Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

1. What assessment she has made of the effect of police reductions on Northumbria police.

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

The independent inspectorate of constabulary has found that, like other forces, Northumbria police are rising to the challenge of making savings while maintaining and improving service to the public. The Northumbria police and crime commissioner has recently restated her and the chief constable’s shared commitment to maintaining the number of police officers and staff working in their neighbourhoods. She is clear that her force needs to do things differently, use technology more effectively and work from different buildings that are cheaper to run.

[Chi Onwurah]

This morning, Northumbria police arrested eight people as part of Operation Sanctuary, an investigation into horrific allegations of sexual abuse of looked-after young girls and other vulnerable victims in the west end of Newcastle. Police have assured me that they are working with safeguarding agencies and local communities to protect the victims and pursue the perpetrators, but that very police station in the west end of Newcastle is to close as part of the £67 million cuts and we have seen a 7% rise in total crime in the region over the past 12 months. Will the Home Secretary give me a commitment that Northumbria will have the resources it needs to pursue this critical investigation?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the sort of case that the hon. Lady raises. Sadly, we are seeing too many such cases, particularly involving the horrific abuse of young girls. There have been a number of cases and I was with Thames Valley police a matter of weeks ago to talk to them about Operation Bullfinch and the lessons they had learned from that for the future investigation of such cases and how victims are treated. There has been a lot to learn. I do not think that the physical presence of a police station is what makes the difference to how such a case is treated and I am sure that the chief constable of Northumbria will ensure that there are the resources properly to investigate and to bring to justice those who are guilty of such crimes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of reductions in local authority funding on police forces.

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

Funding for local authorities is a matter for the Communities Secretary. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 puts in place two related, reciprocal duties for police and crime commissioners to co-operate with partners. These duties ensure that local leaders work together to achieve the most effective outcomes for their areas. PCCs are already working with local partners to ensure that they provide the services the public needs, and we encourage them to continue do so.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but the fact remains that people across Northumbria are being unfairly hit with savage reductions in local authority budgets and a loss of nearly 400 front- line police officers, which has resulted in an increase in violent crime. With this toxic combination stretching the fabric of partnership working and community policing to breaking point, what steps is the right hon. Lady taking to stem the rise in violent crime and reassure our communities and my constituents across Northumbria?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to say that crime survey figures show overall across the country that violent crime is down by some 13%, but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier to her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about Northumbria. The PCC and the chief constable in Northumbria are looking to use technology to work more effectively and looking at ensuring that they collaborate with local partners so that they continue to provide the effective police service that her constituents and the PCC’s constituents want in Northumbria.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I note that police funding in Northumbria is slightly higher than in my county of Leicestershire per head of population. I also note that according to the latest recorded crime figures, crime fell by 19% in Northumbria and 24% in Leicestershire. Does not that show that the issue is not about absolute budgets but how that budget is allocated?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he echoes a comment made by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which shows that it is not the number of police officers that is relevant but how they are deployed. So it is about how the resources are used. As I have said, in Northumbria, the PCC and the chief constable are looking to ensure that they use their resources as effectively as possible, particularly through the introduction of new technology.

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

The Home Secretary must be aware of the disproportionate anomalous effect of the cuts overall— by local and central Government—in the west midlands. We await her review of what happened to Coventry because of the damping review, where we received £44 million less than her own formula should have awarded, and the top-slicing that she announced in January means a cut against what we should have received of a further £3.9 million. Of course, the City of London and Surrey are doing much better. What has she got against the west midlands?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to see that the crime figures show that crime continues to fall in the west midlands, and that the West Midlands police have been able to put in a bid to the new innovation fund, which the Government have introduced, and they were successful in that bid, so they will be able to put in place the creation, I understand, of a new intelligence hub, which will greatly enhance their ability to deal with crime in the west midlands.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

During the past two years, the budget for policing in the west midlands has been reduced by 13%, and during the same period crime has fallen by 18%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that this more-for-less outcome is in the interests of law-abiding taxpayers as well as the police?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is interesting that the Opposition always refuse to accept that good policing is about how the police are deployed, rather than overall numbers. We understand that, and so do chief constables, which is why, I am pleased to say, we are seeing the effectiveness of police constables and the work their officers are doing up and down the country in reducing crime.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

To be a victim of violent crime is traumatic. To see one’s assailant not brought to book adds insult to injury. With 7,000 fewer crimes of violence against the person solved under this Government, does the Home Secretary accept that this is the inevitable consequence of the combination of the biggest cuts in local government history and the cutting of 10,000 police officers from the front line: more violent criminals getting off scot-free?

[Mrs May]

No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise. Labour Front Benchers often quote detection rates. Of course, we have seen the number of crimes fall, and that has an impact on the number of detections.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating North Yorkshire police on further reducing crime by 5%? Does she also agree that local authorities have a useful role to play in reading the films from CCTV cameras and that that should continue on an ongoing basis?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comment about the necessity of working with local authorities, which I think is absolutely imperative. The work that local authorities do in looking at images from CCTV cameras and working with the police on that is an important part of the picture of partnership working to reduce crime in the local area.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment her Department has made of the availability of over-the-counter acidic substances and the use of such substances in violent crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

13. What recent steps she has taken to improve the visa and immigration system.

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

The Government are working to build an immigration system that works in the national interest. We are reforming immigration routes, tackling abuse and improving customer services. We have abolished the UK Border Agency and created three distinct commands focusing on border control, visas and immigration, and immigration enforcement. Those are the right changes, but it will take substantial work and a number of years to fix the broken system that we inherited.

[John Howell]

Does the Home Secretary agree that recent visa figures showing a 7% rise in the number of applications to study in Britain show that we continue to attract the brightest and best students from around the globe?

[Mrs May]

That is absolutely right. One of the key changes that we made to the immigration system was to introduce a greater degree of differentiation so that we encourage the brightest and the best. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted show that we are bringing the brightest and the best into our universities, and long may that continue. At the same time, we have rooted out abuse and continue to work to do so, particularly in the student visa system.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

This morning on the “Today” programme, the Prime Minister said that the Government were simply introducing NHS charges for

“people who have no right to be here”.

