Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the decision whether the UK should opt out of those EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before the Lisbon treaty came into force.

As hon. Members will be aware, this is a stand-alone decision that the Government are required to make under the terms of the Lisbon treaty by 31 May 2014, with that decision taking effect on 1 December of that year. It covers about 130 measures, some of which it is clearly in our national interest to remain part of, but if we wish to remain bound by only some of the measures, we must exercise our opt-out from them all en masse and seek to rejoin those that we judge to be in our national interest.

The Government have committed to a vote in this House and the other place before formally deciding on the matter. We shall honour that commitment in full. Next week, hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate and vote on this approach. Following our discussions in Europe, another vote will be held on the final list of measures that the UK will formally apply to rejoin.

Let me briefly set out the rationale by which the Government have approached the decision. We believe the UK should opt out of the measures in question for reasons of principle, policy and pragmatism and that we should seek to rejoin only those measures that help us co-operate with our European neighbours to combat cross-border crime and keep our country safe.

On principle, I am firmly of the belief that the UK’s international relations in policing and criminal justice are first and foremost a matter for Her Majesty’s Government. In policy terms, the UK has and will continue to have the ability to choose whether it should opt in to any new proposal in the field of justice and home affairs. It is therefore right that we take the opportunity to consider whether we wish to retain the measures that were joined by the previous Government and to decide on a case-by-case basis whether we are willing to allow the European Court of Justice to exercise jurisdiction over them in future.

Finally, the Government are being pragmatic. I have said before that we will not leave the UK open to the threat of infraction and fines which run into many millions of pounds by remaining bound by measures we simply cannot implement in time. That would be senseless. In a number of areas, the measures relate to minimum standards in substantive criminal law. Even before their adoption, the UK already met or exceeded the vast majority of these standards and will continue to do so whether or not we are bound by them.

As people have become more mobile in recent years, so too has crime. The Government have sought and listened carefully to the views of our law enforcement agencies which combat it. We understand that some of the measures covered by this decision are important tools that they need to protect the British public. The Government have identified 35 measures which we will seek to rejoin in the national interest.

That set of measures, on which we propose to begin our discussions with the European Commission and other member states, is laid out in Command Paper 8671, which is published today. I want to be clear: what must happen next is a process of negotiation with the European Commission and other member states, and those negotiations will determine the final list of measures we formally apply to rejoin. But we promised that we would set out these measures clearly and give hon. Members time to consider them before asking them to vote—and that is what we have done.

One of the measures we will seek to rejoin, and on which I know many hon. Members have strong views, is the European arrest warrant. I agree with our law enforcement agencies that the arrest warrant is a valuable tool in returning offenders to the UK. Its predecessor, the 1957 European convention on extradition, had serious drawbacks. The arrest warrant has helped us to secure and accelerate successful extradition procedures, as shown by the case of Osman Hussain, one of the failed London bombers of July 2005, who was extradited back to the UK from Italy in less than eight weeks. More recently, Jeremy Forrest, the teacher who was sentenced last month for absconding to France with one of his pupils, was extradited back to the UK less than three weeks after his arrest.

Since 2009 alone, the arrest warrant has been used to extradite from the UK 57 suspects for child sex offences, 86 for rape and 105 for murder. In the same period, 63 suspects for child sex offences, 27 for rape and 44 for murder were extradited back to Britain to face charges. A number of these suspects would probably have not been extradited back to Britain without the arrest warrant. We owe it to their victims, and to their loved ones, to bring these people to justice. However, the European arrest warrant has its problems, too, as hon. Members have eloquently explained in this House. The last Government had eight years to address these concerns, and did nothing; this Government have taken action. I am today proposing additional safeguards to rectify these problems and increase the protections offered to those wanted for extradition, particularly British citizens.

A number of hon. Members have explained how European arrest warrants have been issued disproportionately for very minor offences. I will address this by amending the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is in Committee, to ensure that an arrest warrant can be refused for minor crimes. This should stop cases such as that of Patrick Connor, who was extradited because he and two friends were found in possession of four counterfeit banknotes.

We will also work with other states to enforce their fines and ensure that in future, where possible, the European investigation order is used instead of the European arrest warrant. This would allow police forces and prosecutors to share evidence and information without requiring the extradition of a suspect at the investigative stage.

Other hon. Members have expressed concerns about lengthy and avoidable pre-trial detention. I will amend our Extradition Act 2003 to ensure that people in the UK can be extradited under the European arrest warrant only when the requesting state has already made a decision to charge and a decision to try, unless that person’s presence is required in that jurisdiction for those decisions to be made. Many Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), will recall the case of Andrew Symeou, who spent 10 months in pre-trial detention, and a further nine months on bail, in Greece, only to be acquitted. The change that I am introducing would have allowed Andrew Symeou to raise, in his extradition hearing, the issue of whether a decision to charge him and a decision to try him had been taken. It would likely have prevented his extradition at the stage he was surrendered—and, quite possibly, altogether. We will also implement the European supervision order to make it easier for people such as Mr Symeou to be bailed back to the UK.

Other hon. Members are concerned about people being extradited for conduct that is not criminal in British law. I will amend our law to make it clear that in cases where part of the conduct took place in the UK, and is not criminal here, the judge must refuse extradition for that conduct. I also intend to make better use of existing safeguards to provide further protections. I will ensure that people who consent to extradition do not lose their right not to be prosecuted for other offences, reducing costs and delays. We propose that the prisoner transfer framework decision be used to its fullest extent, so that UK citizens extradited and convicted can be returned to serve their sentence here.

Where a UK national has been convicted and sentenced abroad, for example in their absence, and is now the subject of a European arrest warrant, we will ask, with their permission, for the warrant to be withdrawn, and will use the prisoner transfer arrangements instead. This change could have prevented the extraditions of Michael Binnington and Luke Atkinson, who were sent to Cyprus only to be returned to the UK six months later.

To prevent other extraditions occurring at all, I intend either to allow the temporary transfer of a consenting person, so that they can be interviewed by the issuing state’s authorities, or to allow those authorities to do that through such means as video conferencing while the person is in the UK. Where people are innocent, this should lead to the extradition request being withdrawn. These are all changes that can be made in UK law, and that could have been made by the Opposition during their time in government. Co-operation on cross-border crime is vital, but we must also safeguard the rights of British citizens, and the changes that we propose will do that.

Before I conclude, I am conscious that hon. Members want to know our approach to the new Europol regulation. I fully recognise the excellent work of Europol and its British director, Rob Wainwright. Hon. Members may recall Operation Golf, a joint operation led by Europol and the Metropolitan police, which cracked down on a human trafficking gang operating in llford, and which led to the release of 28 trafficked children and the arrest of 126 suspects. It is for such reasons that we propose rejoining the existing Europol measure.

On the new proposal, the Government have today tabled a motion that will be the basis of a Lidington-style debate on the Floor of the House next week, following the debate and vote on the plan that I have outlined today. That motion states that we should opt in, post adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflict with our national security.

For reasons of policy, principle and pragmatism, I believe that it is in the national interest to exercise the United Kingdom’s opt-out, and rejoin a much smaller set of measures that help us to co-operate with our European neighbours in the fight against serious and organised crime. I also believe that Her Majesty’s Government must strike the right balance between supporting law enforcement and protecting our traditional liberties. What I have outlined today will achieve both those goals, and I commend this statement to the House.

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

So, after three years of briefing and trying to brandish her anti-European credentials, the Home Secretary has been forced to admit the truth: Britain does need the European arrest warrant, it does need joint investigation teams, Europol, the exchange of criminal records and help to tackle online child abuse. Why, then, did she and Members of her party all vote against all those measures just four weeks ago? Why has it taken the Home Secretary three years to realise that we do not want to go back to the days of the costa del crime, when British criminals could flee to Spain or European criminals could find safe haven here?

Last year the Government briefed The Sun that they would opt out of the European arrest warrant, opt out of the European evidence warrant and opt out of action against counterfeiting. Now the right hon. Lady admits that she needs them and she is going to do the opposite. The Prime Minister described the European arrest warrant as “highly objectionable” and the Fresh Start group wanted to stay out of everything, but the Home Secretary has had to admit what we and the police have argued from the start—we need the European arrest warrant in the fight against crime. We agree with reforming the European arrest warrant to make it proportionate, but as she has just shown, she does not need to opt out of working with Europe in order to do that.

The Home Secretary said very little in her statement about what she wants to opt out of or why, so let us look at the detail. Some of those measures have been replaced already, some do not operate any more, some we have never used anyway and do not have to, and others are just agreements to co-operate and we will carry on co-operating anyway. She is opting out of a directory of specialist counter-terror officers, which no longer exists anyway; a temporary system of dealing with counterfeit documents, which has been replaced anyway; a load of rules applying specifically to Portugal, Spain and Croatia, which do not apply in the UK; and a directory of contacts of extradition experts in each country. This is hardly a triumph of repatriation.

The Home Secretary has tried to play Britannia, clothing herself in the Union Jack, parading powers that she is repatriating from Brussels, but where is the substance? The truth is that she is not wearing a flag; it is simply a fig leaf. As for next week’s vote, she told the House that this was

“an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly”—[Official Report, 12 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 421.]

Yet she wants Parliament to vote on her proposals in six days’ time. She promised the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee that they would be able to scrutinise the list and she has given them three working days to do so. She has been thinking about it for three years.

We will look at the right hon. Lady’s list and her motion for next week, but this is the wrong strategy—the wrong way to make serious policy on crime and justice. Where are the guarantees that we will be able to opt back into the serious measures we need, even the 35 measures that she supports? Where is the guarantee that we will be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and the criminal records that she has now admitted we need? Presumably she has those guarantees. She told the House that she was starting negotiations with the Commission last October, so given how much is at stake in the fight against crime, I presume she has done a deal with the European Commissioner that we will definitely be able to opt back into those measures. Where is it?

Ministers have said that this will be a difficult negotiation, and we must not put those important powers at risk for the sake of opting out of a few contact lists. We must not make it easier for European criminals to hide here if we lose the European arrest warrant. We have just spent eight years trying to get rid of Abu Qatada. We do not want to make it easier for European criminals to stay here, so let the Home Secretary answer just two questions: will we be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant? Has she got a guarantee that we will be able to do so, and if we do not get that guarantee, will she ditch her whole opt-out plan? Without those guarantees this is a dangerous strategy that puts the fight against crime at risk.

The Home Secretary is putting politics before the fight against crime, but this is not a game. Crime does not stop at the channel. This is about whether we can stop dangerous criminals fleeing abroad and whether we can send foreign criminals back to face justice at home. This is about whether we can work with Europe on trafficking and child abuse, so where is the guarantee that this Home Secretary is not putting that serious fight against crime at risk?

[Mrs May]

Oh dear, oh dear. The right hon. Lady had an opportunity to come to the House and enter into a serious exchange about our ability to operate on a cross-border basis, catch criminals, and keep British citizens safe. She also had the opportunity to indicate whether the Opposition believe it right that we give greater safeguards and protections to British citizens in the operation of the European arrest warrant. Instead, we got a rant that did nothing other than expose the considerable confusion that lies at the heart of the Labour party on this issue.

The right hon. Lady asks whether we have guarantees for the negotiation, and complains about the negotiation process. Who negotiated this opt-out in the Lisbon treaty? It was not either of the coalition parties; the Labour party negotiated the opt-out, so any failings in how it operates are entirely down to the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr John Robertson, I do not know whether you consumed a high-energy breakfast or something, but you seem to be in hyperbolic mode. What we want is your statesmanlike pose. Calm yourself, man, and get a grip.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady referred to a motion tabled by the Opposition in an Opposition day debate, and identified seven measures that she said it was necessary to rejoin. What about measures such as the European supervision order or those to do with removing criminals’ assets? Are those powers not important as well? They are on our list, but they were not on that of the right hon. Lady.

