Police Reform

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our ongoing work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police. I have always been clear that I believe the vast majority of police officers in this country do their job honestly and with integrity. They fight crime in our villages, towns and cities; they deal with dangerous criminals; they strive to protect the vulnerable and keep our streets safe; and they have shown that they can cut crime even as we cut spending. Under this Government, crime is down by more than 10% since the election, proving that it is possible to do more with less. But as I have said before, the good work of the majority threatens to be damaged by a continuing series of events and revelations relating to police conduct.

That is why, over the past 18 months, the Government have been implementing a series of changes to improve standards of police integrity: the College of Policing has published a new code of ethics, which makes clear the high standards of behaviour expected from all police officers; a national list of chief officers’ pay and rewards, gifts and hospitality is now published online, and the final list of business interests will be published for the first time later this summer; a national register of officers struck off from the police has been produced and made available to vetting and anti-corruption officers in police forces; the Government will legislate later this year to ensure that officers cannot resign or retire to avoid dismissal in misconduct hearings; and we have beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission, so that in future it can take on all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. In addition to those specific measures, many of our other police reforms—the creation of the College of Policing; having direct entry into the senior ranks; the election of police and crime commissioners; and the changes to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary —will make a positive difference when it comes to police integrity.

Since I began the Government’s programme of work to improve public confidence in the police, further events and revelations have reinforced the need for reform: we have had reports on the misuse of stop and search, and the poor police response to domestic violence; we have had the findings of the Ellison review, which examined allegations of corruption during the initial, deeply flawed investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence; and we have had Sir David Normington’s review of the Police Federation, which recommended change from “top to bottom”.

The measures we have introduced are vital, but we cannot stop there, and so I want to tell the House about my plans for further change. I want to open up policing to the brightest and best recruits. The Government have already introduced direct entry to open up the senior ranks of the police and bring in people with new perspectives and expertise. In London, the Metropolitan police received 595 applications for between five and 10 direct-entry superintendent posts; 26% of the applicants were from a black or minority ethnic background—this compares with 8.6% of traditional recruits—and 27% were female. In addition, using seed funding that I announced at the Police Federation conference in May, the Metropolitan police is setting up Police Now, the policing equivalent of Teach First, which will attract the brightest graduates into policing. But I want to go further. The College of Policing will undertake a fundamental review of police leadership, which will look at how we can go further and faster with direct entry; how we can encourage officers to gain experience outside policing before returning later in life; and how we can open up the senior ranks to candidates from different backgrounds. The review will start immediately.

In addition to those reforms, I want to ensure that the systems and processes that deal with misconduct by police officers are robust. That means where there are cases of wrongdoing, they must be dealt with effectively and, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary action must be taken. In March, I announced I would be creating a new offence of police corruption through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, but that alone is not enough. The police disciplinary system is complex. It has developed organically rather than been structured to fit its purpose. It lacks transparency for the public, it is bureaucratic and it lacks independence, so today I can tell the House that we will be reviewing the whole police disciplinary system from beginning to end. This review will be chaired by Major-General Clive Chapman, an experienced, independent and respected former Army officer, and I want it to draw on best practice from the private and public sectors. I have asked Major-General Chapman to look for ways to ensure that the disciplinary system is clearer, more independent and public-focused. I intend to consult publicly on the policies that emerge from the review later this year. In addition to the review, I want to make some specific changes to the police disciplinary system. In particular, I want to hold disciplinary hearings in public to improve transparency and justice, and I will launch a public consultation on these proposals later this year.

In my statement on the Ellison review on 6 March, I said I would return to the House with proposals to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. Police officers and staff need to know that they can come forward in complete confidence to report wrongdoing by their colleagues, so the Government will create a single national policy for police forces on whistleblowing to replace the current patchwork approach. This will set out the best principles and practices on whistleblowing, and ensure consistency of approach across all forces. Following the publication of HMIC’s integrity inspection, I am prepared to consider putting the whistleblowers’ code on a statutory basis. We will also require forces to publish more information on the number of conduct issues raised by officers and the action taken as a result. From 2015 onwards, the Home Office will collect and publish data about conduct and complaints brought by police officers and police staff about their colleagues, but I still want to go further. In the autumn, I will launch a public consultation on police whistleblowing. The consultation will look at a range of new proposals to protect police whistleblowers. For example, I want to consider how we can introduce sealed investigations—these prevent both the force and suspects from learning that an investigation is taking place—into serious misconduct and corruption by police officers.

I also want to take an in-depth look at the police complaints system. Last year, I announced reforms to the IPCC to ensure that all serious and sensitive cases are dealt with by the IPCC. That included the transfer of resources from the police to the IPCC and measures to ensure that the IPCC has the right capacity to deal with demand. As I told the College of Policing conference in October, this work is on track and the IPCC will begin to take on additional cases this year, but now is the time to build on those reforms. Public satisfaction surveys on the handling of complaints show that satisfaction levels remain consistently low. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, fewer than a quarter of those who complain to the police are satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. The overall number of complaints being handled independently is still far too low. This year, a review undertaken by Deborah Glass, the former deputy chair of the IPCC, found that 94% of cases referred to the IPCC in 2012 were referred back to be dealt with by the police.

Police and crime commissioners are locally developing new and innovative approaches to police complaints. In Thames Valley, Anthony Stansfeld has announced a complaints, integrity and ethics committee to provide scrutiny of how the force handles complaints. In Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd has appointed an independent complaints ombudsman to resolve complaints before they become part of the complaints system. We need the police complaints system to keep up with the changes we have seen in police structures, to reflect the changes made locally by PCCs and chief constables, and to meet public expectations. So today I will launch a review of the entire police complaints system, including the role, powers and funding of the IPCC and the local role played by PCCs. The review will look at the complaints system from end to end, examining the process every step of the way and for all complaints, from the most minor to the most serious. The review will commence immediately and conclude in the autumn this year. It will include a public consultation on proposals for a system that is more independent of the police, easier for the public to follow and more focused on resolving complaints locally, and that has a simpler system of appeals.

The measures I have announced today will ensure that we are able to examine the entire approach to cases of misconduct, improper behaviour and corruption, but in working to ensure the highest standards of police integrity, I want to leave no stone unturned. This year, I commissioned HMIC to carry out a review of anti-corruption capability in police forces. HMIC is also carrying out an inspection of police integrity as part of its planned programme of inspections for 2014-15. In addition, I have agreed with the chief inspector that HMIC’s new programme of annual inspections of all police forces, which will begin later this year, will look at not only a force’s effectiveness and efficiency but its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Every annual inspection will therefore include an examination of whether each force’s officers and staff act with integrity.

Taken together, these measures represent a substantial overhaul of the systems that hold police officers to account. They will build on our radical programme of police reform, and they will help to ensure that police honesty and integrity are protected, and that corruption and misconduct are rooted out. That is what the public and the many thousands of decent, dedicated and hard-working police officers of this country deserve. I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Our long British tradition of policing by consent depends on our maintaining and ensuring the very highest standards of integrity and professionalism in British policing. The international reputation of our police is high. We know about the bravery and integrity of many officers across the country, but we also know that when policing goes wrong, it can cast a deep shadow over all that excellent work and undermine consent and confidence, too. That is why we have called for much stronger action on standards in policing. Lord Stevens is leading a major independent commission on the future of policing, which recommends radical reform. The reforms include: a new stronger police standards authority, replacing the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, with the power to launch investigations without referral and make sure that lessons are learned; chartered registration for every police officer; the ability to strike officers off the register; high professional and ethical standards against which officers must be measured throughout their career; public misconduct hearings; and a new Police First scheme to bring bright graduates, especially from technology backgrounds, into policing and many further reforms.

Today the Home Secretary has announced not strong reforms but a series of reviews—three reviews and one consultation. Many are welcome as far as they go. We welcome stronger action on whistleblowers, with greater protection for whistleblowers and transparency for the public. We welcome more support for police leadership, although she will be aware that when West Yorkshire tried her existing proposals on direct entry, none of the dozens of people who applied met the right standards. We agree that the complaints procedure and disciplinary system need to be reformed because they are not working, but these reviews just do not go far enough. Why not get on with it and introduce a proper register of chartered police officers? I am glad that she has agreed with our call for public disciplinary hearings, but, again, why not get on with disciplinary reform and hand it over to the College of Policing, giving it the power to hold public hearings and to strike people off? Why waste time on piecemeal reforms of the IPCC and the complaints procedure, when the truth is that they need to be replaced?

We have repeatedly called on the Home Secretary to replace the IPCC. The IPCC is supposed to be able to deal with things that go wrong in policing. It is better than the Police Complaints Authority that it replaced, but it has failed in its remit because it lacks the powers, capacity and credibility it needs. It failed on Ian Tomlinson. It failed on the Stephen Lawrence case and had to apologise to the family as a result. It failed to set out the clear lessons to be learned from a series of death in custody cases, including the Camm case in West Yorkshire. It has failed to deal with the problems from plebgate, and is still failing even to make a decision on whether to investigate what happened at Orgreave more than 12 months after a complaint was raised. How many reviews does she need to tell her that this system is not working? If she answers only one of my questions today, will she explain why she will not just admit that the IPCC is failing and needs to be replaced by a much stronger body?

The one thing that the Home Secretary is not reviewing that she should be is her flagship policing reform of police and crime commissioners. She spent £100 million—enough for several thousand constables—on elections in November, and only 15% of voters turned out. Now she is about to spend nearly £4 million of taxpayers’ money on a by-election in the middle of August. What will the turnout be then? How low will turnouts have to fall before she admits that she got those flagship police reforms wrong?

The Home Secretary also claimed that her other policing reforms were working, but the HMIC has today admitted that neighbourhood policing is now being eroded. Prosecutions and convictions are falling for violent crime, rape, domestic violence and child sex offences—even though all those offences are going up. There were 7,000 more violent crimes last year, but 7,000 fewer people were convicted of violent offences. She is failing to reform the police to deal with new and growing crimes. There has been too little action on online fraud, which is growing exponentially. On online child abuse, the National Crime Agency has details of more than 10,000 suspects, but it has no plans to investigate them all, to arrest them or to bar them from working with children because it admits that it does not have the capacity and systems in place to cope.

In the face of those challenges, what are the Home Secretary’s police reforms? The answer is lots more reviews. I am glad that she is moving in the direction that we called for and we are keen to work with her if she will agree now to go much further, but so far we have standards that are not high enough; enforcement that is not strong enough; police and crime commissioners no one wants to vote for; fewer police on the beat; fewer criminals being caught; and less justice for victims. The Home Secretary’s reviews are too little and too late. We will work with her if she goes further. We need not just reviews but reforms that work.