Will the Home Secretary therefore table amendments to the Immigration Bill to exempt students and others who do have the right to be here and are making a major contribution to the UK economy, or has the Prime Minister got it wrong?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes that we are bringing forward in the Immigration Bill, which will do a number of things. They will indeed make it harder for people to be here in the United Kingdom when they have no right to be here. They will also make it easier for us to deal with people who are here illegally who I am sure everybody in the House wants to see removed from this country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On Thursday, the Immigration Bill will come back to the House on Report. The Home Secretary will be delighted that there are 30 pages of new clauses and amendments. There are 50 Government amendments, and it appears that we cannot possibly have enough time in the four hours on Thursday to debate or even read those 30 pages. Will she now tell the House that we will have an extra day for Report?

[Mrs May]

The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Today, on behalf of the official Opposition, I have signed new clauses 7 to 10 to the Immigration Bill, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and several other Conservative Back Benchers, which would strengthen future European Union accession arrangements. Given that new cross-party consensus, will the Home Secretary join us in supporting those new clauses on Thursday?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what happens on Thursday, but I have looked with interest at the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I am pleased there is agreement across the House that we must take action in future on accession countries, and the number of people who may be coming to the UK from those countries.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to ensure all directly employed and contract staff who work in her Department are paid the living wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

The Home Office’s legislative programme for the year ahead builds on the successes of our work since the last election. Net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010, with net migration from outside the EU now at its lowest level since 1998. The Immigration Bill will reform the removals and appeals system, end the abuse of article 8, and prevent illegal immigrants from accessing and abusing our public services or the labour market. Police reforms are working: crime continues to fall and stands at its lowest level since the independent crime survey began in 1981. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will, among other things, introduce simpler, more effective powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, which will provide better protection for victims and communities. The Joint Committee scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill began its work last week. Tackling individuals and organised crime groups who subject victims to horrendous abuse will result in more arrests, more prosecutions and—most importantly—more victims being released from slavery and more prevented from entering it in the first place.

[Andrew Miller]

What plans does the Secretary of State have for next month’s illegal wildlife trade conference? Will she publish her action plan for that conference, and set out her plan for Britain to continue to play an important role in this area, on which there is cross-party agreement?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will be aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department on that conference, but the Home Office is heavily involved. We are working with DEFRA and are committed to continuing funding of the wildlife crime unit.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T2. The Normington report found that the Police Federation harasses those with dissenting views, lacks financial transparency and is a weak voice for officers. The report made 36 specific recommendations. Does the Home Secretary agree that the current chairman presiding over that systemic failure cannot be the right person to reform it?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the Police Federation initiated the review. He wanted properly to review the federation’s role and whether it represents officers properly. Obviously, a number of key recommendations have come forward. It is important that the federation has had the review. If any changes require Home Office input, we stand ready to work with the federation on them.

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

Last week, the Home Secretary refused to come to the House to answer a question on vulnerable Syrian refugees, and sent the Immigration Minister to convey to the House her decision that Britain would not provide sanctuary to any of the vulnerable refugees, torture victims, abandoned children and others whom the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged her to help. He told us that to do so was simply a “token”. Twenty-one MPs asked the Home Office to change its position and sign up to the UN programme, and each time the Minister said no. As a result of the pressure that the Home Secretary has been put under, and in advance of the vote on Wednesday, has she listened, and is the answer now yes?

[Mrs May]

First, the United Kingdom has a fine record in terms of the amount of money we are providing in humanitarian aid—it is the largest sum of money of any of the European Union countries. We have also accepted in the past three years several thousand asylum seekers from Syria. That is another way in which we are appropriately offering support. Through the mandate programme, we have the ability to take refugees who have family connections here and whose families are willing to support them. However, I am working with the Foreign Secretary to look at what further support can be provided by the Government. Further announcements on that will be made in due course.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. As she will know, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that aid to the region is vital. The majority of people will be helped through that, but the UN and others have made it clear that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or even to survive in the camps. That is why it is so important to provide extra help. This is not an either/or.

Let me press the Home Secretary specifically on the UN programme. She will know that there is huge flexibility within the programme on the numbers of people whom Britain can offer to help, on Britain’s ability to do security checks on those coming forward, and on Britain’s ability to specify who and what kinds of refugees it can support. Will she therefore tell the House now whether she will agree in principle to sign up to the UN programme—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

This issue is of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are looking at the most appropriate way for us to provide support and enhance the support we are already giving. As I said in answer to the right hon. Lady’s first question, I am working with the Foreign Secretary, and announcements will be made in due course. She wants an answer from me today, but I can assure her that she will have a response from the Government in advance of the House considering the Opposition motion on Wednesday.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T4. My constituent, Rebecca Holmes, was murdered by an abusive ex-partner while under the protection of the police. We have waited two years for an Independent Police Complaints Commission report in order to learn the lessons. Can the Minister do anything to hurry such reports along, or at any rate to monitor how slowly they go?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police, the police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, and Chief Constable Adrian Lee on overseeing a 23% cut in violent crime—over halfway to their target of a 40% cut by 2016— that makes it the second most improving force in the country in this area of crime?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the work done by individual officers, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire. Their work is having a real impact on crime levels in the area, and that is of real benefit to those who live there. The Northamptonshire PCC has been at the forefront of looking at innovative ways for the police to work more effectively—for example, by bringing the blue light services together—and we support him in that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

T6. Given the responsibility of police and crime commissioners for setting force budgets, how many have been consulted on, and voiced their approval of, capping the police precept?

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend understand that many of us believe that, in the matter of Syrian refugees, the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a particular obligation? How can it be that we are not able to accept some of the children who have suffered so grievously—traumatised, orphaned and, in some cases, disabled—as a result of the unrest in Syria? Surely this is a matter for humanity on the part of the Government, or are we to allow our moral compass to be set by Mr Nigel Farage?

[Mrs May]

As I said in answer to the shadow Home Secretary, the UK has a good record in supporting hundreds of thousands of refugees in the region. I have heard the concern expressed on several occasions in this place by Members on both sides of the House on the specific issue of vulnerable refugees, and as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I are considering what further the UK might do.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

T7. Earlier, the policing Minister said he wanted police forces to do more to increase the recruitment of black and minority ethnic officers—I think he said the College of Policing should show some “early energies”. Why does he not go a step further and introduce a legal requirement for every force to increase the number of black and minority ethnic officers serving our communities?