Finally, I failed to hear in the right hon. Lady’s comments whether those on the Labour party Front Bench support the decision to opt out—a decision available only because her Government negotiated it in the first place. We believe it is absolutely right to exercise that opt-out, and to negotiate and rejoin those measures that are important for cross-border operations and co-operation between our police forces. Labour Members may come to the House and the right hon. Lady may stand up, foam at the mouth and rant at the Government about these measures, but it is high time she put her position on the line and made clear what her party will do in the debate next week.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement simply aggravates concerns that the European Scrutiny Committee has expressed since her October statement. Why has the Committee been consistently denied the information and consultation that it, the Justice Committee and the Home Affairs Committee were promised? We have been given neither proper time nor opportunity to consider these matters. We shall be meeting tomorrow and considering those questions in line with Standing Orders, and we shall then decide what action to take.

[Mrs May]

We brought the proposals forward now because it is right that we have time to negotiate with the European Commission. As I indicated in my statement, there will be further opportunity for the House to consider the list of measures that we negotiate with the European Commission. I say to my hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Members who chair the Committees to which he referred that the total list of measures has been available for those Committees to consider for some considerable time. The Government are indicating today which measures we wish to seek to rejoin. There will be a debate next week in the House and an opportunity to vote on that. As I have indicated, there will be further consideration and a vote at a later stage.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

To coin an immediate phrase, “Oh dear, oh dear”—a statement today. In view of the Home Secretary’s remarks about the criminal justice system being primarily for this House—I cannot disagree with that in the light of the judgment at Strasbourg today on a measure that I took to make life mean life—is it not appropriate, as has just been requested, to give Members more time to consider what she has said before holding the debate scheduled for next week? Or is this just a straight political ploy, rather than a statesmanlike approach to an important issue?

[Mrs May]

This House will have time to consider the opt-out and the measures we seek to rejoin. Not only will there be a debate next week, but there will be further opportunity to comment on and discuss in the House those measures we are negotiating to rejoin with the European Commission.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement; it is good to hear her being so positive about the benefits of key measures such as Europol, Eurojust and the European arrest warrant, and she is right to opt back into those. I was also pleased to hear about the implementation of the European supervision order. Will she let the House know the timetable for that and say whether it can be introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill?

[Mrs May]

The European supervision order is one measure we will seek to rejoin, but there must be a negotiation process with the European Commission and other member states before it is possible to ensure that we are able to rejoin the measures we wish to rejoin. I am afraid the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will not be a vehicle for the European supervision order.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Yesterday I joined others in elevating the Home Secretary to sainthood over the Abu Qatada decision, but I am afraid her halo has slipped a little. There is nothing wrong with a pick-and-mix Europe as far as the justice and home affairs agenda is concerned, but I agree wholeheartedly with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash): I think it shows disrespect for the Committees of this House, and for Parliament when we do not have the opportunity to consider which measures the Government wish to opt in or out of.

It is not sufficient to say there will be a debate next Monday. We have been waiting for five months for this decision. Five Chairs of Select Committees wrote to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Europe and we received nothing until today. I urge her to delay the decision to hold a vote on Monday, and to allow the Committees to examine the issue carefully. She is due to appear before the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday, so let us scrutinise this issue properly. I am sure she will get the result she wants because I am sure she will be able to make the arguments. Rushing this decision when she has more than eight or nine months in which to make it and inform the Commission is too hasty.

[Mrs May]

I recall the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday when I made the statement about Abu Qatada’s deportation. I also recall that I said it was most unusual for the Home Office to receive such praise, and that I assumed normal service would be resumed quickly, as indeed it has been. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee. There will be an opportunity to debate this issue next week, and a further opportunity for the House to consider the measures we seek to rejoin. All Select Committees of this House have known the list of measures that the Government have been considering, and they have had the opportunity to look at them and give an opinion.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House and making this statement, and for taking on board the views of the all-party group on human trafficking about the requirement to have joint investigation teams, and for highlighting Operation Golf in her statement. I am struggling with the rush to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) just referred. Will we have a first bite of the cherry next week with a debate, and then consider individual measures later after the Select Committees have reported? If not, I am not entirely sure—it appears that the Executive are bouncing Parliament.

[Mrs May]

I apologise; I referred to this in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. The reason for coming forward now is that we are able to start formal negotiation with the European Commission and other member states on those measures we seek to rejoin. Had we not been doing that, we would have significantly reduced our ability in time terms to hold those negotiations with the European Commission.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My constituents are particularly concerned about the 90% of prisoners repatriated from the UK under the European arrest warrant who are foreign nationals. Will the Secretary of State make a categorical assurance that under the arrangements she proposes there will be no delay in repatriating those foreign nationals from our prisons? We understand there have been considerable delays recently, and that numbers of those going have not been as good as they should have been.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady refers in general to the question of foreign national prisoners and their removal from the UK. Of course, that covers those who are EU citizens and those who are from outside the EU. With regard to EU citizens, the prisoner transfer framework decision gives us the opportunity to work with other member states on a bilateral basis to ensure that we can repatriate UK citizens to serve their sentences here and remove their nationals from the UK to serve their sentences abroad. That is what we intend to do.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Home Secretary asserts that rejoining the 35 measures will be in our national interest. Where is the evidence for that? Is there a cost-benefit analysis? How does that fit in with the balance of competences review? Will we be asked next week to endorse that approach, rather than just receiving the information?

[Mrs May]

I have published today in the Command Paper the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the measures we are looking to rejoin—it refers to the others as well—and explains what each is about. The debate will be about the Government’s position of opting out and then seeking to rejoin the 35 measures. That will enable us to enter into proper negotiations with the European Commission and other member states. I believe that it is right that we seek to rejoin measures that enable us to co-operate on a cross-border basis in dealing with cross-border crime and keeping people safe.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Is there strong support across the coalition Government for the Home Secretary’s proposal to opt out? If the decision to opt out is finally taken, will that apply to the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?

[Mrs May]

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), has spoken with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland and we have started discussions on the implications for Northern Ireland.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Home Secretary hopes to change how the European arrest warrant operates by amending our domestic law, but will she confirm that under her policy it is ultimately the European Court of Justice that will decide?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right in that rejoining measures means that they will come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which is why we have given such careful thought and consideration to the list of measures we are seeking to rejoin, but it is possible for this Parliament to make decisions in UK law that change the way the European arrest warrant operates and give us some of the safeguards that many Members of this House feel other EU member states have had, for example in relation to proportionality. As I said in my statement, I am only sorry that the previous Labour Government did not do that when they had the opportunity.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary referred to Operation Golf and the human trafficking operation, which was carried out by some individuals in Ilford. Will she take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that it is essential that we remain within Europol and that any move to take this country away from the European Union would damage that co-operation?

[Mrs May]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the European Commission has brought forward a proposal for a new regulation relating to Europol. We propose to opt back into the current Europol regulation. The new regulation would allow the possibility that Europol could in future direct police forces across Europe, and notably our police forces, in order to undertake investigations, so they could be mandated by Europol at the centre. We believe in operational independence for our police forces here in the UK and are not prepared to see Europol being able to mandate them.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The decision to which the Home Secretary referred today in her welcome statement was made under the terms of the Lisbon treaty. How do those relate to the wholesale renegotiation of our relationship with the EU that a Conservative Government are pursuing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he enables me to answer the earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on the balance of competences work. We absolutely have the opportunity to take this decision on the pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures, but of course that is separate from the wider negotiation that the Conservative party is guaranteeing to undertake leading up to the in/out referendum, on which many Government Members voted after last Friday’s debate on the private Member’s Bill. A further negotiation will look at the wider issues, based on the balance of competences work currently being undertaken.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome the Government’s decision to opt out en masse and then decide item by item on whether to opt back in, which I see as a rejection of ever closer union, but how will we deal with the matters post negotiation? If there are 35 items that the Government propose to opt back into, will we vote item by item, because the Government might well succeed in their objectives in some of them but not in others? Rather than simply having a vote on a lump, would it not be much better to give us individual choices, and would that not also strengthen the Home Secretary’s position?

[Mrs May]

The decision on the form that any further vote will take in relation to these matters post negotiation is yet to be taken by the relevant House authorities and business managers. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks. Perhaps he might like to try to persuade his Front Benchers to be as clear in their position on the opt-out.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has forgotten the coalition agreement, which states:

“We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament.”

Anything that we opt back into comes under the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament and might be subject to qualified majority voting. All those three items are a surrender of sovereignty, and therefore her statement is disappointing to many people.

[Mrs May]

I merely remind my hon. Friend that the matters we are seeking to rejoin are ones to which we are currently not party. I recognise that we will be seeking to rejoin them post Lisbon treaty, but we have not suddenly plucked them out of thin air.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will know that there is great unhappiness in Scotland among the Scottish Government and Police Scotland about the opt-out. The Scottish Government have expressed their disappointment about the lack of consultation and raised concerns about the uncertainty and instability it will cause. Why should Scotland’s safety be compromised because of this Government’s Euro-obsession? Can the Scottish Government opt out of this Government’s moves to opt out of this European measure should they wish to do so?

[Mrs May]

As with Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been in touch with the Minister responsible for Justice in Scotland and is discussing with him the implications for Scotland. It would appear that the Scottish National party’s only answer to everything is to opt out, to be separate and different and not to be part of anything. In fact, as we know, the measures that we have decided to seek to rejoin are of benefit to the whole United Kingdom.

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

I support my right hon. Friend’s stance in relation to the European arrest warrant, which is an important tool in fighting serious crime, although clearly, as the Government recognise, it needs amendment. If the test relates to the national interest and the stance on supranational institutions, does she share my concern about today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to whole-life tariffs, which will take away from this House of Commons and our own courts the decision on the crucial matter of whether life should mean life?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only Members of this House but the public will be dismayed at the decision that has come from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on whether it is possible for life genuinely to mean life. It is also a surprising decision, given that last year the Court decided in a number of extradition cases that it was possible to extradite on the basis of potential life sentences without parole—so today’s judgment is contrary to the decision it took last year.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Fighting organised crime and terrorism in Northern Ireland is important. Extradition from the Republic of Ireland is now entirely reliant on the European arrest warrant. I understand that Irish domestic legislation to allow extradition to the UK has been repealed. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and, indeed, his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland are extremely concerned about the impact that this opt-out will have on the fight against crime and terrorism in Ireland in general?

[Mrs May]

As I have said, we have already started discussions on this issue with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, and I have had previous discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality in the Republic of Ireland about the exercise of the opt-out. On the hon. Lady’s specific point about extraditions being subject to the European arrest warrant, we are proposing to opt back into that, albeit with safeguards for British citizens so that we can ensure that the problems that have arisen in the exercise of the EAW do not arise in future.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Surely everyone who is concerned about cross-border crime should welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement, including members of the Lords EU Committee, who, like the rest of us, have had plenty of time to consider these issues. Will she endorse the statement made by Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol, when he said to that Committee that

“It would increase the risk of serious crimes…going undetected…in the UK”

if the UK were not a member of Europol?

[Mrs May]

I have made our position clear on Europol. We value the work that it does. Rob Wainwright is a very good director of Europol. We will opt into Europol as it currently exists. However, we also value the operational independence of our police. I do not think it right that the new regulation could lead to a situation where Europol would be mandating British police officers to investigate certain matters and to share certain data that could compromise our national security. We will make it clear that we will opt in post-adoption of the Europol measure provided that those concerns have been dealt with.