[Mrs May]

Yet again, the shadow Home Secretary has given us a completely confused response on Labour’s policy on a whole range of issues. Let me touch on some of the specifics that she mentioned. She asked why we do not have a register of police officers, but I have to say to her that the Labour party was in Government for 13 years, and if it thought that that was so important, why did it not do something about it? It did not even do anything about the police officers who were struck off and who, once they had departed one particular police force, were able to join another. We have introduced the register of struck-off police officers, so, unlike Labour, we are taking action.

The shadow Home Secretary talked about Labour’s proposal to merge the inspectorate of constabulary with the IPCC. I have to say that that would be a profound mistake. The inspectorate under this Government has become more independent of the police and of the Government. It has delivered hard-hitting reports on stop and search, the recording of crime statistics and domestic violence. Later this year, it will publish, for the first time, annual inspection reports of every constabulary in the country so the public can understand how their local police force is performing. Only today we have seen one of the most transparent and fair reports ever published by HMIC, so we should not be taking any risks in abolishing the inspectorate. Of course we do need to look at police complaints and the role of the IPCC, which is why I have just announced a consultation on changing the whole system of police complaints from end to end—from minor complaints to the most serious. It is a sensitive matter, which is why we will consult on it properly and get the policy right rather than jumping to some risky merger of HMIC and the IPCC, as Labour has proposed.

The right hon. Lady also mentioned the matter of the police and crime commissioners and the by-election for the PCC in the west midlands. Labour has been in Opposition for more than four years. There is less than a year to go before the general election, and she cannot even make up her mind about whether or not she supports the idea of police and crime commissioners. On the one hand, she tells us that Labour is happy to have police and crime commissioners, but on the other she says that they were not a very good idea. She really needs to make up her mind as to whether or not Labour supports police and crime commissioners. Somehow, among all this, she seems to be making the point that with the reviews and consultations that I have announced, there is not enough action on police reform. Again, I wish she would make up her mind. Does she or does she not want police reform? I remember the days when she called police cuts and police reform “the perfect storm”. If what she says amounts to a genuine conversion to the ranks of those who believe in police reform, I welcome her belated conversion.

The right hon. Lady also refers to the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. I do not know whether she has read today’s report, but the lesson is perfectly clear: police reform is working and crime is falling. The police are leading the way across the public sector by demonstrating, whatever the Labour party says, that it is possible to do more with less.

Let me quote what the inspector of constabulary says about police cuts:

“Police forces in England and Wales are to be congratulated. The vast majority have risen to and met the considerable challenge of austerity, with plans in place to save over £2.5 billion over the last four years—while protecting the front line as best they can and making sure that the public still receive an effective service.”

Yet again on that issue, as on so many such as police and crime commissioners and police reform, what we hear from the shadow Home Secretary is nothing more than confusion and chaos. She needs to get her story straight about whether she, like me, wants to build on the excellent police that we have in this country and to ensure that we give them the support that they need to carry on doing an effective job of cutting crime day in and day out.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underlying key to the many welcome and necessary reforms she has announced today is a culture change, symbolised by the individual assent of every police officer to the new code of ethics so that the high standards that the vast majority of police meet day in, day out will be met by every serving officer?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation, and may I also take this opportunity to thank and commend him for the work he did in the Home Office as both Immigration Minister and, latterly, as Policing Minister, while also being a criminal justice Minister. He is absolutely right. The code of ethics from the College of Policing is a very important step forward and it is about exactly what he says: ensuring that the high standards of honesty and integrity that we see from the vast majority of officers apply to every officer.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which is very much in keeping with the recommendations made by the Select Committee over a number of years. Through her, may I welcome the new Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to his Front-Bench post? The Committee considered the case of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), a 30-second incident that has so far cost £271,000. If her proposed reforms had been in place, would that have meant that that case, for example, would been dealt with in a different way? Does she accept the basic principle that whether a case is serious or minor the police should never be left to investigate matters themselves without proper oversight?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He refers, of course, to a case that involved not just misconduct hearings inside the police but the Crown Prosecution Service considering the potential for charges and criminal investigation. Of course, the changes I have announced would make no difference to any criminal investigations, but if misconduct hearings were to be heard in public, that would make a difference. As for his last point about the importance of ensuring that people can have confidence that complaints and misconduct issues are being dealt with properly, that absolutely underpins the reforms.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to praise the work of the vast majority of police forces, but also right to highlight the need for public confidence and to make sure that the few rogue police officers do not do down all the others. May I press her on one particular point? She said that police officers would not be able to retire in order to avoid misconduct hearings. Will that have any application to the wide number of ongoing historic inquiries? Will retired police officers be required to come and say what they know?

[Mrs May]

It is important that we do this because one concern that the public had was that they had seen police officers who were under suspicion or potentially subject to misconduct hearings being able to retire or resign and those misconduct hearings were stopped. We have been very clear that in those circumstances, misconduct hearings should continue and if an officer would have been struck off, they should go on the list so that they will not be employed by another force. The measure I have announced is part of ensuring that that can take place. We have also, of course, taken some action on the IPCC’s powers for people to attend interviews. The question of what is said when someone attends an interview is another issue, but we have already taken some steps as regards these historic cases.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Last night, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) had a very thoughtful Adjournment debate, responded to by the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, about a case in Sussex. One of the points the hon. Gentleman made was that the family of a road traffic victim had lost confidence in Sussex police, who were trying to investigate one of their own officers. Does the Home Secretary feel that there is merit in reconsidering whether other police forces should be asked to lead on the investigation when off-duty officers are involved?

[Mrs May]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point and I understand that the case considered in last night’s Adjournment debate went before the courts and the individual concerned was found not guilty by the court—[Interruption.] I understand the point he is making about the question of the police investigating the police. One of the issues when the complaints system is considered will be the question of public concern about the police investigating the police. Obviously, the issue to which he refers involved a criminal investigation that was taken before the courts.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

It must be a matter of public policy that any public servant should be allowed to raise concerns about criminal or other wrongdoing in public institutions without feeling that they might be sanctioned or subject to disciplinary proceedings, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider putting the whistleblower’s code on a statutory footing not just for the police force but across Government? If it is on a statutory footing, the whole House and the whole of Parliament can come to a view about what we believe should be the effective protections for anyone whistleblowing in the public sector.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said in my statement, I shall certainly consider putting it on a statutory footing. I recognise his point about the ability of Parliament to consider the issue, but HMIC is carrying out an integrity inspection and I shall consider again the matter of whether whistleblowing should have a statutory basis after it has published its report.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The major complaints I get in Bolton West are about the slowness of or lack of response from the police, and police officers tell me that the reduction in the number of back-room staff and officers is affecting their ability to respond. What will the Home Secretary do about that?

[Mrs May]

I suggest that the hon. Lady looks very carefully at the comments that have been made by the inspectorate of constabulary. It is absolutely clear about how police forces up and down the country have been protecting front-line responsibilities and services despite the fact that they have been dealing with cuts.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her indication that police reform will continue and is unfinished business. Is it not the case that the series of extremely problematic incidents that have confronted the British police over the past few years reveal that there are issues of culture and leadership that must now be addressed, and that that is an important role both of the College of Policing, which needs a higher profile, and of the direct-entry reforms that she is proposing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. May I say how important his thoughtful contribution on police reform, which he developed in opposition and then brought into government as Policing Minister, was in ensuring that we set off on this process of police reform and made some of the major changes that have made a difference? There is an issue with culture and leadership and the College of Policing will take up the question of leadership in the work it is now doing. The college is establishing itself and I think it is doing an excellent job. We should all be out there reminding people of the important role this new body is playing.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly drew attention to the chief inspector of constabulary’s comments about seeing evidence of the erosion of neighbourhood policing. How does the Home Secretary think that the reviews and consultation she has announced might reverse the loss of 100-plus officers in Harrow since she entered the Home Office?

[Mrs May]

Yet again, I refer to my quotation from the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. It is very clear about the work that has been done by forces up and down the country to protect front-line services that are being provided to the public. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Metropolitan police are in the business of recruiting more officers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I think that the police are doing a fantastic job. Crime is down 10% and 40 of the 43 police forces have been outstanding in how they have managed their budgetary constraints. I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. All British Transport police officers on the London underground are constantly monitored by CCTV on all platforms, and they know that if they do something wrong it will be recorded. May I encourage the Home Secretary to encourage those forces that are above ground to give every police officer a camera on their police vest? That can minimise the number of complaints that are made and provide perfect evidence to correct any anomalies.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I thank him for his work as a special constable with the BTP. Let me also record the fact that alongside police officers and staff, police community support officers and specials have also contributed to the fall in crime that has taken place across the country.

Body-worn video cameras are very important to ensure that evidence is collected properly. In certain circumstances, such as domestic violence, that can be particularly important. They are also important for the police officer because they can protect them when complaints are made about their behaviour.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents will welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the reports of misuse of the stop-and-search powers. She will know that in London, fewer than one in five stops results in an arrest and many fewer than that go on to a successful prosecution. May I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) about the importance of cameras worn on uniforms? The pilot in London is proving successful. Will she roll it out across the rest of the country?

[Mrs May]

The pilot in London is proving successful, as have pilots elsewhere. Other forces such as Hampshire have already looked at the option of body-worn video cameras. As a Government, we certainly think that to introduce them would be a good move. It is an operational decision for chief constables to take, but I am pleased to say that a number of bids to the new police innovation fund have been precisely about new technology such as body-worn video cameras.

I commend the Met for looking at how it conducts stops and searches. It has changed its practice to make it more targeted and focused, and results have been better following that. It has signed up to the voluntary code that the Government have introduced, as have other forces.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been immensely brave in addressing the culture change that is required to restore public confidence in the police. I wonder whether, as part of her review, she could look at something that politicians heretofore have been rather nervous about touching, which is the relationship between the press and the police. Too often, unauthorised contacts, in transactions for cash or not, have meant that people have been tried by the public before they are brought before the courts, even if they are not brought before the courts. It is an important matter that should be looked at in detail.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Given some of the instances that we have seen of reporting in the press, I recognise the comment that he makes. We have made a number of moves on this already. Some came out of the Leveson inquiry, but I had already looked at this issue, in particular better accountability within police forces for the relationships that officers have with the media. I am pleased to say that forces have adopted new guidance for their officers on when it is appropriate for them to deal with the media and when it is not.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Most police officers have the highest integrity, but there are a few crooks within the police force. When someone complains about a police force in which they have completely lost faith, and the complaint is taken up by the IPCC, they are surprised that the complaint is referred back to the same force. I welcome the Home Secretary’s review, but it is an important issue that has to be tackled.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that point. Many members of the public, whether they have made a complaint or not, are concerned about the fact that so much is referred back to the force that the complaint has been made against. We have already started the transfer of serious and sensitive cases from a force to the IPCC and have moved resources to the IPCC for that. The first cases will be heard by the IPCC this year. The review of complaints from end to end will also look at other types of complaints to ensure that at every stage the public can genuinely have confidence that a complaint against the police is taken seriously.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has said that the measures represent a substantial overhaul of systems that hold police officers to account. Does she agree that the processes that will be used to implement the changes must not create a culture in which all police officers feel that they have been in dereliction of their duty, since so many of them work to the highest standards?