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

May I press the Home Secretary on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) about the Police Federation? On the one hand, Normington made proposals that required legislation, but on the other hand, there are examples of the federation promoting injustice that Normington gave no answer to. Is there not a clear requirement for the Government to act on this matter?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), the Police Federation is considering its response to the Normington review, and I look forward to seeing what it proposes to bring forward as a result of its consideration. The Home Office stands ready to make the necessary changes to enable the federation to put in place the right structure to ensure that it is truly representative of police officers.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

T8. The Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot suspend officers, it cannot compel them to give interviews, it cannot prosecute them and its budget is smaller than that of the Met’s complaints department. Given what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, is it not time to reform this organisation so that we have a proper, independent, efficient investigatory body looking at the minority of police officers who offend?

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Each year, more than 1 million women suffer from domestic abuse, more than 300,000 are sexually assaulted and 60,000 are raped. These are shocking numbers. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle violence against women?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should all remain concerned about the fact that violence, particularly domestic violence, against women has continued at levels unchanged for some time now. The Government have ring-fenced funding—for example, to support the specialist local domestic and sexual violence advisers and advocates—and made changes to the law, for example introducing domestic violence protection orders to ensure that the victim can stay in their home and that it is the perpetrator who has to leave it when action is taken. So support is being given in a number of areas.

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

Since the Home Secretary has accepted that there is much understandable concern across the House about the Syrian situation, would it not be far better for the House to reach a unanimous agreement on Wednesday, instead of dividing, given that we all basically want the same outcome, which is to assist as far as possible victims of violence and terror in Syria?

[Mrs May]

Indeed, it would be good if the House could come together and send a clear message, which is why I have said we will put before the House, and ensure it is aware of, our proposal on this matter. The Foreign Secretary and I continue to work on that.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The Government have taken significant steps to combat online child abuse, working with the police, technology companies and independent charities and experts, but an intensified risk is now posed by the hidden internet software Tor. What action can the Government take?

Scotland Analysis (Borders and Citizenship)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today laying before the House the 10th paper in the Government’s Scotland analysis programme, “Scotland analysis: Borders and citizenship”. This series of publications is designed to inform the debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom ahead of this year’s referendum.

This paper analyses the UK’s framework for managing its common external border, considers the benefits of an absence of internal borders within the UK, as well as the implications for both if people in Scotland vote for independence. It also considers the impact that Scottish independence may have on issues of citizenship.

The paper sets out the importance of borders and the considerations that states around the world must take into account when determining how to manage their borders. It then analyses the UK’s internal and external borders, and examines the current framework for managing the UK’s external border.

The paper then considers the UK’s policies and systems for managing the movement of people into the UK, both for short-term visits and economic migration. It sets out some of the issues that the Government of an independent Scottish state may have to consider when determining how to manage the movement of people into and out of an independent Scotland.

It also assesses how the movement of goods, both legal and illegal, between Scotland and the UK could be impacted if Scotland became an independent state, and the challenges this could pose for the Governments of both the continuing UK and an independent Scottish state.

Finally, the paper also considers the question of citizenship and how an independent Scottish state may define its own citizenship policy. It then analyses the impact on the citizenship of the continuing UK if Scotland became an independent state.

Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2014 to ensure that people in Scotland have access to the facts and information ahead of the referendum.

Copies of the paper are available in the Vote Office.

Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

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

I would like to inform the House that changes have been made to the arrangements for publishing reports of the independent chief inspector for borders and immigration. The reports prepared by the chief inspector will from today be laid before Parliament in order to bring the process into line with the current legislation.

There is a requirement under section 50 of the UK Borders Act 2007 for the Home Secretary to lay copies of the reports of the independent chief inspector before Parliament. This requirement has only recently been brought to my notice and therefore, in order to comply with the legislation, I will now be laying the reports I receive from the chief inspector before Parliament.

This change in process will ensure that the requirements of the legislation are fulfilled but there is no change to the independence of the chief inspector and the work done by his office. The only amendment I may make to the reports that I receive are through the provision for redacting material on the grounds of national security or an individual’s safety in section 50 (3) of the 2007 Act.

All reports will continue to be available on the chief inspector’s website once they have been laid before Parliament.

Today two reports are being laid before Parliament; the first one is a report on the short notice inspection of a sham marriage enforcement operation and the second is report on an inspection of Border Force operations at Stansted airport. Neither of these reports contains redactions.

Copies of both of these reports are available in the Vote Office.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Since 11 September 2001 successive Governments have grappled with the problem of how to deal with terrorist suspects who can neither be prosecuted nor deported. The last Government first introduced the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in November 2001. This legislation effectively introduced detention without trial for foreign terrorist suspects who could be held pending deportation even when that deportation was unlikely ever to happen. In 2004 the Law Lords struck down those powers.

We later had the extraordinary spectacle of the attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention to 90 days, which was rightly defeated by Parliament, and in 2005 the last Government introduced control orders, but control orders too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) has said, were steadily eroded by the courts. Three control orders were quashed because the courts said they were wrong in principle, two control orders were revoked because the courts directed that they were no longer necessary, and three control orders were revoked because the previous Government felt they were unable to make the disclosures ordered by the court. All those individuals were then freed from their controls.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does what the right hon. Lady has just described not show that the judicial oversight of control orders was actually working?

[Mrs May]

I have to say that that is an ingenious argument to make in support of the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers, but what it shows is that the courts were giving a very clear message about aspects of control orders. What we needed was a regime that was legally viable and would command the confidence of the police and security services, and TPIMs have been consistently endorsed by the courts, two successive independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation, the police and the Security Service. They provide some of the strongest restrictions available in the democratic world and some of the strongest possible protections that our courts will allow. We now have a strong and sustainable legal framework to handle terrorist suspects whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.

[Hazel Blears]

I am beginning to have a concern that, as a result of the outcry because people have absconded from the TPIMs regime, the Government will in future be reluctant to use the TPIMs powers. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if there are people who pose a serious security risk to this country, the Government will continue to use the TPIMs powers, although they are considerably weakened in my view, to try to protect the people of this country?

[Mrs May]

The TPIMs remain on the statute book. They remain there as an option; they are an option for the Security Service and the police to look at in relation to any individual and to bring forward to the Secretary of State for determination and then through the court process, which the right hon. Lady knows is in place.

[Ian Paisley]

Some of us come from the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” brigade on a lot of these matters, but will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to spell out the additional measures, which she has referred to, that will convince us that what will be put in place will be stronger, better and give us more security?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman has a little patience, I shall refer to some of the other measures we have taken a little later on in my speech, but first I want to address the issue of funding.

As part of the TPIMs package, we provided additional funding to the Security Service and the police of tens of millions of pounds a year to help keep the public safe. For obvious reasons, I cannot go into detail on how that money was spent, but I can assure the House that it has significantly strengthened the police and the Security Service’s surveillance and counter-terrorism capabilities.