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

What happens, in practical terms, to requests for extradition, particularly for serious offences, during the period of the opt-out and the attempted opting back into the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

Any change in the situation does not kick in until 1 December 2014, so in the interim there would be no change in the operation of the European arrest warrant. It will be necessary for us, as part of our discussions with the European Commission, to discuss the transitional arrangements. Of course we will want to ensure that, where we are opting back into a measure, the transition is as seamless as possible.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Would the safeguards that the Home Secretary has proposed concerning the European arrest warrant have protected my constituent, Michael Turner, who spent four months in a Hungarian jail without charge after his business closed owing £18,000—a case that in this country would have been handled in the small claims court?

[Mrs May]

I believe that the measures that I intend to put through in the amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill would indeed have dealt with that situation, because we would have made it clear that where the requesting state had not taken the decision to charge and to try an individual, that individual would not be extradited unless their physical presence was necessary in order to charge and try them. In many of the cases that we have seen, individuals would not have needed to be extradited to the requesting country.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

May I give the Home Secretary another opportunity to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)? If the European Commission says that we cannot opt back into the European arrest warrant in the way that she would like, will she ditch her blanket opt-out?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) seem to be suggesting that we are putting conditions on to our opting back into the European arrest warrant. We will request that we can negotiate to opt into a number of measures, including the European arrest warrant. We can make the changes that we are making to the European arrest warrant in UK law, and that could have been done by the previous Labour Government had they chosen to do so.

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

This is a major strategic decision for Britain, and a lot of hard work has gone into it, which is very welcome. However, expecting Parliament to vote on it next week is unrealistic for hon. Members and Committees, given the need to look not only at individual measures such as the very important EAW safeguards that she proposes but at the package as a whole. May I urge her to allow consultation over the summer and to have Parliament debate and vote on it when we return in the autumn?

[Mrs May]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s interest in this issue and his expertise on these matters. It is right for us to be able to take a decision such that we can start the more formal negotiations with the European Commission and with other member states. I believe that it is in our interests to be able to rejoin a number of measures, and starting the negotiations now will enhance our ability to do so.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Some of us are trying to work out whether there might be an element more of figment than fig leaf about what we have just heard. Can the Secretary of State help us to understand the difference between the opt-out measures and the opt-in measures by explaining whether, when Northern Ireland citizens find themselves detained by Spanish police at an airport, only to be confronted by MI5 officers making nefarious propositions with menaces, those actions are covered under opt-in measures or under proposed opt-out measures?

[Mrs May]

I find it a little difficult to see the situation in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has described it. If he would like to write to me about the issue that concerns him, then I can respond.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on the statement and on her decisions on this matter. Can she confirm two things? First, is not this the first time that 100 measures are being clawed back to the United Kingdom, rather than giving powers over to Europe, thanks to her decision and this Government’s decision? Secondly, is it not right that the European arrest warrant, which I have criticised in the past, is now able to be supported because her decision to make these fundamental changes will make it a totally different thing from what it is now, and people will not be able to be extradited for stealing a wheelbarrow? [Interruption.]

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right about the European arrest warrant. That is the whole point about bringing forward the amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. I hope that the Opposition will support those amendments. They have indicated that they would be willing to see reform to the European arrest warrant, but we wait to see what their position will actually be.

On my hon. Friend’s first point, yes, taking the decision on the opt-out from nearly 100 measures is important. It is part of the approach that this Government have taken. The Prime Minister exercised the veto for the first time. We have committed to work on the balance of competences, and of course as the Conservative party we are committed to a much wider renegotiation. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary gave some good examples of how the European arrest warrant has worked very effectively in bringing people to justice in the UK, and that is what the public will be concerned about. However, I understand that the European Commission has said that there is a risk that her proposals will be

“complex, time-consuming, leave a lot of legal uncertainty and a lot of problems.”

What does she say in response to those criticisms? May I press her again on the balance of what is best for the UK? If her negotiations prove unsuccessful, will she drop her plans for the blanket opt-out?

[Mrs May]

The Government have made a very clear decision that we will opt out from these measures and seek to rejoin a number of them, the list of which is with the Command Paper that I have published today. Yes, we will have to go into negotiations with not only the European Commission but with other member states. I believe that other member states are keen to see the United Kingdom as a part of certain of the measures that we are proposing to rejoin, but we will be entering those negotiations over the coming months.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May I seek assurances from my right hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will not opt into any Eurojust measures that would lead to a European public prosecutor having competence in this country?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, our original coalition agreement states that we would not be a part of measures that led to a European public prosecutor.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Home Secretary has, at long last, recognised the importance of a European arrest warrant and, indeed, other measures. I am glad, too, that she has had the strength to stand up to her Eurosceptic Back Benchers. However, I take the point that we need to have a reasonable discussion in this House with a proper amount of time—a commitment given by the Minister for Europe some time ago.

[Mrs May]

The Minister for Europe committed to a debate in this House and there will be a debate in this House.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I take the view that this House should be sovereign in all these matters, but on those measures that it is proposed we opt back into and be subject to EU control, does the Home Secretary agree with the evidence given last year to the Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the other place that the practical effect of the European Court of Justice gaining full jurisdiction in this area is that the European Court of Justice may interpret these measures expansively and beyond the scope originally intended?

[Mrs May]

The fact that measures will be subject to the European Court of Justice is one of the main issues that has led to our very careful consideration of which we propose to seek to rejoin. It is important that the Government’s position is to look practically at those matters that we believe to be in the national interest with regard to ensuring that we can continue to fight cross-border crime and keep people safe. It is on that basis that we propose to seek to rejoin some measures.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am sure that the Home Secretary will be aware of the excellent working relationship between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana across the border in the Republic of Ireland, particularly in tackling serious criminal activity such as terrorism and fuel laundering. Is she able to give guarantees that that excellent working relationship will not be damaged in any way by the measures that she has announced?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to the excellent working relationship between the Garda and the PSNI, which has resulted in many benefits over recent months and years. There is absolutely no reason why the Government’s decision on the 2014 opt-out should do anything to damage that relationship. Indeed, I am sure that the decision that we wish to rejoin the European arrest warrant will be welcomed.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I have been lobbying very hard for the block opt-out to be enacted, but does she understand the concerns of some of us on the Back Benches about the activist nature of the European Court of Justice? We have only to consider the Metock case in Ireland, which led to that member state having to change its immigration rules domestically, to understand why there is such concern. I look forward to taking part in the debate.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, and I recognise the concerns that he and other Members have raised about the European Court of Justice. Of course, it is not just another member state that has to abide by the implications of the Metock judgment; we all have to abide by them. There has been an increase in sham marriages following that judgment—it related to the rights of those married to EU nationals—and we now have to deal with that issue. One of the reasons we have considered these measures very carefully is the question of the operation of the European Court of Justice. As I have said, however, the measures that we wish to rejoin are those that will be of benefit and I believe that they are in our national interest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The Abu Qatada situation is very much in the news and is a good reason why we cannot subscribe to European regulations. Does the Secretary of State share my concern and that of many other Members that opting into some of the EU crime measures may give scope for some people to play the system and for more European interference in national security, which cannot be tolerated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

We are absolutely clear that it is not in the competence of the European Commission or the European Union to interfere in matters of national security. Those are sovereign matters that remain with the member states. I think it is right, however, that on those measures where cross-border co-operation will help us in the fight against crime—as has been the case with some of them—we should seek to continue to be part of them.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would greater involvement in the European Court of Justice result in longer delays in the repatriation of European criminals under sentence in this country to their country of origin?

[Mrs May]

No, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice should not lead to that. The European arrest warrant in itself, of course, enables people to be extradited rather more quickly than under the previous arrangements. What is crucial with regard to the measures that I have outlined today, and those that I will outline in the amendments that will be tabled to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, is that we should give British citizens the protections and safeguards that will enable the European arrest warrant to be operated in such a way that it overcomes the problems that Members have identified in the past.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will Ministers meet Andrew Symeou and his family—constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is away with the Justice Committee—and ensure that the EAW safeguards pass the Symeou test to ensure that UK citizens are not thrown into European jails for months on end on the basis of such flimsy evidence?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I would be happy to do that. Home Office officials have looked very carefully at the Andrew Symeou case to ensure that our proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill meet the concerns resulting from it. I have discussed the measures with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and, as I have told him and I am now happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), we would be happy to meet the family to go through them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will know that there are almost 11,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons, many of whom come from EU countries. One of the very few really good things to come from the European Union was the EU-wide compulsory prisoner transfer agreement enabling us to send these people back to their country of origin. Sadly, only 14 of the 28 member states have signed up to it. Will the Home Secretary do all she can to encourage other countries to sign up, especially Romania and Bulgaria before the transitional controls are ended at the end of this year?

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary are both very keen to be able to use the prisoner transfer agreement to the maximum possible extent. Indeed, as I have indicated with regard to some aspects of the European arrest warrant, I think it is right that we use the prisoner transfer agreement, for example, to bring UK citizens who have been sentenced elsewhere in the EU back to serve their sentence here. We will work to ensure that we can increase the number of agreements with other member states for the transfer of prisoners.

Abu Qatada (Deportation)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the deportation of Abu Qatada. Yesterday—more than 10 years after this ought to have happened—Abu Qatada was deported from the United Kingdom and sent back to Jordan. On arrival in Amman, he was handed over to the Jordanian authorities and formally charged with the two offences of which he had previously been found guilty in absentia. He is now held in Muwaqqar prison.

As hon. Members know, successive Governments have sought to deport Qatada since 2001. The long delays and significant costs that his case has incurred are down to the many layers of appeal rights that were available to him, and real problems with our human rights laws. I will turn to those issues later, but first I want to make it clear that the Government have succeeded in deporting Qatada by respecting the rule of law at each and every stage of the process. We did not ignore court judgments we did not like. We did not act outside the law. We did what was right. And for a civilised nation, that is something of which we should be immensely proud.

Qatada’s deportation, which took place on Sunday morning, followed my issuing of a fresh deportation decision on 27 June, and my further decision to certify any appeal that Qatada might have brought on human rights grounds as “clearly unfounded”. That meant that the only choice open to Qatada was between challenging my decision through judicial review or conceding that the game was up. Given the strength of the agreement we reached with the Jordanian Government in March, he accepted the inevitable.

It is important to remember that the UK Government already had assurances about Qatada’s treatment in Jordan—assurances that have been upheld in the courts—but in February last year the European Court of Human Rights moved the goalposts and declared that his deportation would be unlawful because of the risk that evidence obtained through the mistreatment of others might be used against him. That was the first time ever Strasbourg had blocked a deportation on that basis. The treaty we agreed with the Jordanian Government puts the answer to that final question beyond any doubt. The treaty guarantees a fair trial for anyone deported from either of our countries. The treaty benefits both countries and I thank hon. Members in this House for ensuring its rapid ratification. It was the key that unlocked the door to deportation.[Official Report, 16 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 5MC.]

Qatada’s deportation demonstrates both our commitment to abide by the law and our resolve to deport foreign nationals who threaten our safety and security. It also demonstrates the legal validity of our policy of deportation with assurances.

I want to turn now to the lessons we need to learn from the case. The deportation of Abu Qatada has taken 12 years and cost more than £1.7 million in legal fees for both sides. That is not acceptable to the public, and it is not acceptable to me. We must make sure it never happens again.