[Mrs May]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is always one of the difficulties in talking about this subject. As I said in my statement, and have repeated, the vast majority of police officers work with honesty and integrity, doing the best job that they can day in, day out, but sadly some do not operate with that same honesty and integrity, and of course their bad name tends to taint the names of other officers. We cannot repeat often enough that the vast majority of officers do their job with honesty and integrity. I hope that the code of ethics that the College of Policing is introducing will ensure that high standards of ethics are observed by every police officer.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am wowed by the Home Secretary’s statement. The potential is huge for real police reform over the coming months and years. It is good news for honest police officers and for the public. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing complainants and defendants to record interviews or statements given in police stations so that they can take away their own record of their dialogue with the police, not just rely on the police record?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman has established a first. The Clerk Assistant tells me he has never seen the word “wowed” appear in Hansard in that context. It is good to know what the hon. Gentleman looks and sounds like when he is wowed.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the changes that we are introducing. I will take away the point that he has made about defendants and interviews. He will have noted that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench as well, and will have noted that issue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Superintendents have huge responsibilities—professional responsibilities, and a requirement to lead. Direct entrants, who are possible future superintendents, will require quite a long period of training. How long might that training period be?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for training. We have been clear that direct entrants need to have a period of training. The College of Policing has developed such training, which lasts 18 months. I am pleased to see that one of the side benefits of direct entry is that the training of direct entrants will be looked at in conjunction with that of officers who are promoted to superintendent levels through the police force. This is welcomed by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I am glad that the Home Secretary is tackling the issue of complaints, and I welcome the consultation. I do not want her to prejudge the consultation, but how difficult will it be to get the police complaints system to take on board imaginative schemes such as that of Anthony Stansfeld?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting aspect. I hope that, by saying that we intend to look at the complaints system from end to end, we will inspire people to think innovatively and creatively. He mentions the work of the police and crime commissioner that he and I share—we both have constituencies in Thames Valley. I also mentioned Tony Lloyd’s work in Greater Manchester. Other PCCs have been looking at what they should do in relation to complaints. This is an opportunity to ensure that we have a system across the country in which people can have confidence, not a piecemeal system.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

May I encourage my right hon. Friend to do as much as she can to inject independence into complaints management much earlier in the process? Professional standards units in police forces have a conflict of interest. They need to protect their own as well as to investigate complaints. Does she agree that PCCs now provide an opportunity to inject that independence much earlier in the process?

[Mrs May]

Yes. I will certainly reflect on the timing issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It is important. It is all part of the process of ensuring that there is a complaints systems that people feel operates properly and effectively and in which they can have confidence. We want people to know that if they have a genuine complaint about the police, it will be dealt with seriously and something will be done about it.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Although I recognise and understand the value of opening up the recruitment process for senior ranks to outsiders, does my right hon. Friend agree that this should add value to the police, rather than diminish and denude the ability of officers to rise from the ranks to the most senior positions and use the value of the experience they have gained for the benefit of the whole country?

[Mrs May]

Yes, absolutely, and we want to see a mix of people at those superintending ranks, both people who have come in directly and people who have come through the force and are able to use their experience in the force. I think this reform is important in opening up the police to different experiences, to different skill sets and to different expertise, and I think that greater diversity of expertise in policing will be of benefit to policing.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

One of the biggest challenges that our police forces face is cybercrime, which will mean that we need some police officers with a skill set totally different from that required in the past. How will the Home Secretary’s reforms, such as direct entry, help our police to meet the challenges posed by these new forms of crime?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because of course, with direct entry, it will be possible for people who have very particular areas of expertise to come into policing. However, we are also doing some other things to tackle cybercrime. The new national cybercrime unit, which has been set up in the National Crime Agency, is an important part of this process, and the National Crime Agency is looking at some innovative thinking of what I might call professional specialists, in the sense of specials who have a very particular area of expertise, such as in forensic accounting or in cyber, who potentially could be attached to the NCA and could be an extra-valuable resource for them.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and to colleagues.

Points of Order

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the timing of the raising of this point of order is accidental. Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I myself can provide him no salvation, but it may be that help is at hand. Home Secretary.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If my hon. Friend passes the details of that constituent to either myself or the immigration Minister, we will ensure that the issue is taken up. Of course, as I indicated to the House in June when I made a statement about the Passport Office, we have opened up the possibility of a free upgrade for individuals whose passport has been waiting more than three weeks and who have an urgent need to travel, so we will take that case up.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that is helpful.

[Mr Speaker]

The natural spirit of last-day generosity has been very fully exploited by the shadow Home Secretary. That is not a matter for the Chair. However, the point has been made with some force and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond if she wishes.

[Mrs May]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

But I think we will have to leave it there on that matter for now.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Written Statements

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

I am announcing today the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate the death of Mr Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006. The inquiry will be established by the Home Office.

The inquiry will be chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a senior judge who is the current coroner in the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death. Following consultation with Sir Robert, the terms of reference of the inquiry are:

1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 below, the chairman is to conduct an investigation into the death of Alexander Litvinenko in order to:

(i) ascertain, in accordance with s.5(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, who the deceased was; how, when and where he came by his death; and the particulars (if any) required by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to be registered concerning the death;

(ii) identify, so far as is consistent with s.2 of the Inquiries Act 2005, where responsibility for the death lies; and

(iii) make such recommendations as may seem appropriate.

2. That investigation is to take into account the investigations which have already been conducted by the assistant coroner for inner north London.

3. In the light of the assistant coroner’s views, expressed in his ruling of 17 May 2013, that there is no material within the relevant documents to suggest that, at any material time, Alexander Litvinenko was or ought to have been assessed as being at a real and immediate threat to his life, the inquiry will not address the question of whether the UK authorities could or should have taken steps which would have prevented the death.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has written to the Lord Chief Justice asking that he suspend the current inquest in accordance with schedule 1 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The coroner and the widow of Mr Litvinenko have been given advance notice of this decision.

The arrangements for the inquiry will now be a matter for Sir Robert Owen. I am very grateful to Sir Robert for continuing to lead the independent judicial investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s death. It is more than seven years since Mr Litvinenko’s death, and I very much hope that this inquiry will be of some comfort to his widow Mrs Litvinenko.

Non-departmental Public Bodies (Triennial Reviews)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the National DNA Database Ethics Group (NDNADEG) and the Animals in Science Committee (ASC).

Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that non-departmental public bodies continue to have regular independent challenge. The review will examine whether there is a continuing need for the functions and form of the ACMD, NDNADEG and ASC and whether they should continue to exist at arm’s length from Government. Should the review conclude there is a continuing need for each of these bodies, it will go on to examine whether the body’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

I shall inform the House of the outcome of the reviews.

Child Abuse

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about child abuse.

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

The sexual abuse of children is an abhorrent crime which the Government are absolutely committed to stamping out.

In my statement to the House last week, I addressed two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s, the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. As I informed the House on 7 July, the whole Government take the allegations very seriously. That is why I announced two inquiries last week.

The first is a review led by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with the support of Richard Whittam, QC, of the original investigations that Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, commissioned last year into suggestions that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse in the early 1980s. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam will also look at how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them, and examine another recent review into allegations that the Home Office provided funding to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam are in post and work on the review has begun. Its terms of reference were placed in the Library of the House last week, and I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks.

Last week, I also announced a wider independent panel inquiry to consider whether public bodies and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The Home Office has appointed the head of the secretariat to the panel, which will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman.

As the House will know, I asked Baroness Butler-Sloss to act as chairman of the panel and she agreed to do so. However, having listened to the concerns that were raised by victim and survivor groups and by Members of this House, Lady Butler-Sloss subsequently came to the conclusion that she should not chair the inquiry. I was deeply saddened by her decision to withdraw, but I understand and respect her reasons. She is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion, and she continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.

Work is ongoing to find the right chairman and members of the panel, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible so that this important work can move forward. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that the terms of reference for the inquiry are considered carefully. That is why it is right that we should wait until we have appointed a new chairman and a panel, and discuss the terms with them.

I want this inquiry to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth of what happened and ensuring that we learn the necessary lessons to protect children and vulnerable people in the future. As I said, child abuse is an abhorrent crime that can scar people for life, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. We are working across Government to ensure that victims of historic child abuse who come forward in response to our overarching inquiry get the support and help they need. Our message is clear: the Government will do everything they can to allow the full investigation of child abuse whenever and wherever it occurred, to support victims of it, and to bring the perpetrators of this disgusting crime to justice.

As Members will be aware from the announcement we heard yesterday about the outcome of the National Crime Agency’s operation, which was reported in the media, child abuse is a crime that continues today. I think that that operation shows our relentless commitment to pursue those engaged in online child sexual exploitation, and it was unprecedented in its degree of co-ordination, with the NCA leading and co-ordinating law enforcement efforts that involved 45 police forces across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has been ongoing for the past six months. People from all walks of life have been indentified, including those in positions of trust, and 660 arrests have been made and more than 400 children safeguarded or protected.

Crucial in investigations of online sexual abuse, and matters of this kind more generally, is the question of access to communications data. The Government are committed to tackling the threat to children online, which is why the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which was passed by this House on Tuesday and is currently before the other place, is important. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies continue to have access to another vital tool of communications data. Without access to communications data, the investigative capabilities of public authorities in relation to online child abuse would be significantly damaged, and vital evidence would be inaccessible. If companies do not retain that data and we cannot access it, it will become impossible in future to carry out such operations.

In other areas, the Government are also looking at what actions we can take in relation to this reprehensible crime. That is why in April last year, the Government established a national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, led by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The cross-Government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the recent cases that have emerged and the resulting reviews and inquiries, and as a result of its work we now have better guidance for police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multi-agency safeguarding hubs.

The Home Office will do everything it can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre command of the National Crime Agency works with police forces to investigate child sexual abuse, and has access to specialist officers who could be called on to assist in complex cases. CEOP is already providing support to forces in the robust investigation of child sexual abuse.

For some time, this House has been considering issues arising from historic cases of child abuse. The news yesterday of more than 600 arrests by the NCA, and ongoing investigations into current incidents of child abuse, show that this is not just a problem of the past but is with us today. The Government will do everything they can to work to stamp out child abuse, but there is a wider question for us as a society about how and why these appalling crimes are still taking place today.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the update she has given the House. She is right to condemn this vile crime that hits vulnerable children and can wreck lives. I also welcome the announcement that the National Crime Agency has safeguarded 400 children and arrested 660 people for child abuse offences as part of a major operation involving many police forces. The House will want to commend the police for that work, and recognise the role of online intelligence and communications data that we discussed earlier this week.