We followed that up by increasing spending on the security and intelligence agencies, most recently also protecting counter-terrorism policing budgets in the 2015-16 spending round. The police and Security Service made it clear that the move from control orders to TPIMs, combined with the additional funding for counter-terrorism, would not substantially increase overall risk. In fact, I can tell the House that the police and Security Service believe that TPIMs have been effective in disrupting the individuals subject to TPIMs and their networks.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Did the Home Office not fail to confiscate Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed’s passport when he was subject to a TPIM? Surely that is not a secure system.

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I made clear to the House following the statement I made on that individual, when that individual returned to the United Kingdom he did so on a document that was not a passport, and therefore the passport was not available to be taken.

Let me deal with the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Anyone listening to her would sometimes think that the control order regime would have solved every terrorist plot, but as well as the eight people released when the courts revoked their orders, another seven people absconded during the six years that control orders existed, and only one of those seven was ever found again, so people did abscond on control orders.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I may be about to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will let him intervene.

[Mr Straw]

One of the central differences between control orders and TPIMs that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned so far is the issue of relocation. Nobody absconded from relocation, and she cannot claim that she abandoned relocation because of orders from the courts, because the courts generally were supportive of relocation.

[Mrs May]

I was about to answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. When I refer to the seven absconds that took place under control orders, the answer that I always get from Opposition Members is about this issue of relocation. What neither he in his intervention, nor the right hon. Lady in her speech tell us is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases, including those of two individuals who were subsequently placed on TPIMs. The right hon. Lady also does not say that several control order subjects breached their control orders even while they were relocated, so the idea that relocation would prevent orders being breached is simply not correct. When the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was asked whether the removal of the option for relocation would have had any bearing on the case of Ibrahim Magag, in particular, he answered:

“we do not think so”.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What about the point made by David Anderson in his latest review? He says:

“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”

to terrorism.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because David Anderson has consistently said:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”

As I said at the beginning of my speech, that option, without charge or prosecution, has already been struck down by the highest courts in the land.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). He specifically said that the independent reviewer has said:

“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”

to terrorism-related activity. The Home Secretary has just claimed that the Government had to get rid of relocation because it kept getting struck down by the courts, but the independent reviewer has said the complete opposite. He has said that the courts supported the principle of relocation. Will she now make clear her view: does she simply think the independent reviewer is wrong or will she now withdraw her previous comments?

[Mrs May]

I will repeat precisely what I said a few minutes ago, which is that what the right hon. Lady never tells this House is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases. The point is that she and others speak about relocation in this House as if it was never queried, but it was; in four cases it was struck down.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary clarify whether the principle was objected to by the courts?

[Mrs May]

What I have made clear is that the courts struck down forced relocation in a number of cases. That is a fact that the shadow Front-Bench team never put before this House.

The Opposition’s motion also raises a number of other issues, as the right hon. Lady did in her speech, so let me start by addressing the issue of the two-year time limit. Again, the Opposition do not tell us the whole story. If the police or Security Service observe any of those individuals engaging in new terrorism-related activity, they can apply to have a new TPIM placed on that subject. That is something that is entirely open to them. Besides, people coming off restrictions is nothing new. Convicted prisoners serve their sentences and are released every day. Opposition Members can say what they like, but that also includes people convicted under the Terrorism Acts.

[Hazel Blears]

It would help the House enormously if the Secretary of State could confirm now whether she is prepared to look at the recommendation from David Anderson that at the end of a TPIM there be some power similar to licensed conditions when people are released from prison, so that at least there is some mechanism for making these people engage with the authorities, whether it is the National Offender Management Service or the probation service. There needs to be some vestige of control over those people’s activities.

[Mrs May]

I will come on to those points about individuals in general and individuals who are coming off TPIMs. As I have said, if individuals have been conducting new terrorism-related activity, it is perfectly possible for a new TPIM to be established and for a request to be made for that TPIM to be applied to those individuals.

The Opposition can say what they like about the issue of the two-year time limit, but I suggest that the fact that people are released having been convicted under the Terrorism Acts suggests that there are people released on to our streets who have been involved in acts of terrorism.

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Having been in her position, I remember what it is like trying to defend a very weak position. To compare people who are released from prison under terrorism legislation with people whose TPIM comes to an end is no comparison at all. Will she acknowledge that if someone is released from prison after serving a lengthy sentence for terrorism offences, they will be on licence and they are eligible to be recalled to prison straight away without any further court proceedings?

[Hon. Members]

They were convicted.

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friends are saying from a sedentary position, there is a basic difference between the individuals: one set of individuals has been prosecuted, convicted and put in prison. The suggestion that somebody who has at some stage been involved in terrorism activity is never allowed to be released on to the streets is not correct, yet that is the impression that the Opposition sometimes give. In their comments on control orders, they fail to concentrate on the fact that 43 people who were on control orders came off their restrictions. That may have been because the orders were allowed to expire or they were revoked or quashed by the courts, or people may have absconded. As I have said, even before TPIMs were introduced, the courts would simply not allow people to be parked permanently on control orders. When the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was asked whether he had concerns about time limits, he said, “I do not think so.”

[Pete Wishart]

It has come to something when the Tories are having to lecture Labour on civil liberties. Why does the right hon. Lady not just test the evidence? Why does she not make sure that those who are on TPIM orders are taken to the courts so that the courts can decide? Surely that is what we do in a democratic society.

[Mrs May]

We take individuals to court where it is possible and where there is evidence on individuals to prosecute them for crimes under the Terrorism Acts. The court is then able to make those decisions. The issue is what does society do with the individuals we are not able to deport or to prosecute. The Government took the decision at an early stage that we introduce TPIMs and give them a two-year time limit. That matter was debated and discussed in this House.

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

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) first and then the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), can she confirm on how many occasions the First Minister of Scotland or Scottish Ministers have lobbied her, expressing concerns about this or any future arrangements?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that these matters of security are reserved matters for us here in Westminster. I have not looked at the debate on these issues in Hansard, but I would not be surprised if the hon. Gentlemen from Scotland or indeed Northern Ireland took part.

I will now make some progress. On the specific cases, the police and Security Service have now been working for some time to put in place tailored plans to manage each individual once their TPIM restrictions are removed. Those plans, which are similar to those put in place for the release of prisoners who have served their sentences, are kept under constant review, and they are similar to the plans the police and Security Service use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.