First, we have to do something about the legal fees spent by defendants and paid by the taxpayer, not to mention the benefits they also claim. Secondly, we have to remove the many layers of appeal that are available to foreign nationals we want to deport. Thirdly, we have to do something about the crazy interpretation of our human rights laws.

The Government are taking action to address all three concerns. First, on legal fees and benefits, in the case of Abu Qatada £220,000 of his legal fees were funded from his own accounts, which were frozen by the authorities, but the rest—some £430,000—was funded by the taxpayer, and in many other cases foreign nationals we ought to be able to remove have their legal costs paid in full by the public. That is something my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is addressing in his reforms to the legal aid system, and I can also tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is considering how we can curtail the benefits claims made by terror suspects and extremists whose behaviour is not conducive to the public good.

Secondly, we need to do something about appeal rights. Through the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the Government have already legislated for the principle that in national security cases individuals should be able to appeal only following deportation to their home country, except in cases where there is a risk of serious, irreversible harm. But we will do more, and that is why I will introduce the immigration Bill later this year. That Bill will stop illegal immigrants accessing services to which they are not entitled; it will make it easier to remove foreign nationals; it will make it harder for them to prolong their stay with spurious appeals; and it will make clear to the courts once and for all that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes will, other than in exceptional circumstances, be deported. I hope hon. and right hon. Members from all parties will give their support to that Bill.

I can also tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is considering ways to speed up the pace at which the courts hear national security cases, but those reforms can achieve only so much until we make sense of our human rights laws. The Government are already taking action to address the misinterpretation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a private and family life—and we achieved reforms to the way in which the European Court works in the Brighton declaration.

The problems caused by the Human Rights Act and the European Court in Strasbourg remain, and we should remember that Qatada would have been deported long ago had the European Court not moved the goalposts by establishing new, unprecedented legal grounds on which it blocked his deportation. I have made clear my view that in the end the Human Rights Act must be scrapped. We must also consider our relationship with the European Court very carefully, and I believe that all options—including withdrawing from the convention altogether—should remain on the table, but those are issues that will have to wait for the general election. Today we should take quiet satisfaction from the fact that a dangerous man has been deported to face justice in his home country.

I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to all the Home Office officials, lawyers, police officers and members of the Security Service who have worked on this case, as well as Peter Millett, the British ambassador in Amman, and of course, the security Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).

Last year, I said:

“The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell, far away from Britain.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 166.]

Today, Abu Qatada is indeed in a foreign prison cell, and so I commend this statement to the House.

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

The entire House should strongly welcome the work that the Home Secretary and her junior Minister have done to get Abu Qatada finally on a plane back to Jordan to stand fair trial. This is a good result for not just the Home Secretary, but the country. In his home country, Abu Qatada stands accused of plotting terror attacks against a school and tourists, and it is right that he should stand trial for those offences and for justice to be done.

After Abu Qatada was granted asylum in this country in 1994, he began preaching hatred and praising terror attacks. He is a dangerous man whose values we in this Parliament condemn, and that is why successive Home Secretaries—Labour and Conservative—have worked to deport him with the cross-party support of the House and that of the country. I strongly welcome the work of the Home Office and the Foreign Office to keep pursuing the case over many years, and we should also welcome the work of the Jordanian Government and Parliament to pass the treaties that were needed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) agreed the first memorandum of understanding with Jordan in 2005, which led to the agreement of the British courts that Abu Qatada could be deported without the threat of torture, and the Home Secretary rightly built on that agreement after the 2012 European Court judgment. She was also right to pursue the legal route, rather than listening to those who urged her to ignore the law. Without the rule of law, we are not free.

We should be in no doubt, however, that the case has taken far too long, so change is needed to deal with such unacceptable and costly delays. The attempt to deport Abu Qatada started in 2005. It took three years for his case to reach the Court of Appeal, another year for it to reach the Law Lords and a further three years for it to reach the European Court, and it is a further 18 months since then. That is far too long—too long in the British courts and then too long in the European Court.

We will examine the Home Secretary’s proposal that layers of appeal should be removed for immigration cases, because we believe that the process needs to be speeded up and that slow justice is in no one’s interests, but I urge her and the Secretary of State for Justice to consider the practical and administrative reasons why such cases take so long. The European Court now has a backlog of 150,000 cases and badly needs major reform. However, Ministers promised progress while Britain chaired the Council of Europe, yet little of substance was achieved. The borders inspectorate has said that a quarter of foreign criminals are sent home and a third are given leave to remain, but that 40% are not deported simply for administrative and bureaucratic reasons, so those cases need to be tackled.

The Home Secretary referred to the qualified right to a family life under article 8 which can be used in immigration cases, on which we have supported the Government, although that was clearly not the issue in the Abu Qatada case. She concluded by saying that she wanted to abolish the Human Rights Act and to consider withdrawing from the European convention, yet she herself has drawn on the Human Rights Act. She used it to prevent Gary McKinnon from being deported to the USA, but without the Act, she would have had no legal justification for doing so. It is unclear whether she wants no Bill of Rights at all, which would consequently mean that there would be little restriction on what the Home Secretary’s decisions could be, but will she confirm that the Government’s commission on a draft British Bill of Rights has replicated article 3 of the Human Rights Act, on the absolute prohibition of torture? As she knows, the central issue in the Abu Qatada case was always torture, which is something that we in Britain have always abhorred, so ditching the Human Rights Act and replacing it with her British Bill of Rights would have made no difference in that case.

The Home Secretary made much in her statement of the importance for us, as a civilised nation, of not acting outside the law. However, if we were to resile from the European convention, what signal would it send to those countries that we are trying to persuade to adopt higher standards of human rights and to follow the convention, such as Russia, regarding the criminal justice system, and Turkey, regarding the treatment of Kurds?

The Government have done immensely important work in the Abu Qatada case: deporting a dangerous man; delivering new legal deportation agreements so that we can remove people to Jordan and elsewhere, with new protection against torture in Jordan; and showing the British Government’s determination to pursue what is right while respecting the rule of law and having no truck with torture. The Home Secretary rightly claimed credit for all those things in her statement, and reforms are needed to deal with the problems of this case. We are pleased that Abu Qatada has finally been deported and we cannot have such delays in the future, but she should put forward her reforms without ripping up the things that she has just achieved.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the references that she made to the success in deporting Abu Qatada, and for saying that the Labour Opposition will look very seriously at the proposals that we bring forward in the immigration Bill. The Opposition supported changes to the immigration rules in relation to the interpretation of article 8, and we were grateful to them for that. Sadly, a number of judges have not heard Parliament in the way that all of us hoped. I hope that we will have support on the immigration Bill, because I think these changes are important.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the administrative reasons for the lack of deportation, and issues around the speed with which these cases are dealt with in the courts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is looking at that issue, because we all want to make sure that we can deal with these cases properly—with people having proper rights of appeal, so that we can ensure that their case is heard—but can deport people rather more quickly.

The right hon. Lady then sadly spent quite a bit of her response on the Human Rights Act, my views on it, and what might happen in the future in relation to it. I make two points in response. First, what she fails to appreciate is the concern that Government Members have about the role of Parliament in setting laws that operate in the United Kingdom. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in relation to the European Court and its ability to deal with cases that are taken through the courts in the UK. Secondly, she rather churlishly suggested that nothing happened when we chaired the Council of Europe. A considerable amount of work was put in by the former Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and others, and it led to the Brighton declaration, which is bringing about change in the way in which the European Court operates, so that is another success for this Government, who took that opportunity to make some changes.

My final point is very simple. Members of the public cannot understand why, under the human rights laws that we currently operate, somebody who is a threat to this country is able to remain in it, year after year, without being deported. Frankly, if the right hon. Lady cannot understand that, she simply does not get it, and will not get an opportunity to be on the Government side of the House.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate her and her team on their steadfastness, including in the face of criticism from Opposition Front Benchers in the past. Does she agree that, in the field of human rights, now is the time for a re-examination of the balance between microscopic and extended examination of an individual’s human rights, and the safety and security of the constituents who send us to this place?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has absolutely put his finger on the problem, which is that in all these cases we are asked to look forensically at the human rights of an individual, but there is no opportunity to balance that with the danger that an individual poses to others in society. There is no opportunity to take into account that balance of the human rights arguments. It is exactly that sort of issue that we need to address.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on the achievement of removing Abu Qatada. It is a personal triumph for her. I know that she has worked extremely hard over the past few years to secure this result; indeed, since becoming Home Secretary, she must have felt, to coin a phrase, that there were three people in her marriage. The critical part of all this has been the relationship with Jordan and securing the agreement of the King of Jordan. Will she look at drawing up treaties with other countries right at the start of the process, rather than at the end, as that is one way of removing people? Will she look at a fast track through the European Court for those cases that involve terrorism, so that they are dealt with more quickly than other cases?

[Mrs May]

I shall perhaps not refer to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I am grateful to him for his kind remarks. This has been the result of a huge amount of effort by a great number of people, including Home Office officials, our ambassador in Amman, and my hon. Friend the security Minister, to make sure that we achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada. The right hon. Gentleman encourages us to enter agreements of a similar nature with other countries. We have, I think, 30 mutual legal assistance treaties with other countries, so we have already gone down that route, and that includes countries such as United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. We have a number of deportation with assurances memorandums of understanding with other countries—I think we have now been able to deport 11 people as a result of those agreements—but of course we seek to increase that number where it is necessary to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I award my right hon. Friend and her entire team 10 out of 10 for standing up against this man and for British interests? It is deeply offensive to the British people that £1.5 million was spent keeping this man in the country for 12 years. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to carry on with her work and, despite the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary, to look again at repealing the Human Rights Act and Britain’s membership of the European convention on human rights? Can she tell us whether the judges have got it at last? She is doing a fantastic job—keep it up, please.

[Mrs May]

In relation to the interpretation of article 8, sadly we have seen cases where the interpretation by the judges has not been what the intent of Parliament was when we changed the immigration rules, which is why we are going to put those changes into primary legislation in the immigration Bill later this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I and others will continue looking at human rights and what the right human rights laws are. As our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on Sunday morning, the Conservative party will introduce our proposals at the next general election.

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

I, too, congratulate the Home Secretary and, in particular, the security Minister on the work that they have both done to get this good result. I was just thinking that it has taken 12 years to deport Abu Qatada—I think it took Andy Murray only seven years to win Wimbledon—so the whole country will be very pleased about this.

[Hazel Blears]

But it is a very serious matter, and this is a dangerous individual who was a threat to this country. I urge the Home Secretary to say to other countries with which we do not have memorandums of understanding that this is a clear message that the British Government can ensure that someone is deported, that they are not tortured and that they receive a fair trial. We should say to countries that may have been a little reluctant that now is the time to step up their act and get those memorandums agreed.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady makes an important and valid point. Absolutely, we can send that message. One of the crucial aspects of this case is that the deportation with assurances memorandum of understanding was agreed by the courts as something that worked, so we can indeed build on that.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I join others in congratulating the Home Secretary and her team on achieving what the whole country wanted, which was for Abu Qatada to go home. I thank her very much for saying that one of the issues with the European convention is the backlog of cases, and for the initiatives that the Government have taken. She will know, however, that the Liberal Democrats believe that she is fundamentally wrong to argue that repealing the Human Rights Act or even thinking of pulling out of the European convention would be in Britain’s interest. If we want to set an example of human rights for majorities as well as minorities, in Jordan and around the world, we must not pull out of the best guarantee that Europe has had of them, written by Britons, and working well for the past 70 years.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that I or indeed any of his Conservative colleagues in the coalition should stand up and talk about repealing the Human Rights Act, because we were all elected to the House on a party manifesto that had exactly that within it. In relation to the European convention, we do, I believe, as a country, have to look at our relationship with the European Court and the operation of the convention. We need to do so because of some of the cases that we have seen, and national security cases are a particular concern when we cannot deport someone for a significant period of time—if at all, potentially—because of the interpretation by the European Court of the convention. It is only sensible when beginning to work on this that we accept that all options should be on the table, and we do not rule anything out before we have done the work.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

May I, too, congratulate the Home Secretary and the security Minister on all the work they have done to see Abu Qatada removed to Jordan? In all the ups and downs over the years of dealing with this man, there was a time just a few months ago when it looked as if he might be freed from prison and freed from bail. The only option the Home Secretary would have had at that point would be to put him on a terrorism prevention and investigation measure. Given that at that moment she must have realised the inadequacy of TPIMs, what plans does she have to review them, especially as David Anderson has warned that early next year a number of dangerous individuals on TPIMs will be free to roam the streets?