However, The Times reports today that the same investigation has in fact identified more than 10,000 suspects who are not currently being arrested or pursued through the criminal justice system. It appears that those are in addition to today’s crime statistics, which also show a 20% increase in reported sex offences, a 65% increase in reported child abuse images, and a 27% increase in reported rape. While car crime may be falling, the reports of these serious, often hidden, crimes are going up, and people will be deeply shocked by the scale of online crime that is growing alongside the internet. At the same time, there has been a 9% drop in prosecutions for child sex offences and a 75% drop in the number of convicted criminals who are barred from working with children as a result of the Government’s policy changes. There are real concerns about chaos at the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is not providing consistent information about the number of people being barred.

Let me ask the Home Secretary the following questions. Can she confirm that the National Crime Agency has identified more than 10,000 suspects as part of its investigation? What is happening to those 10,000 suspects now? Is it true that the police have decided that they do not have the capacity to pursue them? How many of them does she think pose a direct risk to children? Will they be barred from working with children? Can she confirm that there has indeed been a 75% drop in the number of convicted sex offenders who are being barred from working with children? Does she believe that the police and the NCA have the capacity to deal with the scale of this growing crime? Will any of these issues be covered by the child abuse inquiry, which currently has no chair and no terms of reference?

The Home Secretary will know that I have raised concerns with her over the past few years that the child protection system is currently not strong enough to deal with the scale of the problem that we face. Will she now urgently review Government policy and resources, particularly around online abuse, as well as on the wider issues around child abuse, and rethink the barring system approach? Will she agree to come back to this House in September with an urgent action plan to deal with this very serious crime?

[Mrs May]

First, may I say that the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to commend the work of police forces, the National Crime Agency and CEOP command? This work is not easy for police officers to undertake. It is very difficult for those who have to look at the evidence of child abuse images. We should recognise the valuable and important work they do, and the work that goes on around them to ensure that perpetrators and others involved in this horrendous crime are brought to justice.

I have made it clear that the work of NCA investigations is ongoing. I am therefore not in a position to indicate anything in relation to how many suspects they might be looking at or the action I might take against those suspects. Those are operational matters and decisions for the NCA to take in consideration with the various police forces involved, but I can assure Members that this is an ongoing investigation.

The right hon. Lady referred to a number of matters, for example the increase in the number of sex offences being reported. That is indeed the case, but what I think we are seeing in the figures is a number of people coming forward with historic cases of sex offences. While that does have an impact on the figures, I think we would all welcome the fact that there are more people now who feel comfortable in being able to come forward with allegations of these sorts of offences. For too long, people have felt that they would not be believed, and have been hiding their own experiences and keeping them to themselves, rather than surfacing them. It is important that they are coming forward. In some of the historic cases that have gone to trial, some perpetrators have been brought to justice. They have been charged and prosecuted as a result of people coming forward.

We are, of course, making sure that resources are available. In my response to the right hon. Lady’s question, I indicated that CEOP resources, which are specialist and expertise resources, are being made available to other police forces. The child abuse inquiry is being set up to ensure that we can learn the lessons from the various reviews that have taken place into historic cases. As part of that, I expect it will want to look at what is happening today: whether the lessons from the past are already being dealt with, or whether there are still gaps in what we need to do. Obviously, one of the areas that has increased in recent times is online abuse.

At the Prime Minister’s summit in November last year, we made it absolutely clear that we are determined to stamp out online child sexual abuse. That is why we have worked with industry to ensure that search engines block images, videos and pathways to child abuse from blacklist search terms used by paedophiles. We are developing a child abuse image database, which will help officers to work more effectively together to close the net on paedophiles and ensure that internet companies can better identify, block and remove illegal images. We have also established the UK-US taskforce to counter online child exploitation. Through that, we are drawing on the brightest and best minds in the industry, law enforcement and academia to stop the internet being used to abuse children. We saw from the National Crime Agency’s operations yesterday the value of setting it up as a strong crime-fighting organisation that has already shown its ability to root out perpetrators of this sort of crime, to deal with them and ultimately to bring them to justice.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to the NCA for yesterday’s successful operation? It is worth noting that of the 660 arrested, very few were people already on the sex offenders register. This is very difficult work and a reminder that we are talking about current abuse going on, in addition to the historic child abuse that we must now investigate. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that rather than coming forward with a new action plan, as has been suggested, she gives this House a progress report on the child sexual exploitation action plan, which I launched in November 2011, which was multi-agency and multi-departmental? It has been exceedingly successful and no doubt played a major part in bringing a lot of people to justice in yesterday’s operation.

[Mrs May]

May I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this area over the years? He and I joined this House at the same time, and I know that he has consistently led on child protection issues and has put a lot of work into this area, both when he was children’s Minister and outside that time, and he continues to do so. I will certainly be happy to ask the Minister for Crime Prevention to report to the House on the child exploitation action plan that my hon. Friend developed as the children’s Minister and also on how the group that was set up subsequently is taking that work forward, looking at how it can build on it in a number of other ways, so that we are always looking to ensure that we have the best possible response.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I join the Home Secretary in congratulating those involved in Operations Endeavour and Notarise for the work they have done, which shows the importance of the expertise of CEOP? She is right not to rush in and name a new chair for the inquiry. This needs to be done with care and full consultation, so that the chair can help to choose the panel and fashion the terms of reference. However, I am concerned that not enough is being done by the internet companies. Will she confirm that at the very least she is getting a list or a number of the websites that have been closed down as a result of the summit that took place last November? The public need to be reassured that these websites are being closed. If she gives us regular updates, that would be extremely helpful.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that as much information as possible is made available to the House on these matters. We have seen action by industry, but we continue to talk to industry about how these issues can be addressed. We will be represented on the UK-US taskforce by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, whom I welcome to his new position in the Home Office. We are working very closely with industry. It is important to ensure that industry is able to undertake the tasks that we wish it to. It is doing that, but we want to work further with industry to ensure that we are getting the blocking and the filtering absolutely right, so that we can have the maximum impact.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Some of the more serious historic allegations relate to children who were in care at the time of the event. In Jersey, there are allegations that children did not survive to their adulthood to make complaints. In England, the Government still do not record what happens when children disappear from care, using the record “Leaving care for other reasons”. Will the Secretary of State talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education about whether we can record when children disappear from care and why they disappear, so that we can audit the process and ensure that children are safe in care today?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has raised a very important point about how children in care have been, I think in too many cases, failed by the state over the years. This is not an area where the state can have any real confidence. We should, frankly, look back at what has happened to a number of children in care with deep concern. I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s point up with the Department for Education—and also with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because of local authorities’ responsibility.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary rightly spoke of the harrowing effect that working in this area can have on the police officers who have to do this work and see these images. Can she assure the House that the expansion of the work in this area will go hand in hand with an expansion of the care and long-term psychological support packages for those police officers?

[Mrs May]

Yes. This matter has already been raised. Obviously, the forces and CEOP are aware of the issue that the work can cause for the officers involved and they have programmes and operations in place to support those officers. We shall certainly ensure that those continue.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

As the Home Secretary will know, I have followed the problems caused by child sex abuse from the point of view of one who has both acted for somebody falsely accused of it and, as a law officer, dealing with historic child sex abuse cases. The importance of the issues and the motives with which Members question my right hon. Friend about them cannot be understated or traduced. However, will she resist the temptation to provide the House with a running commentary about the police or other investigations, which may distract from the difficult work that the police have to do in dealing with these terrible cases? We want the perpetrators to be brought to justice and convicted rather than there being a constant flow of allegation and counter-allegation, either across the House or in the media.

[Mrs May]

Yes, I absolutely take my hon. and learned Friend’s point. It is important that the House should be updated on the work that the Government are doing in this area, but of course it is not possible for us to update the House in any ongoing way on investigations. These are operational matters for the police, not matters on which politicians take decisions; those are for the police and the National Crime Agency to take.

It is, however, right that we keep the House apprised of work such as that initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) when he was children’s Minister, and that now taken forward by the Minister for Crime Prevention and the current children’s Minister, so that the House can see the number of areas on which the Government are taking action.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary given any thought to the new legal powers that may be needed by this child abuse inquiry but may take some time to establish? My understanding is that records kept by the Whips are not subject to freedom of information, but are subject to data protection. If the inquiry panel has no power to hold those data or compel information to be shared, how will it bring justice for survivors?

[Mrs May]

The inquiry panel that I have set up is not a statutory inquiry panel under the Inquiries Act 2005. What we have made clear, though, is that if there comes a point at which the chairman of the panel believes that its work could better be carried forward as a statutory inquiry panel under the 2005 Act, we will be prepared to change it into such a panel.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am not sure that the Home Secretary quite answered the question put by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). I think the hon. Lady was trying to get at whether information held in the Whips Office will be available to the investigation.

[Mrs May]

I repeat what I said in the House when I gave my statement on this matter on 7 July. The Government are making it clear that we will make papers available to the inquiry panel. I would expect others to make available such information as they hold. It is for various bodies—whoever is approached by the inquiry panel—to decide what information they wish to make available. However, as I have made clear, if the chairman of the panel gets to a point where they believe that a statutory inquiry is the best route, the Government are committed to ensuring that we turn the investigation into a statutory inquiry.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary recognise that there have been allegations about historic abuse in a wide range of institutions, including the former Beechwood children’s home in Nottingham? Will she assure my constituents and those of other Nottinghamshire MPs that if they approach the overarching inquiry, their cases will receive a fair and impartial hearing and they will have access to the proper help and support they need?

[Mrs May]

I think it important to recognise that the inquiry panel will not itself be able to investigate individual allegations that come forward. It will be looking at what happened in a number of settings such as residential care homes and trying to learn the lessons from that. Individual allegations against a perpetrator, will be handed on to the police for them to investigate, which is entirely proper. We are working across Government to look at people’s ability to raise cases, the manner in which they will be able to do so, and how those cases will be passed on as appropriate, along with the support given to victims. Together with a number of other MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) raised this matter with me earlier this week, and made a number of suggestions about how to take it forward.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Bearing in mind the explosion in the number of people willing to report and disclose what happened to them, will the Home Secretary ensure that urgent support and extra training is made available for all police officers, so that victims are not necessarily taken across the country for interview, that interviews are not stopped and started again to allow video conditions, and that inadequate referrals for support are not given to victims and their families, who need help when their lives are completely turned upside down?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes some very important points. She raises issues that we are looking at in order to ensure that the best form of support is available. I would like to take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for the courage she has shown, which will have given great confidence and comfort to other victims.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

All child sex abuse is horrific, but the Home Secretary will be aware that for many parents, online child sex abuse is particularly frightening because the technology is developing at warp speed, so many children have smartphones, and parents do not feel equipped to protect their children. It is good to work with the industry, but does the Home Secretary appreciate that parents want to know that progress is being made on tackling online child sex abuse—not at the rate that suits the industry, but at the rate that will bring reassurance to parents and families and protection to our children?