I completely reject the suggestion that the Opposition are putting about that the police and Security Service have not carried out proper risk assessments of these individuals. They have done so because that is their job, and they have put in place specific, tailored plans to deal with each individual.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Home Secretary spell out very clearly that this will not be like the licence system? When the Labour party was in government, hundreds upon hundreds of licensed prisoners—including mass murderers—were released from our jails in Northern Ireland. Those people were at large to commit crime and their licences were only revoked after they had committed another crime. That was not good management. Will she assure us that the management system that will be put in place will not be like the licence system?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of this matter to the House. As I said, the police and Security Service have been putting plans in place for those individuals who will come off TPIMs, and they are similar to the plans they use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I am going to make some progress as I have taken quite a few interventions.

We continue to believe that the best place for a terrorist is behind bars. As I have said, if the police and Security Service find any individual engaging in new terrorism-related activity, the police will seek to have them prosecuted. If that is not possible, it is open to the police and Security Service to recommend that a new TPIM notice should be imposed.

In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim, I said that I would talk about the new powers that we have introduced. We have not just given extra money to the police and Security Service; we have strengthened their powers. In April last year, in a written statement to the House, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who we believe want to travel abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorist training or other fighting. That has significantly enhanced the security services’ powers in this area and the prerogative has already been used on several occasions, helping to disrupt terrorist suspects who want to travel abroad to gain skills or contacts that they could use to plot attacks in this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

In the cases of several of the six people expected to be released from TPIMs this month, the concerns raised were that they would travel abroad to be involved in terrorist activity. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether that power has been used to remove the passports of any of those who are coming off TPIMs this month?

[Mrs May]

I will not go into operational detail, but what I will say to the right hon. Lady is that it is open to the Security Service and police to make a request for the royal prerogative to be exercised in those cases where they think it is appropriate to do so.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary answered this question when she was asked about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, and specifically about his passport—she initially gave an incorrect answer to the Home Affairs Committee, which she then corrected. If she was prepared to answer a question about his passport, why is she refusing to answer legitimate questions about the attitude towards the passports of these suspects?

[Mrs May]

I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would have been able to distinguish between the information given to this House about the passport of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed and the question of whether the royal prerogative has been exercised.

Given the conflict in Syria, powers to disrupt terrorist travel are now particularly vital. The UK already has some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with suspected terrorists and those suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity, both in the UK and abroad. We will not hesitate to use every power at our disposal. If a terrorist suspect is a dual national, I will consider deprivation of their British citizenship, and the Government are considering strengthening our legal powers in that area. If a suspect is a foreign national, the Government can exclude them from the UK. This Government have excluded more foreign hate preachers than ever before.

We will further increase our efforts to remove foreign nationals from this country where they threaten our national security. After this Government finally secured the deportation of Abu Qatada—who was, of course, one of the original Belmarsh detainees—we introduced the Immigration Bill to make it easier for us to get foreign terrorist suspects out of our country. The Opposition failed to vote for that Bill on Second Reading.

As well as tackling foreign terrorist suspects, we are doing more to stop home- grown extremism. This summer, we saw events that shocked the nation, with the horrific killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich and the murder of Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham. Last month the Prime Minister announced new measures to tackle extremism, with the outcome of the extremism taskforce, which was established in the wake of those tragic events. That built on the revised Prevent strategy, which we extended to cover all forms of extremism, including non-violent extremism. We have already had success in restricting extremist speakers. Many events with extremist speakers have been referred to the police, some have been disrupted, and in other cases, venues have been persuaded not to host speakers with extreme views.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

That does not answer the central point. In January 2011, when introducing TPIMs, the Home Secretary said:

“there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported...no responsible Government could allow those individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 307-8.]

In relation to the five or six people who will be released, what assurance can she give to Parliament that they will not now go about their terrorist activity?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are some people whom it is not possible to deport or prosecute. That is the sentence I opened my speech with. That is precisely why we have the TPIM measures as possibilities to be used for certain individuals.

In addition to the other measures I have spoken about, more than 21,000 items of illegal terrorist content have been taken down from the internet. As I have mentioned, we have excluded more preachers of hate from this country than ever before. While some Labour politicians positively welcomed the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London, under this Government foreign hate preachers are not welcome here.

We are stopping terrorist suspects travelling abroad, we are depriving them of the option of coming back, we are deporting foreign terrorist suspects and we are doing more to tackle home-grown radicalisation.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered the basic question about whether these six men still pose a risk. Let me ask her about one of them, the man known as CD. She has told us plenty about him before and has said plenty to the courts. She told us plenty about Magag and Mohamed. Why does she not simply tell us now whether she believes that CD still poses a risk that he will pursue terrorist-related activity—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady and to the House that of those individuals who are coming off their TPIMs, the police and the Security Service have made a proper risk assessment and have put in place measures to ensure that they are dealing with those individuals in the way that they believe is appropriate. Those are decisions that they take.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s patience. I am sorry to try it, but I really do not think that she has answered the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. She was asked whether she believes that CD currently represents a threat. She responded by saying that an assessment was carried out. That is not the answer. Does she believe that CD poses a threat to the public safety of this country?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that quite a few hon. Members, possibly including the hon. Gentleman, want to speak in the debate and time is pressing. For every individual who comes off a TPIM, an assessment is made of the risk that they pose. That assessment is properly made by the police and Security Service, and that is a decision that it is right for them to make. They put into place the appropriate measures that they believe are right in order to deal with those individuals, as they do—as I have said—with other suspects, other people who are of concern, people who have not been on TPIMs or control orders.

The other issue is ensuring that we have successful prosecutions. There have been some notable recent successes. In the year to 30 June 2013, 40 individuals were convicted for terrorism-related offences, under both the Terrorism Acts and non-terrorism legislation, and a further 15 defendants were awaiting trial on 30 June 2013.

Those convicted include Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali, from the Birmingham area, who were convicted in February 2013 of offences including: travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism; collecting money for terrorism; assisting others to travel to Pakistan for training in terrorism; recruiting others for terrorism; and planning a bombing campaign, which was assessed to be potentially on a scale greater than the 2005 London bombings. Naseer was sentenced to life imprisonment for each count and will serve a minimum term of 18 years. Irfan Khalid received a sentence of 23 years. Ashik Ali received a sentence of 20 years.