[Mrs May]

This is a debate that we have had across the House and that I have had with the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. The Government brought in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 and we are operating those TPIMs against a number of individuals, as he knows. As he is also aware, when TPIMs were introduced instead of the control orders that his Government had brought in, we also introduced, through some extra funding, measures to enhance the ability of the Security Service and the police to deal with these individuals, and we are confident in the package that was produced.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Many people pay lip service to the concept of having respect for the law, but in cases such as this, which are deeply frustrating, testing and troublesome, the Home Secretary shows real respect for the law, and I congratulate her on her conduct and that of her Ministers throughout this matter. Will she look at the many varied avenues of appeal that are open to people like Abu Qatada, which can be curtailed without any infringement of the overall rights, and will she express the thanks of this House to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for its extremely friendly actions in this case?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right in referring to the many layers and avenues of appeal that are available. It is precisely that sort of issue that we wish to examine in considering any changes we will introduce in the immigration Bill later this year. We have been co-operating with the Jordanian Government on this matter for some time now, and that co-operation has been very good, but I am pleased that the treaty we signed with them is more general and will apply in other cases as well. There is benefit to both the United Kingdom and Jordan in that mutual legal assistance treaty.

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

I, too, sincerely congratulate the Home Secretary and the security Minister. No wonder she is talked about as a future Tory leader. The Home Secretary very generously thanked officials and lawyers who had worked on the case, but given what she said about the cost of the case overall—this is no criticism of her—does she think there is an argument for a review of why it took those officials so long to fix on the treaty route as the best way to solve the problem, rather than run up those huge bills?

[Mrs May]

The reason that large legal bills built up was the time the case took, because of the various stages of appeal that were available to Abu Qatada and the fact that the European Court moved the goalposts in the unprecedented decision that it took early last year. It was because of that that we had to undertake further discussions with the Jordanian Government about the assurances that could be achieved. And of course our own Special Appeals Immigration Commission last autumn decided that despite those further assurances and its view that the Jordanian Government would bend over backwards to make sure that Abu Qatada got a fair trial, this one issue about whether evidence that was allegedly obtained by torture could be used had to be addressed. That is addressed, among other things, in the general treaty that we have signed. It is because there have been so many opportunities to appeal and because of the decisions that have come as a result of those appeals that the legal bills have built up.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

May I join all those who have offered their congratulations to the Home Secretary, and may I also thank her for the congratulations that she has offered to others—her officials and officials in other Departments? That is a very proper thing to have done. Does she agree that even before the enactment of the Human Rights Act, we probably would not have deported a terrorist suspect to be tortured or to face trial on the basis of evidence extracted by torture or to a country which might have used the death penalty upon that person? Does she also agree that the core to the success that she has had has been the bilateral agreement with Jordan, and that although we may all have our frustrations about the expense and the difficulties caused by the Strasbourg Court, the central thing that we must concentrate on is ensuring that we have with these other jurisdictions rock-solid, cast-iron treaties which permit deportation?

[Mrs May]

Indeed, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is important that we have these assurances and agreements with other countries where there is a possibility, or where the courts have suggested that there is a possibility, that it would not be possible to deport an individual because of the situation they would find themselves in once deported. When the European Court made its judgment last year, I think that it failed to appreciate the changes that have taken place in Jordan and the work the Jordanian Government have done, for example to change their constitution in relation to torture. In a sense the judgment was unfair with regard to the Jordanian situation. Nevertheless, as a result of the judgment, we had to undertake further discussions with the Jordanian Government and put in place exactly the sorts of assurances and agreements that my hon. and learned Friend refers to.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

We on the left of the Gangway are delighted that this evil man is being sent back where he belongs to stand trial, but I got worried, when I watched him swagger on to the plane with a big smile on his face, that he might have a secret way back. I hope the Home Secretary has all the doors covered.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he and, as he indicates, his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) have given to the action that has been taken—I must say that this is an unusual day for the Home Office, but I suspect that the normal situation will resume fairly soon. We are indeed turning our attention to ensuring that doors are closed.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I join the whole House in congratulating the Home Secretary and the security Minister on their stunning success in deporting Abu Qatada. I am not sure what gave me greater pleasure on Sunday: watching Andy Murray’s victory or the news that Mr Qatada was leaving on a jet plane. What assessment have her officials made of the right of Mr Qatada’s family to remain in the United Kingdom should he be found guilty in Jordan?

[Mrs May]

Obviously we will be considering that issue, but of course members of his family will have a decision to make on where they see their future.

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

I congratulate the Home Secretary, her predecessors and everyone else involved in this long haul. Further to the last question, could Abu Qatada or his family argue, after he has done his time, whatever the sentence might be, that the right to family life allows him to come back to his family in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

As I have already indicated, we are looking at any such door and ensuring that it is closed. It will of course be for Abu Qatada’s family to decide where they see their future.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to the Home Secretary and the security Minister. We all agree that it is very good that Abu Qatada will face justice without the risk of information derived from torture being used against him. Since the Home Secretary is keen on ensuring that people are deported to face justice, can she confirm her support for a reformed European arrest warrant that does exactly that? She will know that only this weekend we saw yet another arrest of a Briton trying to evade justice in Spain.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend tempts me to comment on a matter that I hope will more properly be the subject of announcements in this House before the summer recess. I am aware of the arguments that have been made about the operation of the European arrest warrant in relation to its usefulness and to some of the problems that apply to it.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It will be a relief to all our constituents that this man has now been deported, but what advice has the Attorney-General given the Home Secretary on scrapping the Human Rights Act and coming out of the convention?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated earlier, in answer to an hon. Friend who asked about the Human Rights Act, it is absolutely no surprise that a Conservative should stand here and talk about scrapping the Human Rights Act, because we were elected to this Parliament having stood in a general election on a manifesto that said exactly that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary accept the thanks of a grateful nation for a job well done?

On the wider issue of deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes in this country, could it not be a condition of entry for everybody when they turn up at the airport or port that they sign to say that if they are found guilty of a criminal offence, they will be required to leave?

[Mrs May]

I assure my hon. Friend that we understand the public’s concern, which I share, about examples of when we are not able to deport foreign-national offenders. There are a number of reasons why that can happen—most notably, as in cases highlighted in the media, the interpretation of article 8 about the right to a family life.

Of course, the right to a family life was not one of the arguments used at all in the Abu Qatada case, although there are foreign-national offenders who have used that argument. We will look to ensure that we make it absolutely clear in the immigration Bill that, except in exceptional circumstances, foreign-national offenders will be deported.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I join the whole House in congratulating the Home Secretary, the security Minister and all her officials on finally managing to deport Abu Qatada. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that the immigration Bill will include a simplification of the appeals process. What will that simplification do about the introduction of new evidence at a late stage of the appeals process?

[Mrs May]

We will consider that issue, of course. We have moved already on a different part of the appeals process—that relating to family visas. We have taken away the right of appeal for family visit visas. We saw that evidence was often produced towards the end of the process; had it been there at the beginning, it might have led to a different decision in the first place. My hon. Friend has picked up an important issue that we should consider in other contexts.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Many of my constituents were delighted to see Abu Qatada fly out of Northolt, although they may have been a little disappointed to see the plane so empty. Does the Home Secretary have a view on the family and associates of Abu Qatada? Many of my constituents find it indefensible that they should have been on benefits for so long and think that they would have been better off on the plane with him.

[Mrs May]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I have already answered on a couple of occasions questions about the family of Abu Qatada. As I said, they will themselves have a decision to take about where they see their future.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend both on this excellent result and on her commitment to reviewing and, hopefully, reforming human rights legislation. However, we will not get away from what she calls the crazy interpretation of our human rights laws if we allow our judges a completely open-ended clause in the legislation containing an unspecified phrase such as “exceptional circumstances”.

[Mrs May]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We will, of course, need to look at those issues when we come to frame the legislation so that we can be clear as a Parliament about exactly the sort of circumstances we are looking at. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there may be some circumstances in which it will not be possible to deport somebody, although we want to ensure that we can deport foreign-national prisoners as far as possible. We will set out, as we have already tried to in the immigration rules, the circumstances in which we expect that a foreign-national prisoner will not be allowed to remain in the UK on the basis of article 8 but will be deported.

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

I congratulate the Home Secretary and welcome Abu Qatada’s removal, but I share her fears about the implications of the case. What estimate has the Home Office made of the number of extra successful deportation challenges that it expects per year as a result of Strasbourg’s novel—and, frankly, dangerous—ruling?

[Mrs May]

I am not able to give my hon. Friend an answer about the number, but I can say, having looked at a sample of cases, that this case was unusual in that it related to the potential torture of people other than the individual whom we were trying to deport. That is why it was such an unusual and unprecedented judgment from the Strasbourg court; it is also why the case is not likely to be replicated on many occasions.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on joining the ranks of the US Navy SEALs in knowing how to get rid of perpetrators of terrorism, even if by slightly less violent means. Does she agree that the principles of the European convention on human rights are very noble but have been misinterpreted by judges, and that if we have a British Bill of Rights, we can return to a situation where the perpetrators of terrorism are not given precedence over the victims of terrorism?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid and important point. It is about the interpretation of human rights laws. We all agree that it is important to have a legislative framework that protects people’s human rights; it is then about how that is interpreted. It is also about the relative balance of responsibilities between this Parliament and another body that is external to it.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend in the strongest terms on behalf of my constituents, who watched with growing disillusionment as the will of the people and Parliament of this country was profoundly defied by a decade of spin and drift costing over £1.7 million in legal fees. I especially welcome her announcement that illegal immigrants and criminals will be deported. Does she agree that nothing fuels disillusionment as much as state-sponsored abuse of protections that are rightly the privilege of British citizens, not foreign criminals?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I share people’s frustrations and concerns when they see foreign national offenders whom we wish to be able to deport unable to be deported. He refers to illegal immigrants. One of the benefits of the change that has been made by scrapping the UK Border Agency and setting up the immigration enforcement part of the Home Office is that we will be able to put a far greater focus on ensuring that we remove illegal immigrants.

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

I wonder what words my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has for the naysayers and doom-mongers on the Opposition Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who is no longer in his place, who said on 24 April in this Chamber:

“Is it not obvious that this saga will continue for some time and that all the Home Secretary’s efforts have so far failed miserably to get this preacher of hatred out of Britain?”

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) said:

“This farce makes the Government look incompetent as well as impotent.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 894-897.]