[Mrs May]

Of course we want to ensure that we make progress in a way that can give confidence to parents, who rightly worry about what is happening online. The fact that somebody living thousands of miles away could effectively be in a child’s bedroom through the internet, persuading that child to undertake certain horrific acts is obviously a matter of very real concern. It is right for us to work with the industry, however, which has been responsive on this matter and sees its importance to the public.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising Devon and Cornwall police officers for their role in Operation Notarise, work with colleagues to ensure that the victims are treated well as they pass through the criminal justice system, and remind the judges of the powers they have to protect such vulnerable witnesses?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. I commend Devon and Cornwall police and all the other police forces around the country that were involved in undertaking the operation with the National Crime Agency. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, whom I welcome to their new roles, have heard her point. I will also make sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary is made aware of her point about the judiciary.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary mentioned that the police officers were doing a very difficult job. What facilities are available for counselling police officers, and how many officers have needed counselling as a result of the work they are carrying out?

[Mrs May]

Extensive support is available for police officers doing that job because the problem is recognised. The expertise developed at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre recognises the impact that such work can have on individual police officers. That support is available for police officers who undertake this difficult work.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The Home Secretary has rightly emphasised the importance of multi-agency work in safeguarding and protecting children. Some of those agencies operate under devolved legislation. Will she ensure that her Department and the United Kingdom Government as a whole co-operate fully with the devolved nations of the UK, so that children remain as protected as possible?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I shall ensure that the work that is being done is discussed with the various devolved authorities.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

In 2010, the then Secretary of State for Education abolished ContactPoint. At the time, I was happy with the assurance that something more streamlined would be in place shortly, but four years have passed, and it has not yet been replaced. What discussions is the Home Office having with the Department for Education to eliminate this gap in the system?

[Mrs May]

The Department for Education plays a full role in the work that the Home Office does on this issue, including our work in relation to the national group. However, as the hon. Lady will observe, my hon. Friend the children’s Minister is present, and he will have heard her comment.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will know that, thanks to their innovative and enthusiastic police and crime commissioner, Northamptonshire police are developing something of a lead in combating the online exploitation of children, but so much of that abuse is international. What expertise from other countries can we draw on, so that we can be at the forefront of tackling this abhorrent crime?

[Mrs May]

We recognise that, and we have set up a link with the United States in particular. Obviously, a number of internet service providers are based there. We are working closely with the Americans. The UK-US taskforce, whose meetings will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, draws on the expertise of people in the industry in both the UK and the United States. We want to get the best brains on this to ensure that we can do the job that we all want to do.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

In north Wales, 19 people are currently before the courts as a result of Operation Pallial. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if any evidence is unearthed by the inquiries that she set up last week in connection with Government Departments, any information that Departments have will be forwarded to the police so that they can follow it up and prosecutions can take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any information or evidence uncovered by the inquiry panel or the review of the Home Office’s operations that should go to the police will be passed on, as, indeed, it has been in the past.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I press the Home Secretary on the question of the breach of trust to which she referred earlier? She said that trust had been breached on a number of occasions. How can we prevent that from happening again? We must not lose sight of child abuse within families, and of how difficult it is to bring to public attention or prosecution.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I think that people will have been deeply concerned, indeed shocked, to learn that the list of arrests undertaken by the National Crime Agency and forces which was announced yesterday included a number of people who had been in positions of trust—such as teachers and doctors—and whom others would naturally have assumed they could trust with their children. This is a very important issue, which is why we have a system of vetting people who will be working with children. Of course, we must also ensure that all those who employ people to work in such positions of trust are aware of their responsibilities.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary may not be aware that yesterday I presented a petition to the House concerning the case of an online paedophile who had made and viewed more than a quarter of a million indecent images of children, a number of which were the more serious level 5 images. He was given a two-year suspended sentence and 300 hours of community service. When I wrote to the Attorney-General asking him to review the sentence, I was told that the Attorney-General does not have the power to review sentences of this nature. Why is that, and will the Home Secretary ensure that the Government change the law to give the Attorney-General that power?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right in the case that she has set out. However, she will have seen that the Attorney-General has heard her question and will, I am sure, be considering the point that she has made.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The Home Secretary has told us that if the inquiry panel seeks formal inquiry powers, she will be able to grant that request, which is welcome. Former inquiries into child abuse have resulted in some frustration as a result of tight and inflexible remits; this has even been expressed by those conducting the inquiries. If the inquiry panel wishes to amend its remit during the course of its work, will she be in a position to grant that request?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very clear that the terms of reference should be discussed with the chairman of the panel and not simply be set out by the Government. If the chairman comes to the Government during the course of the inquiry and feels that it is necessary to amend those terms of reference in any way, we will of course look very seriously at that proposal. We have set up the inquiry panel on the model that was used in the Hillsborough inquiry and, having spoken to the former Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones, in relation to the operation of that inquiry, I understand that people were willing to come forward to that inquiry in a way that might not have been the case under other statutory requirements.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary and I understand that she is saying she cannot confirm the scale of the NCA investigation for operational reasons. However, if—as The Times suggests—the NCA has made a policy decision not to investigate 10,000 suspects because of capacity problems, should not the House be informed of that?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear to the House that the NCA investigation is ongoing, both at the level of the NCA and of individual police forces. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman allow the police to make the operational decisions that they need to make. They will of course investigate individuals, but arrests, charges and prosecutions can be brought against people only when the evidence is available.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Many Members have referred to the importance of victims of historical child abuse feeling able to come forward. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health, in his statement to the House on the Savile investigations, made an appeal for victims to come forward. However, when a constituent of mine made contact, the Department of Health apparently had no process in place to respond and could not give any support, as it had had no guidance as to the response it should make. That constituent now seems to have decided not to take their allegations forward. May I urge the Home Secretary to work with her colleagues to ensure that the Departments—and, indeed, individual Members of Parliament—are aware of these matters and have the necessary guidance and support to enable them to offer support to others, as needed?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point again. We are talking across Government about what support needs to be available for those people who wish to come forward with allegations of child abuse, and the Department of Health is one of the key Departments we are talking to. Representatives of that Department sit on the national group that is chaired by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The hon. Lady made a further point, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), about making information available to Members of the House. It has been suggested that some kind of hotline could be made available, or some other means by which people could put allegations into the system, so that they could be dealt with. We will obviously ensure that Members are made aware of any such arrangements, so that they can let their constituents know what is happening and help them to deal with the situation.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

We have heard from the Home Secretary today and on previous occasions about the good work that the police and others are doing on this issue. It appears, however, that the number of people who have been barred from working with children has actually fallen by 75%. Can she explain this discrepancy or, at the very least, investigate the reasons for it?

[Mrs May]

The DBS operates in a slightly different way from how it operated previously when it was set up, in that there is automatic barring for people who will be working with children but in certain categories of employment, where people are not working directly with children, people who previously would have been automatically barred are not being so currently. What the DBS does do in its updating service is provide a better system from which ongoing information can be made available to employers. But I make a point I made earlier, which is that employers must recognise the responsibilities they have in considering the individuals they are employing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the 1970s, the most horrible, wicked and depraved abuse of children took place at Kincora boys home in Belfast, with young people scarred for life as a result. Those abuses allegedly involved those in political life, business and the civil service at the time and were overseen by shadowy groups. A child abuse inquiry is taking place in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State say whether the abuse at Kincora boys home is included in that inquiry? If that is not possible, can it be included in the national inquiry?

[Mrs May]

I will look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would, however, expect that where other work is ongoing, such as in the child abuse inquiry in Northern Ireland to which he has referred, the inquiry panel we are setting up would, of course, wish to liaise with the work that is being done there to make sure that nothing is falling through the net and that everything is being looked at.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Written Statements

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

The Informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 8 and 9 July in Milan. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), and a senior Home Office official attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.

The interior day began with a discussion of the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning in JHA that were agreed at the June European Council. The discussion focused on the migration aspects, and on the proposed replacement of the EU’s internal security strategy.

On migration, the Commission highlighted the progress being made on the EU’s legal migration policy and called for full implementation of the common European asylum system, for action against the smuggling of migrants and for enhanced regional protection efforts.

A number of member states said that limited migration from outside the EU was necessary to address skill shortages, though stressing that it needed to be balanced with action against illegal migration. Others emphasised that policy on legal migration should be primarily for member states to determine—legislation in this area only applies to the UK if we opt in to it. Some called for more action to address migration problems at their source and a more effective returns policy. The UK argued for effective action to tackle abuse of free movement.

The presidency concluded by calling for a balanced approach to migration addressing both legal and illegal aspects.

The Commission announced that it will issue a communication on the internal security strategy in early 2015, and hold a conference in Brussels on 29 September. Many member states intervened calling, variously, for a short and focused strategy and for the strategy to cover the organised crime policy cycle, cyber-security, counter radicalisation, data exchange and environmental crimes.

The UK called for the new strategy to cover modem slavery, foreign fighters and the exchange of passenger name records. The presidency agreed that foreign fighters were a top priority and also emphasised the need to agree the draft passenger name records directive.

The Council then discussed the implementation of Task Force Mediterranean, its agreed programme of actions to deal with illegal migration in the Mediterranean region.

The presidency called for FRONTEX to step up its activity in the region so the Italian “Mare Nostrum” search and rescue operation could be scaled back. The Commission called for a single, coherent operational structure to co-ordinate Mare Nostrum with Frontex’s operations. It also called for more efforts to persuade Tunisia to address the problem of its boats being used to pick up migrants in Libya, for the EU border assistance mission to Libya to be reinforced and for member states to resettle more refugees from outside the EU. The UK emphasised the importance of concerted action at the regional level and welcomed the involvement of the European external action service in working with countries of origin.

On justice day the Council discussed whether there should be greater flexibility within the proposed general data protection regulation for member states to provide a higher standard of data protection for the public sector at national level. Various approaches were discussed, including providing for specific exemptions throughout the text of the proposed regulation. The UK argued that the best way to achieve the desired flexibility was to legislate by way of a directive rather than a regulation as this already provides sufficient flexibility under the current framework. Member states in general believed that flexibility at national level for the public sector was necessary but further discussion on how this would be best achieved was required in the Council’s technical working group.

The second session was an exchange of views on the proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The presidency asked whether the proposal provided for an appropriate system of judicial review and, in particular, whether certain decisions by it to dismiss cases should be subject to judicial review.

The majority of member states agreed that some form of judicial review before national courts was necessary, although there was no consensus over which decisions should be subject to review. The UK is not participating in the proposal to establish an EPPO and did not take part in the discussion. The presidency concluded that further discussion was needed at expert level.

Over lunch, there was a discussion on the justice aspects of the strategic guidelines agreed by the European Council, especially developments regarding mutual recognition of judgments, and freezing and confiscation orders. Member states, including the UK, reinforced the message in the JHA strategic guidelines that the priority is now to implement and consolidate the EU acquis in the justice area rather than bring forward new legislation. The main feature of the discussion was the importance of judicial training to support implementation. Most member states wanted to see further EU support for judicial training, although some including the UK, cautioned about the need to ensure that judicial training remained primarily a matter of national competence.