On 30 April 2013 six men, also from Birmingham, pleaded guilty, following a police investigation, to preparing acts of terrorism. They had intended to attack an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury using a home-made improvised explosive device and various other weapons. Three of the men were sentenced to 19 years and six months, and the other three were sentenced to 18 years and nine months.

We should not forget that we must also tackle the threat from far-right extremism. Last year the police arrested Pavlo Lapshyn, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Mohammed Saleem in April 2013 and IED attacks on three mosques in the west midlands. He received a life sentence with a recommended minimum tariff of 40 years. Unlike the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentence, this Government have proposed that those convicted of serious terrorism offences should no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their sentence without an assessment of their suitability for release.

To keep us all safe, our police and security services do exceptional and often dangerous work every day. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their skill, courage and dedication. TPIMs are just one weapon in the considerable armoury of powers at their disposal. But the Government have shown that we are committed to doing all we can to support the police and Security Service in tackling the threats we face. That is why we have enhanced our powers to disrupt terrorist travel, we will help deport foreign terrorist suspects, and we have given the police and the Security Service tens of millions of pounds in extra funding each year. The police and the Security Service do a tremendous job in keeping our country safe. Rather than questioning their work, we should be supporting them with the powers and resources they need. That is why the Opposition’s motion deserves to fail.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has appointed David Lebrecht as the chair of the new National Crime Agency (NCA) Remuneration Review Body until 31 August 2018, commencing 20 January 2014. Mr Lebrecht, who is currently an employment relations consultant, brings a wealth of experience to the role. He was previously the interim HR director (and before that head of employee relations) for British Airways, and a member of the Prison Service Pay Review Body.

I am also pleased to announce that I have appointed as members of the review body:

Dr Brian Bell, a Lecturer in Economics at the University of Oxford and a Tutorial Fellow at Lady Margaret Hall.

Elizabeth Bell, Group Talent Development Director at Kingfisher plc.

Patrick Stayt, a lay Member of the Office of Judicial Complaints and previously National Secretary of the Police Superintendents’ Association.

Heather Baily, who has recently concluded her role as a Deputy Chief Inspector in Ireland and was previously Deputy Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police.

Christopher Pilgrim, HR Director at RWE NPower and a member of their senior management team.

These appointments will be to 31 August 2017, commencing 20 January 2014.

Subject to Parliament’s approval, the Police Negotiating Board will be abolished in 2014 and a Police Remuneration Review Body established. Once established, the NCA Remuneration Review Body will be abolished and the Police Remuneration Review Body will make recommendations on the remuneration both of police officers and NCA officers designated with operational powers. This successor body will be renamed the NCA and Police Remuneration Review Body.

The Prime Minister (in the case of the chair) and I (in the case of the members) have in the first instance, appointed these six individuals to the NCA Remuneration Review Body. We expect that they will take up their equivalent positions on the National Crime Agency and Police Remuneration Review Body when established.

These appointments have been made in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Modern Slavery

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Written Statements

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

Modern slavery is a brutal crime which knows no boundaries and does not discriminate on gender, age, creed, culture or race. Traffickers and slave masters exploit whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce, deceive and force individuals into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment. This is simply unacceptable in modern day Britain. We will not, and cannot let this continue.

That is why I have set up a new modern slavery unit in the Home Office, and it will be responsible for ensuring that we tackle this problem from every angle, while always keeping the plight of victims at the very heart of our policies and everything we do.

Today, I have published a White Paper which includes a draft Modern Slavery Bill (CM 8770) to strengthen our response and reduce the number of victims of this abhorrent crime. This flagship Bill will be the first of its kind in Europe, and sends a strong message, both domestically and internationally, that the UK is determined to put an end to modern slavery.

The Bill will simplify legislation, toughen sentences for slave drivers, and enable the courts to restrict activity where individuals may be at risk. This will mean that more traffickers are pursued, disrupted and brought to justice. The Bill will also create an Anti-Slavery Commissioner who will galvanise law-enforcement’s efforts to tackle modern slavery.

We have already asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to lead a series of evidence sessions. The draft Bill will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and copies will be available from the Vote Office. Both the Member for Birkenhead’s report and the Joint Committee’s report will inform development of the final Bill and an action plan which will be published in the spring.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Written Statements

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

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 5 and 6 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom; David Ford MLA, Justice Minister for the Northern Ireland Assembly, also attended. The following items were discussed.

At the start of the interior day the Commission (Reding) introduced its communication on the free movement of persons, which came as a result of UK pressure over recent months. The communication noted that while free movement was a right, that right did not include moving to another member state to claim benefits. The Commission noted that appropriate safeguards and tools were available under EU law to combat fraud and abuse and committed to work with member states on these issues. The Commission believed that the five actions set out in the communication represented concrete tools to maximise and protect the benefits of free movement. In particular, the Commission committed to finalise the draft of the sham marriage handbook and, together with the Committee of the Regions, agreed to organise a conference of mayors on 11 February 2014.

The UK (Home Secretary) acknowledged that freedom of movement was an important principle of the EU, but it could not be an unqualified one. While recognition in the communication that pressure had increased at a local level was welcome, it was disappointing that the Commission had failed to take seriously the evidence provided by member states. The UK believed the Commission needed to accept that fraudulent claims for social welfare were a growing problem, and that current rules on social security co-ordination prevented member states from taking the necessary steps to ensure that only those migrating to work and contribute to a host country’s economy could access welfare benefits. On the sham marriage handbook, the UK and others were not in a position to accept the draft given its narrow focus. The Home Secretary also highlighted the domestic changes to tighten the UK’s implementation of free movement rules and to protect local communities, which had been announced by the Prime Minister. In conclusion, the UK said the EU of today was different to the EU of 30 years ago and the Prime Minister had recently been clear that transition to free movement for future accession countries could not be done on the same basis as it was in the past. The UK believed that abuse of free movement must also be part of the next justice and home affairs work programme.

A number of other member states thought the Commission’s response to the abuse of free movement was insufficient and ineffective, by failing to clarify member states’ legal powers or proposing new actions to protect the freedom of movement from abuses such as benefit fraud, document fraud and sham marriage. If the Commission was not in a position to support, member states would consider working together outside the EU structures. Free movement rights came with responsibilities, and tackling abuse would increase public trust in the EU and the national authorities. Others noted that free movement was a fundamental right and that the overwhelming majority of citizens move to work. However, abuse, where it existed, needed to be tackled. The presidency noted that the Council would return to these issues in the future.