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of those remarks. I would say to those naysayers that I hope they see the benefit of grim determination when it is put into action.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May I add to the bouquets under which my right hon. Friend is being buried and congratulate her and her team on succeeding where her predecessors had failed? Is she aware of the report that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, the plane back to Jordan was not quite empty because it had aboard it three security guards, a psychologist, a medical examiner, and, inevitably, a lawyer? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the costs of those people will not fall on the British taxpayer? If they do, will she change the rules of taxpayer liability as soon as possible?

[Mrs May]

It is indeed the case that other individuals were on the plane with Abu Qatada. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that having reached this stage we wanted to ensure that the deportation did in fact go ahead and went ahead successfully.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When I was an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland we spent a lot of time trying to drain the water from terrorists—in other words, the people with whom they lived. However, they were coerced and frightened. Such people may well be replicated on the mainland. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to try to identify terrorists and get them away from the society which sustains them and allows them to operate in England?

[Mrs May]

We do of course have a strategy for dealing with terrorism. The officials at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which is based in the Home Office, work with the police, the Security Service and the other security and intelligence agencies to make sure that we can, where possible, prevent terrorist attacks from taking place in the United Kingdom. Sadly, in the past couple of months we have of course had the incident of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Prior to that, we had seen a number of plots by terrorists to do harm and to kill people here in the United Kingdom thwarted by the very good efforts of officials, police and members of the Security Service.

Drug Paraphernalia

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government have accepted the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to allow for the lawful provision of foil by drug treatment providers subject to the strict condition that it is part of structured efforts to get people into treatment and off drugs.

The Government’s 2010 Drug Strategy, “Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery: supporting people to live a drug-free life” is ambitious in its aims and takes a balanced approach. At its core is recovery—enabling individuals to live free from drug dependency, enabling them to rebuild their lives and address the criminality and health issues associated with drug abuse.

The available evidence shows that the provision of foil can encourage people to take their first steps into treatment, reducing the immediate harm and facilitating the onward journey towards recovery and abstinence. By lawfully providing foil under strict conditions, we also tackle the significant health risks associated with injecting behaviours, including the transmission of dangerous blood-borne viruses.

The Government will introduce legislation to ensure foil is only offered by drug treatment providers as part of structured efforts to get individuals into treatment, on the road to recovery and of drugs. We will also put in place mechanisms to carefully monitor and evaluate take-up, implementation and adherence to the conditionality over the next year.

Khat

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government will control khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class C drug.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) undertook a thorough and comprehensive scientific review which focused on the medical and social harms of khat consumption. The ACMD report gives considerable insight into the complexity of this matter and, based on the available evidence, it came to a reasonable conclusion in its recommendation to Government. Although it recommended that khat should not be controlled, the ACMD acknowledges that there is an absence of robust evidence in a number of areas and that there are broader factors for the Government to consider when making their decision. The decision to bring khat under control is finely balanced and takes into account the expert scientific advice and these broader concerns.

The whole of northern Europe—most recently the Netherlands—and the majority of other EU member states have controlled khat, as well as most of the G8 countries including Canada and the USA. In all these cases khat’s exportation, importation, supply and its possession or use has been banned. Failure to take decisive action and change the UK’s legislative position on khat would place the UK at a serious risk of becoming a single, regional hub for the illegal onward trafficking of khat to these countries. Seizures of khat transiting the UK en route to the Netherlands have already been increasing in size and frequency since the Dutch ban earlier this year. The ACMD report recognised the likelihood that some khat is being re-exported to countries where it is illegal. The ACMD could not determine the scale of this activity based on the available evidence and acknowledged that this concern forms part of Government consideration of the matter.

Khat continues to feature prominently amongst the health and social harms, such as low attainment and family breakdown, cited by affected communities and the police and local authorities working with them. The ACMD acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to enable the ACMD to advise if khat use was a cause or a symptom of social harms. The Government are concerned that we risk underestimating the actual harms of khat in our communities owing to the limitations of the evidence base available to the ACMD. To ensure a proportionate and robust policing response, the Government will introduce an escalation framework for the possession of khat for personal use, similar to that in place for cannabis.

The Government will ban khat so that we can protect vulnerable members of our communities and send a clear message to our international partners and khat smugglers that the UK is serious about stopping the illegal trafficking of khat.

Stop and Search

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the powers of the police to stop and search members of the public.

Police officers have been given the right to stop and search people by several Acts of Parliament, although most searches are conducted through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These Acts say that officers must have “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the subject is guilty of some form of criminal behaviour before they are allowed to conduct a search. Owing to the sensitivity of stop and search, officers are required by law to record various pieces of information about each search they undertake.

I would like to start by making it clear that the Government support the ability of police officers to stop and search suspects. It is an important power in their daily fight against crime, and it is especially important in relation to combating gangs, knife crime and drug offences. For example, in the last 12 months, stop and search in London has resulted in 45,000 criminals being arrested, including 3,212 criminals carrying weapons and guns, 7,287 criminals in possession of suspected stolen goods and 1,484 criminals in possession of tools used to steal or cause damage.

As long as I am Home Secretary, the police will maintain their right to stop and search. But as important as stop and search undoubtedly is, we have to be frank about widespread public concern regarding its use. Official statistics show that more than 1 million stop-and-search incidents are recorded every year. But on average only about 9% of those incidents result in an arrest, and that figure prompts me to question whether stop and search is always used appropriately. In fact, the search-to-arrest ratio varies considerably across forces: in Cumbria, the figure is 3%; in Kent, it is 19%. In London, where most stop-and-search incidents take place, it is 8%; in Greater Manchester, it is 8%; and in the West Midlands, it is 7%. Now, of course, we should not expect all stop-and-search incidents to lead to arrest, but those percentages are far too low for comfort.

The Government are concerned about the use of stop and search for two reasons. First, it must be applied fairly and in a way that builds community confidence in the police rather than undermining it. Secondly, given the scale of recording requirements placed on the police, when stop and search is misapplied, it is a waste of police time.

I want to deal first with fairness and community confidence. The official statistics show that, if someone is from a black or minority ethnic background, they are up to seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than if they are white. Now we should not rush to conclusions about those statistics, but everybody involved in policing has a duty to make sure that nobody is ever stopped just on the basis of their skin colour or ethnicity. The law is clear that in normal circumstances, stop and search should only ever be used where there is a reasonable suspicion of criminality—and that is how it should be. I am sure we have all been told stories by constituents and members of the public about what it is like to be a young, law-abiding black man who has been stopped and searched by the police on more than one occasion. If anybody thinks it is sustainable to allow that to continue, with all its consequences for public confidence in the police, they need to think again.

The second reason that I am concerned about stop and search is that if it is being used too much or with the wrong people, that is a dreadful waste of police time. It is estimated that a police officer spends 16 minutes conducting a stop and search and then completing details of the incident in compliance with the law. Given that there are just under 1.2 million stop-and-search incidents every year, we are talking about a total of 312,000 hours per year—the equivalent of 145 full-time police officers.

Since the election, I have made it a priority to cut red tape and free up police time, and the changes that we have made, including changes to stop-and-search recording, should save up to 4.5 million police hours a year—the equivalent of an extra 2,100 officers on the streets. There is no point in making all those changes if police officers then spend their time conducting pointless stops and searches, with all the bureaucracy that goes with them.

In London, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has changed the Met’s guidance, improved training and set a target that at least 20% of stop and searches in London should result in an arrest or drugs warning; and since then, they have made good progress. The latest figures suggest that in the last year 18.3% of stop-and-search incidents in London led to an arrest or drugs warning. In Hackney, it was as high as 26.3%, and the overall use of stop and search in London has fallen, too, from 500,000 to 350,000 in the past year.

That shows that it is possible to make changes to stop and search without jeopardising public safety. So, too, do the changes I made in March 2011 to the operation of stop-and-search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. Then, I introduced a much more limited power that enables the police to stop and search people and vehicles without reasonable suspicion, but only in exceptional circumstances where there is a real threat of terrorist attack. This power has not been used outside Northern Ireland since it was introduced in March 2011, and there has been no effect on public safety.

Last year, I commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct a comprehensive inspection into the use of stop-and-search powers. Its report is due to be published next Tuesday. I have not seen it yet, but the report should provide us for the first time with a comprehensive evidence base of how stop and search is used and recorded across the country.

However, on an issue as important as stop and search, it would be wrong to consult HMIC and work with the police without also consulting the public. So I can tell the House that today I am launching a consultation, lasting six weeks, that will give members of the public the chance to have their say about the future use of stop and search. Copies of the consultation document will be made available in the Library.

By the end of the year, the Government will respond formally to both the HMIC report and the public consultation. That response will then inform our work with HMIC, the College of Policing and police forces up and down the country to make sure that stop and search works fairly and in everybody’s interests. I want to see stop and search used only when it is needed; I want to see higher search-to-arrest ratios; I want to see better community engagement; and I want to see more efficient recording practices across the country.

At its best, stop and search is a vital power in the fight against crime; at its worst, it is a waste of police time and serves to undermine public confidence in the police. It is time to get stop and search right, so I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She has not given me a copy of the consultation, so I have not seen its proposals, but I do welcome the principles behind it. I agree with the Home Secretary that the stop-and-search powers are important and can help the police tackle serious problems. However, the way in which they have been used has raised serious concerns about, for example, the scale of use, the lack of intelligence-led approaches and the disproportionate use against ethnic minorities and the potential waste of money.

Stop-and-search powers are useful for the police—for example, enabling them to search for weapons or stolen goods without needing to arrest someone. The Home Secretary knows about Operation Blunt, run by the Met in 2009, which delivered a 13% reduction in knife crime and a 23% reduction in youth killings and seized over 1,000 knives and which did use intelligence-led stop and search as part of that strategy. People have been arrested for possession of guns, knives and other offensive weapons as a result of stop and search, too. But where stop and search is used inappropriately or too widely, it can cause a very wide range of serious problems.

Given the relatively low proportion of searches that lead to arrest, I welcome the work that has been done to reduce the number of stop and searches, which has fallen since 2008. I welcome the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, to restrict inappropriate use, which helped deliver an initial 10% reduction in stop and searches. I also welcome the decision by the Home Secretary to restrict and change section 44 stops and searches. I welcome the decision of the Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, to restrict section 60 stops and searches and some of the work that he has done since then.

However, I think that it is right to go further, especially in the light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on stop and search three years ago. The Home Secretary knows that that report found that

“some forces are using their powers disproportionately suggesting they are stopping and searching individuals in a way that is discriminatory, inefficient, and a waste of public money.”

It also found:

“The evidence points to racial discrimination being a significant reason why black and Asian people are more likely to be stopped and searched”.

It concluded:

“A reduction in disproportionality does not have to result in a rise in crime—on the contrary in the case of both Staffordshire and Cleveland”

where the EHRC worked with those forces,

“it has gone hand in hand with reduced crime rates and increased levels of public confidence in the police.”

Will the Home Secretary set out what has been done since the EHRC reported in 2010 to address the concerns that it raised?

The Home Secretary announced after the 2011 riots that she had asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to review stop and search. Has that review happened and will she publish the results?

Does the Home Secretary share my concern that that proportion of stops and searches that lead to an arrest has fallen, not risen, in the past five years? Previously, 12% of searches led to an arrest; now, a proportion of 9% is more likely. The right hon. Lady did not set out any specific proposals in her statement. What proposals in her consultation might make a difference to those figures and tackle the problem of searches being disproportionately targeted at ethnic minorities? Some of the figures that she quoted are seriously worrying. She will know that the EHRC examined evidence to see whether there are any explanations for those figures and found none sufficient to justify the disproportionate number of searches. The EHRC made specific recommendations for individual forces and for policing as a whole. Three years on, have those recommendations been implemented and what results have been delivered? Can she assure the House that her proposals will not jeopardise the recording of whether ethnic minorities are being targeted disproportionately? Clearly, we need to have that information.