During the final session, the presidency introduced its paper on the Commission’s proposal to abolish legalisation—a formality to confirm the authenticity of a public document—and reduce the need for certified copies and translations. Member states were invited to give views on the scope of the proposal and on the need for new information technology to support cross-border co-operation in this area.

Almost all member states who intervened believed that the scope should be limited only to civil status documents—that is, birth, marriage, death—in the first instance. The UK agreed that the scope should be limited in this way, and set out the reasons why the inclusion of educational certificates, intellectual property documents, and court judgments should not fall within the scope of the proposal. The UK also argued that the proposal should provide a common format for translations of civil status documents rather than creating a legal status for common format multilingual forms. This would avoid legal uncertainty and respect the sovereignty of member states in issuing the documents.

The Commission proposed to use the existing internal market IT system for a cross-border verification mechanism, but was willing if necessary to consider a feasibility study for a new IT system. The UK opposed this on cost grounds. The presidency concluded that there was strong preference for a step-by-step approach with the initial scope limited to civil status document and further work was required on the most appropriate IT system to use.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In my statement to the House last Thursday, I made clear the urgent need for narrow and limited legislation on communications data and interception. There is no greater duty for a Government than the protection and security of their citizens when we face the very real and serious prospect that the police, law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies will lose vital capabilities that they need in order to do their jobs. Communications data—the “who, where, when and how” of a communication, but not its content—and interception, which provides the legal power to acquire the content of a communication, are crucial to fighting crime, protecting children, and combating terrorism.

Communications data can be used to piece together the activities of suspects, victims and vulnerable people. They can prove or disprove alibis. They can identify links between potential criminals. They can tie suspects and victims to a crime scene, and they can help to find a vulnerable person who is at risk of imminent harm. Interception—which can take place only in limited circumstances, and with a warrant authorised by a Secretary of State—can prove vital to the investigation of the activities of suspected terrorists and serious criminals. Without those capabilities, we run the risk that murderers will not be caught, terrorist plots will go undetected, drug traffickers will go unchallenged, child abusers will not be stopped, and slave drivers will continue their appalling trade in human beings.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Home Secretary put some flesh on the bones of what she has said, particularly for the benefit of Northern Ireland, which gives reality to this? I understand that in the past three years more than 300 people have been convicted of serious and organised crimes. Can the Home Secretary confirm that many of them were brought to justice as a result of this very type of intelligence activity?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The use of exactly this sort of data is important not just to the investigation of crime, but to the bringing of criminals to prosecution. Work done by the Crown Prosecution Service has shown that communications data have been used in 95% of serious and organised crime cases, and that that has been important not just to the investigation but to the prosecution. These are important data: they are vital to the fight against crime and the fight against terrorists.

However, as I explained last week, we currently face two immediate problems. First, the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice has called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the United Kingdom to retain communications data. Secondly, we face the increasingly pressing need to put beyond doubt the legal obligation for communications service providers who supply services to people in the UK to comply with our laws on interception, irrespective of where they are based.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has, I am sure, been advised that the Bill will be within the continuing scope of European Union law, and that the charter of fundamental rights and the general principles of European law will continue to apply. No doubt she will also understand that the Bill is itself subject to future challenge by the European Court of Justice. I draw attention to my manuscript amendment, which I hope will be selected, and which would remove any doubt about the fact that the Bill, if enacted, will have full effect notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972

[Mrs May]

I note what my hon. Friend has said, but, having examined the judgment of the European Court of Justice, we believe that UK legislation already complies with many parts of it, and we have specifically ensured that other issues that were not addressed in the judgment are addressed in the Bill.

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

The Home Secretary says that she has brought the Bill into line with the EU ruling. However, the ruling made it very clear that blanket retention of data was not permissible, and that retention of data must be specific to a threat regarding a group of people or a particular time. It is precisely that blanket retention that has been ruled illegal.

[Mrs May]

One of the issues that emerged from the ruling of the European Court of Justice was the scope of the data retention directive. The Court believed that it was too broad, and that it was necessary to be more specific about the purposes for which data could be retained. Our legislation was already specific, but we have looked at it again, and we are very clear about its focus in terms of how it will be operated and in terms of its scope. We are addressing the very issue that was raised by the Court.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Both today and last week, the Home Secretary has drawn a distinction between the data and the content. May I suggest to her that reliance on that distinction may not be legally valid in the future? For a start, she has already said that the data are often used to establish or disprove an alibi, and thus to prove someone’s whereabouts. They can be used to establish whether someone banks with a particular bank, or whether someone uses a particular doctor or dentist. I merely suggest to the Home Secretary that, in the world of Facebook and other even more modern ways of messaging, a reliance on the difference between data and content will not stick.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that as technology changes and people use new methods of communication, we need to ensure that our agencies’ capabilities and powers, and the legal framework within which they operate those capabilities and powers, are indeed appropriate in relation to the technology as it develops. For that reason I considered introducing a further communications data Bill in this Parliament, but that is not to be, and it is definitely not what today is about. Today is simply about retaining the status quo.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s main point, the review of the capabilities and powers that are needed against the background of the threat that we face and the correct legislative framework will be important in that regard. It will, I hope, look ahead and ask what legislation the House needs to pass to ensure that we can deal with the environment in which we find ourselves.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me take the Home Secretary up on that point. Will she tell us now, at this early stage in the debate, whether she will accept new clause 1, which has been tabled by the shadow Home Secretary?

[Mrs May]

Obviously we shall come to that in Committee, but I am happy to say to the House now that I recognise the shadow Home Secretary’s desire to put the review in statute so that there is no question but that it will go ahead. I want to be clear about what the review will cover, and how we can ensure that it does the job that I think we all want it to do in looking at capabilities and powers and setting the right regulatory framework, and does it in a way—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says “Just say yes”, but I do not say yes to an amendment if I do not think that it will deliver technically what everyone wants. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, “Oh, come on,” but he was one of the Members who earlier stood up and talked about the importance of proper parliamentary process, so I am sure that he would not want to see amendments added to Bills if they did not deliver what everybody wanted them to deliver.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Given the breakneck pace at which MPs have been asked to come here and make decisions on the Bill, it is extraordinary that the Home Secretary cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say yes or no about an amendment that has been tabled. What is the answer: yes or no? She wants MPs to make decisions today, but she cannot make decisions on amendments.

[Mrs May]

We have just had an hour-and-a-half debate in which Members have been talking about the importance of parliamentary process. We have a parliamentary process called Committee stage at which amendments to the Bill will be properly considered, and that debate will take place then. I have indicated to the House that I understand the desire of some Members to ensure that the review of the capability and powers that are needed and the regulatory framework is on the statute book to ensure that that does, indeed, take place. David Anderson, the reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, has indicated that he will lead that review and there is widespread support for that given the excellent job he does in his current role. However, I want to make sure that, in looking to ensure we undertake that review, the Bill is drafted in a way that delivers what we all want to be delivered. I would have thought that that was entirely reasonable. That debate will take place at the Committee stage, when the hon. Gentleman will be free to wax lyrical about the nature of the amendment.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

May I bring the Home Secretary back to what she was talking about before, which is what is loosely described as blanket retention? It is not possible for the police to identify, before a crime has been committed, the range of telephone calls made and received about which it would be helpful for them to have communications data in order to pursue that crime. Therefore, the retention of data for a period is the only way the system can work.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. People often argue, “Actually, all you need to do is retain data from the point when you’ve identified a suspect or that a crime has taken place,” but when somebody has been murdered, for example, it may be necessary to go back and identify calls between the victim and a number of people. That is why it is important to be able to retain data from the past, but that is for a limited period. Previously, under the regulations that were agreed by this House, 12 months was the set period for retention. One issue that the European Court of Justice raised was that there should not just be one period of retention for all types of data. We are addressing that by making it a maximum period of retention, so it would be possible in any notice to a communications service provider to say that a particular type of data is required to be retained for a period of less than 12 months. We are, therefore, introducing the flexibility that the ECJ required.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the same point she has been discussing about the retention of data in criminal and terrorist investigations will be equally valid in the police’s pursuit of child abusers and paedophiles? In a month when this issue has been so important to so many of our constituents, will she confirm that the legislation will be a critical tool in the police’s battle against child abusers and give us an idea of the implications of our not passing it?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and the use of communications data is often absolutely vital in tracking and identifying that group of criminals. Without this use of communications data we would not be able to do that, and I fear that child abusers would go free as a result. The director general of the National Crime Agency has already made it clear that capability is being lost in this area. From memory, I think that almost 50% of communications data used in child abuse cases are more than six months old, hence the need to be able to retain data for up to 12 months.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Judging by some of the questions asked, there is a lack of understanding as some Members seem to think that in some way the use of communications data is new. Will the Home Secretary confirm that as far as the Crown Prosecution Service, and indeed its predecessors, are concerned, such use has been an absolute staple of bringing prosecutions ever since telephones came into existence? In fact there is no difference between the nature of the communications data acquired today and that which was acquired in the past in terms of showing who contacted whom.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, and what he says is absolutely right. He hits the nail right on the head. I know, Mr Speaker, that it is not normally the case that Ministers at the Dispatch Box refer to legal advice that is given to them, but may I say how much I valued the legal advice my right hon. and learned Friend gave when he was our excellent Attorney-General?

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

Yes, but I do need to make some progress so that others can get in.

[Mr Betts]

The key issue is that the Home Secretary says this Bill does not extend powers beyond existing legislation, but I understand there is some doubt whether the Bill impacts differently from the current legislation on web-based e-mails. With regard to further scrutiny of these measures, as we have only limited time to discuss the Bill now, if we pass it and it subsequently becomes apparent that there are doubts whether it extends the powers of Government, what is the Home Secretary’s position? How can she come back to this House to get matters reassessed in that situation? That is a real concern for my constituents. If it is subsequently proved that powers are extended—despite her current assurances, which I accept—there must be some mechanism for dealing with that.

[Mrs May]

There is no change to the definitions that are already in existence in terms of the communications data that it is possible to access. That is why I say the Bill is about just replacing the situation we have at present. On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I note that the Opposition have tabled an amendment suggesting that there should be a six-monthly review by the appropriate commissioner of the operation of this Bill. We are willing to accept that amendment, so that a process is in place that will reassure people that the Bill does exactly what the Government are saying: it merely replaces the powers already in existence.

[Mr Betts]

If the commissioner finds in the six-monthly review that there are concerns that the legislation is going beyond the current position, is there a mechanism for that to be reported back to this House for further discussion and action?