The counter-terrorism co-ordinator (CTC) presented a paper on foreign fighters in Syria and asked for a steer on how the proposals should be taken forward. The Commission emphasised that while much of this work was the responsibility of the member states, it stood ready to support. The European External Action Service (EEAS) drew attention to the fact that not every European who travelled to Syria was driven by extremism and that humanitarian motives played a significant role. Eurojust noted that the existing legal framework across the member states was sufficient and considered judicial co-operation with non-EU states to be crucial. Europol stressed that the success of its work relied upon information provided by member states.

All interventions supported the CTC’s paper and the majority called for an emphasis on prevent work, third country engagement, and for greater use of existing information systems. Almost all member states specifically referenced the importance of agreeing the EU passenger name records (PNR) directive. The UK updated Ministers on the key findings of the extremism taskforce report of 4 December and pushed for EU work to focus on prevent initiatives, particularly welcoming moves in the internet and social media sphere. The UK underlined the importance of the PNR directive, particularly intra-EU PNR, third country engagement and aligning foreign fighters work with that of the EEAS and external affairs partners.

Over lunch the Commission presented its biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area and its fourth report on the post-visa liberalisation mechanism for the western Balkan countries. Those member states that had experienced spikes in asylum claims from the western Balkans region last year expressed continued concerns.

Following the commitment made at the March JHA Council, the presidency presented the state of play on Bulgarian and Romanian accession to Schengen. A unanimous decision at this time was not possible. Romania and Bulgaria stressed that all criteria to accede to Schengen had been met. The presidency suggested the Council return to this at its earliest convenience.

The Council discussed the Commission’s communication setting out the EU’s response to the Lampedusa tragedy of 3 October developed through the Commission-led “Task Force Mediterranean”. The short and medium-term actions to prevent further migrant deaths in the Mediterranean were broadly endorsed and there was a strong consensus that co-operation with countries of origin and transit was the key to preventing migrant deaths and illegal immigration flows. Ministers were more cautious about further sea operations in the Mediterranean, and the Commission’s proposal to open more legal migration channels was met with scepticism by some member states. The UK broadly welcomed the proposed measures, but shared others’ concerns about proposals for more protected entry and legal migration routes to the EU, which were unlikely to have any significant impact on the problem. The focus of the EU response should instead be on preventative work upstream, particularly in Libya and Tunisia; this activity was also important in the context of Syria. The presidency confirmed that it would report the outcome to the December European Council.

The Council considered the future JHA strategic guidelines and the principles which should underpin them. A central theme running through the debate was to ensure implementation and consolidation of existing EU measures while ensuring that all future measures were carefully assessed against the need for new measures and their added value. The UK supported development of a short, strategic set of priorities and reiterated that tackling free movement abuse, reducing illegal immigration, action against human trafficking, return of foreign offenders and improved exchange of criminal records should be the most important priorities for action. The UK also argued that the JHA Council should play a leading role in developing future guidelines. The Commission noted its priorities would include better integration policies, implementation of the common European asylum system, solidarity and contingency planning, credible policies on tackling irregular migration and return, strengthening internal security, and preventing cross-border crime, tackling trafficking of firearms, linking internal and external policies and using EU funds to support Home Affairs priorities. The presidency welcomed written contributions it received from member states which would consolidate and share with the incoming Greek presidency. It was agreed that the new presidency stood ready to continue work at the start of 2014.

Under AOB the presidency reported on the EU-US Ministerial meeting in Washington on 18 November.

The incoming Greek presidency then listed its priorities which included reviewing a strategy to combat terrorism, focusing on the western Balkans; developing measures dealing with the source of illegal immigration and returns; combating trafficking in conjunction with third countries; revising the European common asylum system; completing the legal migration legislative framework; and promoting discussion on the entry of third-country nationals to the EU for study and work.

Justice day began with a discussion of the “One Stop Shop” in relation to the data protection regulation, the part of the regulation intended to streamline oversight and decision-making by supervisory authorities, by conferring these powers on a single supervisory authority in cases where a data controller has establishments in a number of member states.

The UK expressed support for a simple model with decision-making made in the majority of cases by a single supervisory authority. Other member states had mixed views. Given the conflicting positions, it was clear that the experts group would need to reconvene. The Commission nonetheless hoped that the Council could adopt an approach quickly. The Council agreed a general approach on the compromise text for the regulation on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), which the UK has not opted into, allowing the Council to open negotiations with the European Parliament in December.

There was then an orientation debate on the insolvency proposal, which focused on jurisdiction, interconnection of registers and co-operation between courts. While there was broad support for the proposal, specific concerns remain. In particular, the UK, along with others, raised concerns about the “adequate safeguards” and additional search criteria for consumer insolvency cases being too onerous and stressed the need for free access to the registers. Other member states raised concerns about abusive forum shopping (especially as concerns natural persons). The presidency concluded that although there was support for much of the text, there were still several difficulties, and called for continued work at expert level.

The Council adopted a general approach on the amendment to Brussels 1 regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The amendment is necessary to give effect to the patent package adopted last December and will include two common courts in the Brussels 1 system — the Unified Patent Court and the Benelux Court.

The presidency noted progress on the common European sales law proposal and that this had been a priority file, but also cautioned that this was very technical and there needed to be careful consideration of the detailed provisions in the annex.

Over lunch there was a discussion on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). This followed the recent publication of the Commission’s response to the subsidiarity yellow card triggered by a number of national Parliaments. The UK expressed concern that the Commission’s review was inadequate. It amounted to more of a legal defence of the proposal than a considered review of the opinions expressed by national Parliaments. There was some support from other member states for this position, and the Commission committed to consider the concerns of national Parliaments further during the course of negotiations.

The Council debated the Commission’s justice scoreboard. Eleven member states, including the UK, expressed concerns. The UK, supported by some other member states, expressed more fundamental concerns with the principle of the Commission undertaking this work and stressed that there should be no duplication with the work undertaken by the Council of Europe.

The presidency then informed the Council of its intention, at the request of Attorney-General holder, to provide the US with a contribution from the EU and its member states to the ongoing US review of its own surveillance legislation. The draft contribution was agreed.