I welcome the intention behind today’s statement and the consultation. The Home Secretary is right to support the principle of stop and search and right also to say that practice needs to be reformed to make sure that there is no discrimination and that it does not waste money or cause more problems in communities. However, it would help if she were more specific about her consultation proposals and how she plans to address the concerns.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support for the consultation on stop and search going ahead. As she says, there has been a number of reports on the operation of stop and search. The EHRC, whose report was published a matter of weeks ago, looked again at the issue in five forces, including the Met and Thames Valley police. It identified that it had been possible for those forces to reduce the number of stop and searches, perhaps by targeting them better on an intelligence-led basis, and that doing so had also had an impact on the search-to-arrest ratio, but no discernible effect on public safety. The EHRC reinforced the view that we can get stop and search right; that if we get it right, it can be the valuable tool we want it to be; but that we can reduce the number of stops and searches without having an impact on public safety.

I did indeed ask ACPO to look at stop and search and best practice across the country, and it has done so. I also asked HMIC to do a piece of work across forces on how stop and search is used and recorded. I think that that report, which comes out next week, will, by providing information on the practices used on the ground, give the best evidence base on which to look ahead.

The right hon. Lady asked about recording. At a very early stage, we made changes to the amount of information that needs to be recorded on stop-and-search forms, but we retained, for example, ethnicity as one of the matters that should be recorded. We were able to reduce bureaucracy somewhat, but it remains the case that if a stop and search is undertaken when it is not necessary—when there is not reasonable suspicion—it can be a waste of police time.

The right hon. Lady’s main accusation seemed to be that, in my statement, I had not set out any firm proposals on stop and search, but the whole point of the public consultation is to go out and ask members of the public what has been their experience of stop and search, how they feel it should be used and what changes, if any, they think should be made. The consultation will include questions such as whether local communities should be more involved in working out how stop and search should be used in their area. There are some good examples, including in the London borough of Brent, of work being done with the local community. The point of the consultation is to ask people what they think; then, we will look the results alongside the evidence base in the HMIC report and come to the House in due course with firm proposals that I believe will enable us to get stop and search right.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that the percentage of stops and searches that led to arrest were far too low for comfort. What figure would make her comfortable?

[Mrs May]

My hon. and learned Friend will know that I am not naturally inclined to set targets in these matters, and I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage if I were to state a figure. The Met Commissioner has done so, having set a 20% target, and, as I said, recent figures have been far closer to that 20%. But let us look at the evidence base and hear what the public have to say about how stop and search should operate.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

This is an excellent statement, which I warmly welcome. The Home Secretary gave us a figure of 7%; in fact, under section 60, a black or Asian person is 25 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. It cannot be right that, in Britain, anyone should be targeted because of the colour of their skin.

It is also important to look at the diversity of the police force, and I urge the right hon. Lady to read the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to be published on Monday. If the public are to have confidence in the police, the police need to reflect the public as a whole.

Finally, I hope that the consultation will not be merely a paper exercise, but that the Home Secretary and Ministers will go our major cities themselves. I am happy to invite her to Leicester, where we could sit on the same side of the table, rather than on opposite sides, as we do during Select Committee meetings. Rather than have just an online consultation, it is important that Ministers hear what communities have to say about this practice.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the number of times members of black or minority ethnic communities are stopped and searched under section 60; the number is significantly higher than for white people. The Met police have already looked at their planned section 60 authorisations and significantly reduced the number—from 103 in June 2011, to just six in June last year, for example.

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me with an invitation to come to Leicester and to stand on the same side as him and listen to the community. Nearly two years ago, I visited a charity involved with the Met that works on getting young people more involved with the police and improving their interaction. I remember that stop and search was raised by two members of the group of young people I met on that occasion. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it makes an impact when one hears people who have been subject to stop and search talk about their concerns and their feelings about the police as a result of how it was conducted.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her recognition of how corrosive it can be to the spirit of young people when they are stopped and searched for no better reason than the colour of their skin. I echo the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee in encouraging my right hon. Friend to have an extensive consultation. Can she provide some examples of how she will engage communities in the consultation? It is a fantastic initiative, but it must have teeth if it is to bring real hope to people who have suffered from prejudice for far too long.

[Mrs May]

There will be a place for responses to the consultation on the gov.uk website, but we intend also to hold a number of consultation meetings with people who are involved in the issue. Obviously, we want to speak with those who administer stop and search, as well as groups who have commented on it in the past, but I am sure that there will be opportunities to hear directly from people who have been subject to stop and search, as well as from communities about how they feel stop and search should be used in their community.

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

The Home Secretary will be aware that no single police activity causes more unhappiness and antagonism between the police and young black people than stop and search. That goes all the way back to the 1980s and the Brixton riots. Even after the 2011 riots, when I spoke to young people in Hackney about what triggered the riots, they said, “Stop and search.”

Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming the work of Chief Superintendent Matthew Horne at Stoke Newington police station, who is responsible for the improved figures on the efficacy of stop and search in Hackney? Does she appreciate that it is not just that respectable young black men who get stopped on a weekly basis do not like it? What they object to is not the simple fact of being stopped and searched, but the way the police talk to them. There is a lot to be done in training. Stop and search is an important weapon for the police, but proper training should stop its being used in a way that is detrimental to community relations.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady rightly speaks from experience of an issue that I know she has spoken about on a number of occasions in the House, and I am happy to commend the work of the chief superintendent at Stoke Newington who has been working to ensure a different approach and those different figures in Hackney. She is also right—when I talk to police officers, they will often say it is how they do it as much as what they are doing that can be the issue for those who are being stopped and searched. That is why there is some very good practice across the country, and also good practice with communities, explaining why stop and search is being undertaken in a particular community at a particular time so that people understand it, rather than feeling that it is something that is just being done to them within the community.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that what the public are seeking is consistency in the conduct of the police across the country? In my constituency, Erewash, the police work hard to get the right balance between keeping residents safe and respecting citizens going about their business. A review of the guidelines can only help to achieve that consistent practice that the public expect.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is right. People expect such powers to be used fairly and consistently. There are many good examples where the police are working hard in the application of the powers but, sadly, the figures show us that we need to look at the guidance that is being offered and at the training of police officers—I did not respond on training to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—to ensure that stop and search is always used fairly and properly.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I am glad to see that the police will retain the power of stop and search. Of course there needs to be fairness. It should not be the case that someone is stopped because of the colour of their skin. But does the right hon. Lady agree that at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland stop-and-search powers saved many lives from terrorists?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As I said in my statement and as he acknowledged, stop and search, properly used, at its best, is a vital tool for the police, and long may that continue.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Stop and search has far too often been misused, weakening trust in the police, particularly among those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, although it is a slightly novel approach to launch a consultation the week before the evidence base comes out. I assume that there are reasons for that. Does she agree that when the police do ask people for information, such as name and address, they should make it clear whether compliance with the request is a requirement or purely voluntary?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend talked about the launch of the public consultation this week. This is a different thing from the report that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary will be producing, which will provide an evidence base. We have figures already that I think make it right for us to question whether stop and search is always used appropriately. It is therefore right to say to the public, “We think this is a matter on which we want to hear the public’s views.” On the matter of what information needs to be recorded and what information will need to available under any changes that are made to the guidance and so forth, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will, of course, make it clear where information is required and where it is voluntary.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I think all Members of the House will welcome the consultation, which I hope will put an end to the experience of many young people of repeated stop and search. But as we are approaching the summer break, can she explain the timing of the consultation and why she thinks six weeks might be long enough, bearing in mind that people may be going on leave? It gives very little time for extending the consultation out into our communities.

[Mrs May]

I encourage the hon. Lady to do just that, and I hope she will be able to ensure that in her constituency people are aware of the consultation and are able to respond. I think six weeks is an appropriate length of time for us to be able to undertake the consultation. We will then be able to come back to the House in the autumn on the basis of both the consultation and the HMIC report, and make firmer proposals to the House on stop and search going forward.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am obliged to declare my interest as a special constable of the British Transport police and, in that role, as someone who has conducted stops and searches. May I urge the Home Secretary to use this opportunity to clear up the law with regard to face coverings? If there were a riot in Parliament square and, under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an inspector or above banned the covering of people’s faces with a balaclava, the British Transport police in Westminster tube station would not, as I understand it, be able to stop and search people for having a balaclava on their person, and if they did discover such balaclavas, they would not be able to remove them. That is an anomaly which could be addressed by the consultation.

[Mrs May]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he does as a special constable, and the limited number of Members of this House who are special constables both with the Met and other police forces and with the BTP. I am happy to look at the issue that he raised. We are looking at a number of matters in relation to the various powers of the police more generally and of the British Transport police, looking to iron out any anomalies, so I will certainly take that on board and have a look at it.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the Secretary of State have figures for the search-to-arrest ratios for the Welsh police forces?

[Mrs May]

I do not have the figures to hand for the ratios for the Welsh police forces. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman in relation to that matter.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement and the public consultation. Owing to the sensitivity of stop and search, it is important that we balance genuine public concerns about the effect that that has on public confidence in the police’s legitimate need for stop-and-search powers. In my area, Lancashire police formed a group within the community to act as an advisory group to help monitor police actions and provide them with community feedback, which I warmly welcome. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, in addition to community meetings, details of the consultation are sent to all mosques and faith-based groups across the country so that we can ensure that all parts of the community are able to respond in good time?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. We will make sure that knowledge of the consultation is as widespread as possible to enable all those who may have a great interest in responding to do so. The example that he referred to in Lancashire, of the work being done with the local community, is a good example—and there are others across the country—where police have actively tried to work with the community to explain the purpose of stop and search so that communities become more responsive to it and more willing to accept it when it takes place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Every time I come to Westminster the news records yet another vicious knife attack, and often a fatal attack. Many people feel that stop and search is a necessity and must continue. The Secretary of State mentioned that 3,212 criminals were stopped and found with weapons, and many people in the community feel that that should continue. Will she give an assurance to those who wish to see stop and search continue that that will happen?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I am absolutely clear that stop and search, when used properly, is a vital tool for the police and it is right that it should continue. As I said in my statement, as long as I am Home Secretary it will continue. But when we see half a million stops and searches in the Metropolitan police area and an arrest-to-search ratio of 9%, with 45,000 criminals being arrested as a result—the numbers for the Metropolitan police in terms of arrests have been increasing and the number of stops and searches reducing—it is right that we ask whether it is always used as appropriately as it should be. However, it should stay as a tool.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

In the past my party has not taken seriously enough the concerns of London’s black and minority ethnic communities about the way in which they are policed. It reflects huge credit on the Home Secretary that she is addressing this ongoing concern. Given that policing in this country is based on the principle of consent, does she agree that stop and search is a technique that can protect young people, but that it must be done with respect, it has to be based on intelligence and it has to enjoy the support of those who are being policed?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has neatly put his finger on the issue. Stop and search is a valuable tool, but it must have the confidence and support of the community. It can be a vital tool in the protection of young people, as he says, but it has to be dealt with on a basis of respect and intelligence, and with the support of the community.

Undercover Policing

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 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 the latest allegations concerning the use of undercover officers to smear the reputations of Doreen and Neville Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks. These allegations follow several serious claims about the activities of police officers engaged in undercover operations, and I would like to update the House on the several investigations and inquiries into the conduct of those officers.