[Mrs May]

Yes. The commissioner currently reports annually on these matters, and the Opposition proposal, as I understand it, is that he would report on a six-monthly basis. He would, therefore, not just be looking at the situation, but reporting on what was happening. Were he to find that there was any extension of powers, that would be made clear to people. However, I remain of the opinion, because this is what we intend, that the Bill is purely about enabling the powers that we have today to be continued in future.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

There is debate about whether the powers are new, and I personally do not think they are, but will the Home Secretary give the assurance I tried to get from her yesterday, when perhaps I was not clear enough in asking for it? If she were asked to sign a warrant—these are mostly warranted powers—which involved a power that it was obvious to her would not have been available other than from this Bill, would she refuse to sign it on the basis that a new power had inadvertently been created?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend says most of these are warranted powers: of course the lawful intercept section of the Bill is in relation to warranted powers, but communications data are not subject to warrants signed by a Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I am about to answer the question. I am not quite sure who said that. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart); I might have guessed.

Certainly, I would expect only warrants that would fall under current lawful intercept powers to come to me. On the issue of lawful intercept, it has been the contention of this Government—and, I believe, the previous Government when they passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—that that had extraterritorial application. That has been legally questioned and we have continued to assert that that is the power that currently exists. The Bill puts that beyond doubt, by putting it clearly into primary legislation, so nobody can be in any doubt that the power that we have always said existed does in fact exist. That is the entire point, and I might add that I think a number of people may take comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) does not consider there to be an extension of powers in this Bill.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I raised this issue when the Home Secretary made her statement last week, but she is aware that some of the service providers do not accept the extraterritorial application of RIPA. She is now asserting that RIPA does have extraterritorial effect under this Bill. If some of those communication service providers maintain their current position—that it does not—what powers does she have to enforce the extraterritorial nature of the Bill and what sanctions will be available to ensure general compliance with its extraterritorial effect?

[Mrs May]

The point about putting this beyond doubt in the legislation is obviously that it strengthens the ability to enforce in this area. The enforcement capabilities remain as they were previously—taking out an injunction against the company concerned, with the sanctions that that might entail. The position is not changing; what is changing is simply being absolutely without doubt that the extraterritoriality is there, because it is now in the Bill, rather than it being asserted by Government as having been the intention of the previous legislation.

I will now attempt to make some progress. I have made the point that urgent action is needed—

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Before she moves on, will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I have been extremely generous, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Davis]

This is more a philosophical than a practical point for the Home Secretary, but what is the implication of our demanding extraterritorial powers for the likes of Google and others for, say, China, Russia and other unpleasant powers claiming the same power?

[Mrs May]

What this Government are doing is putting into legislation the powers that we believe it is important for us to have so that we can protect the British public. I know that my right hon. Friend has some difficulties with some aspects of what the Government are doing. I think it is right that we continue with the powers that we have had to enable us to protect the public, keep people safe and ensure that we catch criminals, terrorists and paedophiles.

Action is needed to ensure that we maintain the capabilities that protect us from those who would do us harm. The Bill provides the legal clarity needed to ensure that the use of those capabilities can be maintained by doing two things: first, by providing the legal basis for us to oblige domestic companies to continue to retain communications data; and secondly, by putting beyond doubt the application of the law of interception to all companies that provide communication services to people in the UK, regardless of where they are based.

When I made my statement to the House last Thursday, I received considerable support from Members on both sides of the House. I am extremely grateful for that support and would like to pay tribute to everyone who has shown willingness to work together on an issue as important as the protection of the public. In doing so, let me also thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which I gave evidence to yesterday and which wrote last night to say that it supported the legislation. He indicated that he was sure that a successor Committee would want to look carefully at any legislation that was brought forward, but I am grateful to the Committee for its support on this particular matter.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, so I will allow him to intervene.

[Mr Winnick]

That was, of course, on a majority vote, and I was reminded that in the last Parliament the Home Affairs Committee endorsed 42 days’ pre-charge detention, which obviously I voted against. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) was the Chair at the time and, if I may say so, he is a very good chap indeed, but he knows where the wind blows.

[Mrs May]

That sounds to me like something that is best left between the hon. Gentleman and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. Prudence suggests that I should move on rather than respond to that.

We have just had a debate on the business motion, in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration set out the reason for the timing of this legislation, so I will not go into that in detail, but I will talk about the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is short and narrowly focused and provides a limited response to a set of specific challenges. Clause 1 provides the clear legal basis for us to oblige domestic companies to retain certain types of communications data. Currently, those communications data are retained by communication service providers under the data retention regulations passed by Parliament in 2009, which implemented the EU data retention directive in the UK.

Although we are confident that those regulations remain in force, following the ECJ judgment, we must put beyond doubt the need for CSPs to continue to retain communications data, as they have been doing until now. If we do not do so, we run the risk of losing access to those data, which, as I have said, are vital for day-to-day policing. Our very strong data protection laws mean that, in the absence of a legal duty to retain specific data, companies must delete data that are not required beyond their strict business uses. The loss of those data would be potentially devastating. As I said earlier, it would impact seriously on the ability of the police, law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, solve kidnappings, find vulnerable people in danger, uncover terrorist links and protect children.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain for my benefit why it is legitimate to have the 12-month limit with the approval of Government, but not with the approval of the European Court of Justice?

[Mrs May]

The European Court of Justice did not say that a 12-month retention period was unlawful. It said that it recognised the need for access to and retention of the data, and it questioned the periods that were set aside. In fact, the data retention directive said that data could be retained for up to 24 months—we had previously used 12 months, rather than 24—but one of the issues was that it was said that requiring the retention of every type of data for the same period of time was not right and proportionate, and that it was necessary to be able to differentiate. We are introducing that differentiation by setting our data retention period at a maximum of 12 months, so that notices issued to CSPs for certain types of data can, if it is felt to be right, ask for retention to be for a shorter period.

As I have said, communications data are used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and have played a significant role in every Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the last decade. Clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that we can maintain the status quo by replicating our existing data retention regulations. As I have indicated, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a notice to a communications service provider only if he or she considers the retention to be necessary and proportionate. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and other hon. Members, the data retention notice will specify the duration for which data are to be retained, for up to a maximum of 12 months. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, a shorter period can be chosen. The data types that can be retained will be limited to the strict list of data types that are currently specified in the 2009 data retention regulations, and there will be a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to keep any data retention notice under review.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

When it comes to the battle against terrorism, there is an ongoing, daily issue with the threat and carrying out of attacks in Northern Ireland, never mind all the other threats to national security. Does the Home Secretary agree that if this legislation were not passed, we would face an extraordinary situation, in that data retention powers would exist in the Irish Republic, because there they are in primary legislation, whereas in Northern Ireland, where the main threat exists, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others would be deprived of a massive tool in the battle against terrorism and in co-operating with their neighbours down south?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. He highlights one of the reasons why it is important to pass this Bill and retain this capability in relation to communications data and lawful intercept. He is absolutely right: because the Republic of Ireland brought its communications data regulations into primary legislation, it does not have to respond to the ECJ judgment. It is because ours were in secondary legislation that we have to respond to the judgment.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Using headlines like “Terrorism” or “Organised crime” and so on obviously chimes with the public, but I have never understood why one of the reasons for retention, in section 22(2)(c) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, is if it is necessary

“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.

There are accusations that these data-gathering exercises are in fact used for industrial and economic espionage by countries in the “Five Eyes”.

[Mrs May]

One point that I mentioned earlier, which was made by the European Court of Justice, was in relation to the scope of the Bill. We are making it absolutely clear that the purposes are serious and organised crime, national security and economic well-being, and we are clarifying the definition of economic well-being in so far as it relates to national security.

[Michael Connarty]

It says in the Bill that a retention notice may be necessary for one or more of the purposes

“falling within paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 22(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000”.

It is, as I said, economic espionage.

[Mrs May]

Clause 3 (1) states:

“Section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (power to issue necessary and proportionate interception warrants in interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime or to safeguard the UK’s economic well-being) is amended as set out in subsection (2).”

Subsection (2) reads:

“(economic well-being of the UK), after ‘purpose’ insert, ‘in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security’”.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It might be worth the Home Secretary adding subsection (4) of clause 3, which explicitly links economic well-being to national security.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, subsections (2) and (4) define economic well-being in terms of the interests of national security.

The ECJ ruling in April was critical of the data retention directive because it said it did not contain the necessary safeguards in relation to retained data. I said that to the House last week and referred to it earlier this afternoon. Of course that ruling did not take into account the different structures, regimes and domestic laws that are in place in individual member states. Our communications data access regime, primarily governed by RIPA, has strict controls and safeguards in place. The data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate for a specific investigation, and access is limited and subject to a strict authorisation regime, which was specifically endorsed by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill. Clause 3 provides an important clarification in that it makes it clear that the statutory purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK can only occur when it is in the interests of national security. That is already the position, but the Bill puts that position beyond doubt.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the question of interception. The House will know that interception can only take place when a warrant has been authorised by a Secretary of State, when he or she considers it to be necessary and proportionate and when the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained by other means.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has been very kind this week. May I just ask her this question? The former head of GCHQ told me last week that the Wilson doctrine extended to all the digital communications of parliamentarians. Will she confirm that the effect of that is that only MPs and peers of the realm are excluded from this legislation?

[Mrs May]

Obviously, the Wilson doctrine applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian.

In relation to intercept, I mentioned the need for agreement from a Secretary of State. If the National Crime Agency wants to listen to the telephone calls of a drugs trafficker, or the Security Service wants to read the e-mails of a suspected terrorist, agreement is needed from a Secretary of State first. I see warrant applications day in, day out, and can personally attest to the care with which they are prepared, the seriousness which those applying for them attach to complying with the statutory restrictions and the gravity of the cases with which they deal. Warrant applications provide the detailed intelligence background that forms the basis on which a person is being sought.

Ministerial oversight, which I share with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is a vital safeguard to ensure that this sensitive and intrusive power is used only when it is necessary and proportionate. But in the absence of explicit provisions in legislation, as has been mentioned in a number of interventions, some overseas companies have started to question whether the law applies to them. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said last week, some companies are already saying that they can no longer work with us on interception unless UK law is clarified immediately. This Bill does exactly that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary reflect again on the intervention by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)? If a foreign Government who are routine abusers of human rights passed the same legislation through their Parliament, could they then intervene on an internet service provider based in this country to obtain data on their citizens, in the same way that the British Government take that power for themselves in another jurisdiction?

[Mrs May]

The power that we are taking is to be able to serve a warrant in relation to somebody who is based overseas. There would be implications for anyone attempting to apply to serve something into the UK in relation to the operation of that under UK law.

Clauses 4 and 5 make it clear that RIPA applies to all the companies that provide communications services to people in the United Kingdom, regardless of where those companies happen to be based. The final clause contains the sunset provision, which means that the legislation will expire at the end of 2016. I recognise that a number of Members have suggested that this sunset clause should be at an earlier stage. I say to them that the reason it has been put at the end of 2016 is that we will have a review by David Anderson which will report before the general election. It is the intention that a Joint Committee of Parliament will look at his work and that of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It will then be necessary to put the required legislation in place. If anyone stops to think about that timetable, it is clear that it could not be completed by the end of this year.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us in the House feel that it is a very long time for a sunset clause and that, despite what she says, it could be earlier? That makes her acceptance of the Opposition’s proposal for six-monthly reviews all the more important and welcome. Will she confirm that those reviews—perhaps this is something that will be developed later—will specifically report on there being no extension to the powers in the Act?