There was then an initial discussion on future priorities for the JHA area following the expiry of the Stockholm programme, prior to the adoption of strategic guidelines at the European Council in June. The UK, along with a substantial number of other member states, expressed strong support for an approach based on practical co-operation, better regulation principles, consolidation and implementation of existing legislation, cost-effectiveness and cost-analysis in impact assessments, subsidiarity, and proportionality. The presidency concluded that work would continue under the Greek presidency with an overall approach based on: strategic guidelines that were concise and results-orientated; correct implementation of legal acts already adopted; consolidation; avoiding a catalogue of measures; a focus on quality; increased mutual trust; a focus on fundamental rights; and e-justice.

On the EU Accession to ECHR, the presidency explained that it was waiting for the consolidated text of the internal rules but the Commission’s formal proposal would only be issued after the Court opinion.

The Council adopted a strategy on e-justice, as well as Council conclusions on the fundamental Rights Agency; combating hate crime and citizenship. Both the presidency and the Fundamental Rights Agency recalled the conference in Vilnius on combating hate crime and crimes of totalitarian regimes.

The Council concluded with a presentation of priorities by the incoming Greek presidency. This would include continuing the work on post-Stockholm planning for the JHA area. They would aim for a general approach on data protection and insolvency. They would also aim for adoption of the European account preservation order, protection of the financial interests of the Union, as well as counterfeiting the euro and other currencies. They would also work on common European sales law, legalisation, European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust and the market abuse directive.

Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government keep visa regimes under constant review to ensure that the UK has the right visa requirements set in the right places, aligned to risk. Today I am laying changes to the immigration rules to provide a new, straightforward and free alternative to a visa for short-term visitors from Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). We intend to extend similar arrangements to Kuwait later in 2014. Britain is open for business and genuine visitors and tourists coming here to enjoy our world-class attractions, study or do business are always welcome.

Passport holders of Oman, Qatar and the UAE will, from 1 January 2014, be able to travel to the UK visa-free if they have obtained an electronic visa waiver (EVW) document online at least 48 hours in advance of travel to the United Kingdom, and present the document to an immigration officer upon request on arrival.

This simple online form means there is no fee, there will be no requirement to give biometrics or attend a visa application centre. Guidance will be published on the Home Office website. Some visitors may still prefer a long-term multi-entry visit visa and the facility to obtain these visas will remain.

I am also laying a change relating to the Vatican City. Holders of non-national travel documents require a visa before travel to the United Kingdom. This rule includes holders of service, temporary service and diplomatic passports issued by the Holy See. The Government have assessed the procedures for issuance of these documents and consider that they are robust enough to merit an exemption from the visit visa requirement. Nationals and citizens of the Vatican City are already exempt from the visa requirement.

The changes also include minor amendments to the rules for armed forces and for graduate entrepreneurs.

Alongside these changes, UK visas and immigration continues to be focused on delivering excellent customer service to business and leisure visitors and ensuring that the UK maintains a competitive visa system that can innovate in order to serve the ever-changing needs of business and ensure Britain succeeds in the global race.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 5 and 6 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items will be discussed.

The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland—non-EU Schengen states—where Ministers will consider the latest situation in relation to Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the Schengen acquis.

That will be followed by a debate on the latest Commission report on the functioning of the Schengen area. This item is considered by the Council every six months following a debate on Schengen governance at the 2011 June European Council. While we only participate in the police and criminal justice elements of Schengen, having chosen to retain our own border controls, the UK has an interest in its wider functioning due to the impact on the UK of illegal immigration transiting Schengen states.

During the main Council there will be a discussion on the EU’s response to the Lampedusa tragedy, with a report from the new Commission-led “Task Force Mediterranean”, which is developing a coherent set of measures to tackle dangerous sea crossings by migrants attempting to reach the EU. The Government are pleased with the work of the taskforce to date and want to ensure that it remains focused on preventative action in third countries, including by combating people smugglers.

The Commission will present its final report on free movement abuse, requested by the Council in June. The Commission’s communication, published on 25 November, outlines the current legal framework and sets out five existing actions previously announced by Commissioner Reding in October, including work on a handbook to tackle sham marriage, clarifying the habitual residence test and increasing European social funds available for integration. The Government plan to express their disappointment that the Commission continues to fail to take seriously the concerns raised by member states about fraud and abuse, and press for further action.

The Council will return to the issue of the potential threat posed by foreign fighters, with a discussion around ideas to be presented by the EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove. We expect these to focus on four key areas: information exchange, preventative action, criminal justice response and co-operation with third countries. The UK has sought to inform this work drawing on our experience in taking forward our domestic counter-terrorism strategy, Contest.

We understand that there will be a discussion on both days on strategic guidelines on future work in the area of justice and home affairs. The Government welcome substantive debate on this issue since they take the view that member states must use this opportunity to set the direction for future work in this area, with the JHA Council closely involved in preparing, and subsequently overseeing implementation of, the new guidelines. The Government support a shorter, more strategic set of guidelines than in previous work programmes, focusing on the full and effective implementation of the legislation that has already been adopted, and practical co-operation in priority areas, as opposed to new legislation or a detailed list of measures to be adopted. The Government’s priority areas for EU action are: preventing the abuse of free movement rights; strengthening the EU’s external borders; action against modern slavery; more effective return of foreign prisoners to their country of origin; and improved exchange of criminal records.

Under AOB there will be presentations from the incoming Greek presidency on its work programme and from the presidency on current legislative proposals and the outcome of the EU-US justice and home affairs ministerial meeting. In the margins of the Council a—non-binding—political declaration for the new mobility partnership with Tunisia has been scheduled for signature by participating member states. The UK will participate.

The justice day will begin with a discussion on the concept of the one-stop shop mechanism contemplated in the draft data protection regulation. The presidency has indicated its wish to reach a partial general approach on those aspects, though it is possible the Council will conclude that this would be premature.

The Council will be aiming for general approach on the European account preservation order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. The UK has not opted in to this proposal because of concerns about whether defendants’ interests were sufficiently safeguarded.

The presidency will facilitate an orientation debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council regulation on insolvency proceedings.

This will be followed by a discussion aimed at achieving a general approach on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I) to allow the new unified patent court to be recognised as a court for the purposes of the regulation.

There will be information by the presidency on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common European sales law.

On non-legislative activities, there will be a presentation by the Commission and exchange of views on the justice related aspect of 2014 European semester, including the “Justice Scoreboard”.

The Council will seek to adopt three sets of Council conclusions: on the evaluation of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the EU Citizenship Report 2013 and on combating hate crime.

The presidency will provide a state of play report on the accession of the European Union to the European convention on human rights.

The presidency will also provide an update on work achieved on e-justice during its term and will be seeking agreement on a strategy for this work as it goes forward.