business managers can agree, and will agree, to have a debate and vote on all the measures tomorrow. If not, the Home Secretary can have our Opposition day debate in order to do it then, so there is no gap and we can get all these measures voted on in this House.
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady doth protest too much. If she wishes to have a debate and to vote on the regulations, that option is open to her tonight. However, she has chosen to play politics with the matter and tried to curtail the debate. As we have heard from the Speaker’s answer to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), a significant number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate on the regulations. The Speaker has granted latitude regarding the subjects that Members may speak about, and we are able to debate the European arrest warrant and other matters that are not in the regulations.
It is open to the House to have that debate but, sadly, the right hon. Lady has chosen to take a step that could curtail the debate and ensure that the regulations are not put before the House, in which case it would not be possible for Members to have their say on these important matters. She and I agree on the importance of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I might disagree on how some of them should be finalised and on whether we should be party to the measures, but I am clear that, at this point, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate and vote on measures that relate to law and order in this country. These are important decisions for the House to make, and I have clarified for the House the exact form of the regulations.
Geraint Davies
Is the Home Secretary saying that, if the House votes to terminate this debate today, she will refuse to have a further debate on the European arrest warrant and the statutory instruments—[Interruption.] I know she is saying that we can debate the matters now, but is she saying that if we vote not to do so, she would refuse to have any further debate on them?
Mrs May
I have made it absolutely clear that we have had an opportunity to debate these matters today. Ample time has been set aside for the debate. The point of the business motion on which we voted earlier was to ensure that we could have a lengthier debate, rather than the hour and a half that would normally be set aside to debate such regulations. The Government have given time to Members to make their points and contribute to the debate before voting on the regulations. We have been clear about our position on the regulations, but the shadow Home Secretary is now suggesting that she wishes to curtail that debate. The opportunity was there for hon. Members.
This is an important matter, on which different views are held. I have made it clear why we have brought forward the regulations and why we should debate and vote on them now. We need to make these decisions in order to inform the European Commission and other member states and to enable the Council to take a decision, to ensure that there is no operational gap on 1 December.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of the timetable—[Interruption.] I slipped out of the Chamber for one cup of tea; otherwise, I have been here for the duration of the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) will withdraw that remark. Will the Home Secretary explain what difference it would make if we postponed the debate from today to tomorrow or next week, given that we were promised a debate and a vote on these matters by 20 November?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend puts it very well. We said that we would bring this debate to the House and enable a vote to take place according to a particular timetable, and we have done so. We have introduced the measures in the form of regulations because these are the only ones that require transposing into UK legislation. It is absolutely clear what the legislative approach would be. I think that Members would be unwilling to accept any decision by the Government not to introduce the regulations or not to show Members before the 1 December cut-off date what those regulations would look like.
I have not been in this House for quite as long as some right hon. and hon. Members but it is clear to me that all hon. Members wanted an opportunity to stand up and put their arguments on a variety of matters, including the European arrest warrant. That option was open to Members tonight, but the shadow Home Secretary is saying that she wants to forget about the timetable and about our need to put the regulations before the House. Instead, she seems to be saying that the Government should not have brought the debate to the House, because she does not happen to think we have done it in the way she wanted. Well, that is not a position that I am willing to accept. I have made it clear why the regulations have been brought forward and why we feel it necessary to do so. We have debated the European arrest warrant and, had she not moved her motion, other Members would have been able to debate it as well. Her motion is not an attempt to ensure that the House has a proper debate. It is not an attempt to ensure that the House votes on these important measures. It is just an attempt to take away—
Michael Ellis
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the motion smacks of political opportunism on the part of the Opposition? Does she also agree that it is ironic, or perhaps just odd, for them to be talking about voting on this matter given that we are in this position as a result of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated so ineptly and negligently? In the light of the incompetence of the previous Labour Government and of the current Labour Opposition, one might almost think that they were leaderless.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the difficulties that the Labour party is having with its leadership. I will make no further comment—[Interruption.] He tempts me to comment on why the shadow Home Secretary has been intervening in the debate in certain ways this evening, but I will not do so. He has made an important point.
Earlier, I asked the right hon. Lady who had negotiated the opt-out, opt-in arrangements in the Lisbon treaty. She was unwilling to answer the question, because it followed on from her complaining about the inadequacies of those arrangements. Those inadequate arrangements were negotiated and introduced by her own Government, of whom she was a Cabinet member. She refused to accept that point, however. She will not accept any suggestion that we are now having to deal with these opt-out, opt-in arrangements as a direct result of the Labour Government’s negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. This situation is not a result of the way in which this Government have been dealing with these matters. I have made it clear that we should have been able to continue the debate tonight. It is quite wrong for the right hon. Lady to have introduced the new motion and I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will vote against it.