[Mrs May]

Of course, that matter will be debated later when the Opposition amendment is debated. As I understand it, the intention of those reviews is to provide for a facility for the appropriate commissioner to report on the operation of the legislation such that if there were any extension of powers, it would be possible for that to be brought to the fore as a result of the work that was being done.

I talked about the timetable. If Members think about the processes that we want to go through to ensure a full and proper consideration of the capabilities and powers that are needed to deal with the threat that we face and then about the right legislative framework within which those powers and capabilities would be operated, they will realise that that requires sufficient time for consideration and then for legislation to be put in place. That explains the need for the sunset clause at the end of 2016.

I just want to make a brief mention of secondary legislation. In addition to the Bill, secondary legislation will be required to cover the detail of some of the data retention regulations. We cannot formally introduce the regulations in advance of the enabling legislation being enacted, but I have placed copies of the draft regulations in the Library—that happened, I believe, at the end of last week—for Members to scrutinise alongside the Bill. Our intention is to ensure that the secondary legislation can be scrutinised and approved by both Houses before the summer recess. The draft regulations mostly replicate the existing data retention regulations, which were approved by Parliament in 2009, but they also contain strengthened safeguards to respond to points raised by the ECJ judgment. They allow for data security requirements to be set out in the data retention notices, and ensure that this retention can be overseen effectively by the independent Information Commissioner. They also create a code of practice on data retention, thus putting best practice guidance on a statutory footing.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that the European Court of Justice was striking down a European directive as well as our legislation, what action does the EU propose to try to sort out this legislative muddle?

[Mrs May]

The European Union will consider the necessity of a further data retention directive in due course, but it will take some time to be put in place. As my right hon. Friend knows, the European Parliament has recently changed and the European Commission will be changing, so it will be some time before the issue is addressed. As anyone who has dealt with such matters at any stage knows, it can take some time for proposals to be considered and finally agreed.

Alongside the legislation, of which I have stressed the urgency and importance, it is right that we balance the use of sensitive powers against the public’s right to privacy. I have detailed the limits on access to communications data and interception that will be enshrined in the primary legislation. In addition, I announced last week a package of measures to strengthen safeguards and to reassure the public that their rights to security and privacy are equally protected. We will reduce the number of public authorities able to access communications data. We will establish a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. We will appoint a senior former diplomat to lead discussions with other Governments on how we share data for law enforcement and intelligence purposes. We will also publish an annual transparency report on the use of sensitive powers.

[Hazel Blears]

It is apparent to all in the House and has become increasingly evident over recent months that there is a problem with the low level of public awareness of the legislative measures, the safeguards and the framework. The interception of communications commissioner has produced an extremely good report on the use of these powers, in particular by GCHQ, rebutting many allegations about mass surveillance and considering targeting and warranting. However—I hesitate to say this—his report has probably been read by perhaps a handful of people in this country. What can the Home Secretary do to ensure that there is much more public awareness? Hopefully, the annual transparency reports and the new boards will help, but it is urgent and pressing that the public should understand exactly what the framework is, what the authorities and powers are and what the agencies are doing.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. She is right that Sir Anthony May produced a first-class report that set out the powers and how they are used and was clear about their rightful use. Sadly, perhaps because it was not a “shock horror” report, it did not receive an awful lot of publicity. I hope that the Government’s commitment to an annual transparency report will help in this regard. The Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the right hon. Lady sits, is carrying out its own review of privacy and security and I hope that it will get some publicity when it is completed. It therefore behoves all of us to try as far as possible to promote the message that effective oversight is in place.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is being very generous in giving way. As she said, little of the legislation is new; it is clarifying what needs to be clarified. However, the annual transparency report is something new that puts more information in the public domain than ever before. Is that correct?

[Mrs May]

Yes indeed. It will be the first time that Government have published and made such information available. People will therefore be able to see rather better exactly how the powers are used by, for example, seeing the number of requests made.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

For clarification and to inform the public, would it not be better for a Minister to come along and at least make a statement and be questioned once every six months on the basis of the interception of communications commissioner’s report?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Ministers, including myself and the Foreign Secretary, go in front of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC produces an annual report as well as other reports on specific subjects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am often questioned about such matters when I go before the Home Affairs Committee, so Ministers are held accountable in a number of ways.

I referred earlier to the review of the powers and capabilities that the police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies need and to the regulatory framework under which they are regulated. The review will consider those matters in the context of the threats that we face. As I said earlier, David Anderson has agreed to undertake the initial phase of that review. The measures that I have set out are in addition to the considerable safeguards already in place, including the oversight, as referred to by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), by the various commissioners and the Intelligence and Security Committee.

As I made absolutely clear last week, the Bill merely preserves the status quo. It does not extend or create any powers, rights to access or obligations on communications companies that go beyond those that already exist. It does not address the same problems or replicate the content of the draft Communications Data Bill, published in 2012. The use of modern technology and changes in how people communicate have caused a decline in our ability to obtain the communications data that we need. I continue to believe that the measures contained in the draft Communications Data Bill are necessary to bridge that gap, but that is emphatically not what we are considering today. Parliament will need to return to those issues following the general election. The review to be undertaken by David Anderson, to which I have just referred, will consider the issue and I hope it will inform the debate.

I want to express my thanks to both sides of the House for the support they have given to the Bill. I would like to emphasise once again the need to get this Bill enacted before the recess. If we delay, we face the appalling prospect that police operations will go dark, trails will go cold and terrorist plots will go undetected. If that happens, innocent lives may be lost. We cannot allow that, so I urge the House to work together within this time frame to ensure that the police, the law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities that they need to protect the public and keep us safe. That is what the Bill is designed to do and I commend it to the House.

Independent Police Complaints Commission Annual Report

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that today my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I are publishing the annual report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Copies of the report have been laid before the House and will be available in the Vote Office.

This is the 10th annual report from the IPCC. The report covers the work of the IPCC during 2013-14 and includes a section on the discharge of their responsibilities in respect of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

We have had a lively and constructive debate today on the urgent need to ensure that communications data continue to be retained, and to clarify the law in respect of interception for communications service providers.

I thank all those who have contributed to the Bill during its various stages so far. I also want to place on record my gratitude to those who have recognised both the need for this legislation and the reason it is so important that we see it enacted quickly.

We discussed the Bill earlier today on Second Reading and it has just been scrutinised in Committee. I thank the Opposition for the support they have given to the Bill and their recognition of the importance of the issues it deals with. I also thank the Clerks of the House and all those involved in supporting us and enabling us to do this business in one day. Particular thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration for the excellent job he has done in taking the Bill through its Committee stage, and to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his contributions on behalf of the Opposition.

I do not want to rehearse in detail all the arguments that have been made, but I remind Members that the Bill deals with two urgent issues, including the response to the European Court of Justice decision in April, which struck down the European data retention directive. That has created uncertainty among communications service providers about the legal basis for the retention of communications data in the UK, which is a crucial resort for law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sure the Home Secretary knows that I am, in general, supportive of the Bill, but, in the light of the vote we have just taken, what sort of guarantee can she offer the House that the same European Court that struck down the previous situation will not strike down this Bill as well?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated earlier, and as I think others have indicated during the course of the various debates we have had today, the European Court of Justice did not strike down the ability to retain data. It recognised that the ability to retain data was necessary and it recognised purposes for which those data could be retained. What it did in its judgment was say that the data retention directive was drafted too broadly and it challenged its scope.

Of course, it was always the case that regulations here in the United Kingdom had been drawn more tightly and narrowly than the data retention directive. We are able to put through this Bill with confidence because not only were our data retention regulations drafted in a way that met many of the issues that the ECJ raised, but we have made some changes to ensure that we meet the extra requirements that the ECJ made on us. That is what gives us confidence in the future of this legislation.

We have heard a number of examples today of how important it is to have the ability to retain and access communications data. It is vital for piecing together the activities of suspects, victims and vulnerable people, and ensuring that serious criminals and terrorists can be brought to justice. This Bill will clarify the legal basis for us to oblige communications service providers to continue retaining communications data.

At the same time, we need to put beyond doubt the legal obligation on companies that provide services to people in the UK to comply with our laws on interception, regardless of where they are based. As we know, the communications services used by us all are increasingly provided to the UK by companies based outside the country. Interception, which can take place only within strict limits and with a warrant authorised by the Secretary of State, can prove vital when investigating the most dangerous criminals or defending the security of the United Kingdom.

In the absence of explicit provisions in legislation, some overseas companies have started to question whether the law applies to them, so we are clarifying the law. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was always intended to apply to any company providing communications services to the UK, as the provisions in the Bill make absolutely clear. The Bill does not introduce new powers, or extend the reach of law enforcement or security and intelligence agencies in any way. It responds to the European judgment, clarifies the existing provisions of RIPA and ensures that the police and security and intelligence agencies can maintain essential capabilities to fight crime and protect the public.

The Bill does not replicate the draft Communications Data Bill. As I have said several times, I continue to believe that its measures are absolutely necessary, but this Bill is not about what was in the draft Bill; it is about ensuring that we retain the capabilities we have at the moment. It will be for the next Parliament to debate other extensions in relation to communications data, as in the draft Bill. We know that that debate will take place because this Bill has been “sunsetted”. It will therefore be necessary for the Government to look at the issues after the election. Indeed, that will be on the basis of informed debate, following the review undertaken by David Anderson, as agreed.

The Bill will ensure that the job of those who protect us does not get even more difficult; that they can continue to use powers that are part of everyday policing; that they remain able to find vulnerable people at risk or in danger; and that they can maintain the use of vital capabilities to solve crime, save lives and protect the public from harm. It will ensure that our police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities to do that. I now invite the House to pass the Bill and send it to the other place, and I commend it to the House.

National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Written Statements

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

The first report of the National Crime Agency (NCA) remuneration review body was published today. In line with my letter setting the body’s remit, it has made recommendations on pay and allowances for NCA officers designated with operational powers. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the review body for their careful consideration of the evidence.

Following an independent review of the evidence supplied by the NCA, the Home Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the relevant trade unions, the NCA remuneration review body has recommended various pay increases with an average annual award increase of approximately 1%. This is in line with the Government’s policy that public sector annual awards should average 1% for each of the two years following the public sector pay freeze. Additionally, in response to the NCA’s proposed amendments to its London weighting allowance, the review body has recommended that the NCA should conduct a full review of the allowance’s design, purpose and value. I accept these recommendations in full.

Copies of the NCA remuneration review body’s first report are available in the Vote Office and on www.gov.uk