Before I do so, I know that the whole House will want to convey its support for the Lawrence family. They experienced an unspeakable tragedy, their pain was compounded by the many years in which justice was not done, and these latest allegations, still coming 20 years after Stephen’s murder, only add to their suffering. I also know that the House will agree with me about the seriousness of allegations concerning police corruption and wrongdoing. We must be ruthless in purging such behaviour from their ranks.

As Members of the House will remember, in February I announced that the commissioner of the Metropolitan police had agreed that Mick Creedon, chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, would investigate allegations of improper practice and misconduct by the Metropolitan police’s special demonstration squad, which for around 40 years specialised in undercover operations. Mick Creedon took over a Metropolitan police investigation called Operation Herne.

In addition to these latest allegations about the Lawrence family, Operation Herne is also looking into claims about the use by police officers of dead children’s identities, the conduct of officers who had infiltrated environmentalist groups, and other serious matters. Given the nature of those allegations and the many years the special demonstration squad was in existence, we should not be surprised if further allegations are made. I want to be clear that all such allegations will be investigated. Operation Herne is led by Chief Constable Creedon and elements are supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Today the Metropolitan police are also referring details of the new set of allegations to the IPCC, meaning that this aspect of the investigation will also be supervised. I know that some Members have suggested that the IPCC should take over Operation Herne completely, and that is an understandable reaction. I spoke with Dame Anne Owers, the chair of the IPCC, earlier today. She does not believe that a greater degree of IPCC control would enhance the investigation, but I can confirm that where the Creedon investigation finds evidence of criminal behaviour or misconduct by police officers, the IPCC will investigate and the officers will be brought to justice.

I have also spoken today with Chief Constable Mick Creedon. He told me that the first strand of his work, which relates to allegations about the identities of dead children, will report before the House rises for the summer recess. At present there are 23 police officers working on the case, with a further 10 police staff working in support. In the course of their investigation they have already examined in the region of 55,000 documents and have started to interview witnesses, including police officers who worked in the special demonstration squad.

I want to emphasise that undercover operations are a vital part of protecting the public, but they need detailed supervision and constant reassessment to ensure that what is being done is justified. For obvious reasons, members of the public cannot know the details of the police’s undercover operations, but we need to have the assurance that this work is conducted properly and in accordance with a procedure that ensures that ethical lines are respected.

In February last year, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported on how forces go about undercover policing. That work was undertaken partly in response to allegations about the conduct of a police officer named Mark Kennedy, who had been tasked with infiltrating an environmental protest group. HMIC’s report made a series of recommendations designed to improve the procedures that police forces have in place for managing and scrutinising the deployment of undercover officers. Among other recommendations, HMIC said that the authorisation arrangements for high-risk undercover deployments should be improved and that additional controls should be put in place where a deployment is intended to gather intelligence rather than evidence.

Since March this year, HMIC has been working on a further report that will check on how the police have implemented its recommendations, and I can tell the House that this report is due to be published on Thursday. I can also tell the House that Tom Winsor, the new chief inspector, plans to undertake a further review of undercover police work later this year.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice told the Home Affairs Committee that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to require law enforcement authorities to obtain the prior approval of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners before renewing the deployment of an undercover officer for a period exceeding 12 months. In future, authorisation should also be sought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for any activity to develop a cover persona.

I want to turn now to the allegations regarding the Lawrence family. The investigation into Stephen’s murder has cast a long shadow over policing, especially in London. That is why, in July last year, I asked Mark Ellison QC to investigate allegations of deliberate incompetence, and corruption, on the part of officers involved in the original investigation into the murder.

Mr Ellison was the lead barrister in the successful prosecutions of Gary Dobson and David Norris and he is supported by Alison Morgan, junior counsel from the prosecution. I have spoken to Mr Ellison today, and I encouraged him to go as far and wide as he would like in his investigation. I have also spoken to Mick Creedon to make sure that Mr Ellison will have access to any relevant material uncovered in the course of Operation Herne. We must await the findings of the Ellison review, which, given the latest allegations, will be published later than originally intended. When the review concludes, a decision will have to be made about whether its findings should lead to any formal police investigations.

I am determined that we should have zero tolerance of police corruption and wrongdoing. That is why the Government are beefing up the IPCC, making the inspectorate more independent, and it is why we asked the College of Policing to establish a code of ethics for police officers.

As the House knows, I have also launched a panel inquiry into the murder of Daniel Morgan, and I am determined that we get to the bottom of all of these latest allegations. We must do so to ensure public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system, not least for the sake of Doreen and Neville Lawrence, and for the memory of their son Stephen. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I join the Home Secretary in expressing support for the Lawrence family, who have indeed endured great tragedy. I also pay tribute to them for the work that they have done to pursue justice and reform over very many years. The whole country has been appalled by the allegations that police officers were involved in spying on or attempting to undermine the Lawrence family and their friends when they should have been supporting them to get justice done. It is vital that we get to the truth about what happened.

Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a terrible racist murder, yet it took 19 years for any prosecutions to succeed. We knew already about the failings of the initial investigations and prosecutions and what the Macpherson review identified as both incompetence and institutional racism at the time. We knew already about the failure to support and listen to the Lawrence family at the time, as chronicled in the Macpherson review, and we know, too, that immense work has been done since then, including reform of policing and the work by Clive Driscoll’s team in the Met to secure the two successful prosecutions last year.

However, these latest allegations must be taken very seriously because they suggest that the full information was not given to the Macpherson review at the time—a concern that we raised last year in the House over corruption allegations, where still we have no answers. Most disturbingly of all, the latest allegations suggest that police officers were working undercover to undermine victims of crime when the very job of a police officer is to support and get justice for victims of crime. That is why people across the country—including police officers, who do vital work each day—will be appalled by these allegations.

I welcome the work that the Home Secretary has set out today on undercover policing; it is vital that there should be much stronger oversight and control of the important work that police officers do but that nevertheless needs strong control. I also welcome the commitment of the Home Secretary to ensure an independent look at the allegations about undermining the Lawrence family. I am glad that she has gone further than the Prime Minister’s call this morning for the Metropolitan police to investigate; clearly, the investigation needs to be independent. However, it remains unclear whether she expects the lead on getting to the truth of the allegations to be taken by Mark Ellison QC, by Operation Herne under Chief Constable Creedon or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. It would be very helpful to have clarification on this.

Mark Ellison QC is indeed a well-respected independent person to review these allegations and report back to the Lawrence family, but he does not, of course, have the powers to instigate criminal or disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, Operation Herne is a wide-ranging report with a far wider remit looking into undercover policing, especially in the environmental movement, over very many years. The Home Secretary set out the huge scope of that investigation in her statement. May I suggest that we need a specific independent investigation into these allegations, given their seriousness and the significance of the Lawrence investigation and the Macpherson review for policing and confidence in policing? We need a clear timetable for getting to the truth. The investigation will also need to look at whether the Macpherson review was misled. Would it not be better to set out a clear and focused independent investigation into these allegations with a precise remit and the powers to pursue both criminal and disciplinary proceedings?

The Home Secretary said that any conclusions that the Ellison review comes to would still have to be handed to the IPCC or to another police force to pursue a further investigation. Given that these allegations already refer to events of 20 years ago, surely this would risk creating significant further delays. Has she considered giving the Ellison review additional powers or combining it with independent police or IPCC investigations in order to allow it to pursue the truth and trigger further investigations where necessary?

The vital work that police officers do every day to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and support victims relies on public confidence. As we saw with the Hillsborough review, we can never ignore any case where there is evidence that police officers may be involved in undermining victims or investigations rather than supporting them. For the sake of victims of crime and the excellent work that police officers do each day, there must be a proper, swift and effective system to investigate when things go wrong and when concerns like these arise.

I hope that the Home Secretary can assure the House that there is a clear remit for the review and that she will make sure that it is clear and independent, with the focus, the powers and the timetable it needs to get to the truth and pursue the investigations. It should not have taken 19 years for the Lawrence family to have seen some justice for the murder of their son, and they should not still have to fight for answers about the way they were treated and failed so many years ago.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the approach that she has taken to this very serious issue. We all agree across this House that these allegations are appalling and need to be looked into properly.

The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the independence and timeliness of any investigation, the proper form of the investigation, and bringing people to justice. She asked specifically whether the allegations that have been revealed in relation to the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family would be investigated under Operation Herne, by Mark Ellison, or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. Operation Herne was originally set up by the Metropolitan police, but it is now being led by Chief Constable Creedon. Although Met officers are still involved in that investigation, Chief Constable Creedon has also brought into it officers from his own force and elsewhere. The investigation by Chief Constable Creedon will look specifically at the tasking of officers in the SDS. That was part of the operation’s original remit. It is one of the issues that was raised by Peter Francis in the interview that he gave to the programme that will be shown tonight.

On Mark Ellison’s review, the right hon. Lady asked whether the Macpherson inquiry was misled. Another specific part of the remit of Mark Ellison’s review is that he looks into whether all the evidence that was necessary to be given to the Macpherson inquiry was indeed given to it. Obviously, the fact that Peter Francis has suggested that he and others were told not to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry is a matter of particular concern, but that will be investigated by Mark Ellison. Having spoken to Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon this morning, I am clear that they are working together; there has been a degree of interaction between the two. They are working to ensure that nothing falls between the two stools of the review and the investigation.

It is right that investigations into whether there has been misconduct or criminality are the remit of a police investigation—the Creedon investigation—with reference to the IPCC, as has been the case today, with the Met referring these allegations to the IPCC. There must be a proper pursuit of justice so that people can be charged with criminal offences or so that appropriate action can be taken for misconduct.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of police officers in this country will be as horrified as the rest of the country at these allegations? Does she believe that a similar thing could occur now?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about police officers. It should be said in this House that the vast majority of police officers in this country are honest and act with integrity to keep the public safe, reduce crime and catch criminals. They will be as concerned as we are by the allegations that have appeared in the media over the past 24 hours.

On whether something similar could happen today, the special demonstration squad was disbanded more than a decade ago after operating for about 40 years. Since it was disbanded, there have been a number of changes to the way in which undercover and covert operations are undertaken. We are determined to look constantly at whether further changes are needed to enhance the oversight of undercover operations and the procedures under which such operations take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made the announcement last week about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Macpherson inquiry was instigated by failures in the initial investigation by the Metropolitan police. It was effectively an investigation into the Metropolitan police, so the idea that it was hiding information from the inquiry beggars belief. Sir Paul Condon, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, said that he knew nothing about the SDS in the Metropolitan police, which I believe was funded by the Home Office. Someone in the Metropolitan police decided not to provide this information to the Macpherson inquiry. Can we be clear: people are not satisfied with the police investigating the police? The public will be satisfied only by a fully independent, publicly held inquiry with oversight of all these matters, including the suggestions of corruption and the smearing of the family of Stephen Lawrence.

[Mrs May]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s level of concern. He is right that the Macpherson inquiry was an investigation into the way in which the Metropolitan police had handled itself. It went wider and looked at the Metropolitan police as a whole, including its attitudes in such cases. No information should have been hidden from the Macpherson inquiry and the allegation that it was is shocking. I set up the Mark Ellison review last year with the support of and after full discussions with Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family. I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at whether information had been withheld from the Macpherson inquiry, so that is already part of his remit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mark Ellison is independent in the work that he is doing.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Like many colleagues, I have been privileged to support Doreen and Neville Lawrence over the years, as well as Duwayne Brooks, who is a friend and colleague. I am sure that the whole of south-east London and beyond is appreciative of the Home Secretary’s quick response. However, I put it to her that it is not just the Lawrence case that gives rise to the suspicion that in those days and for quite a long time, the Metropolitan police had institutional bias against black and minority ethnic communities in London. I would like her reassurance that the independent investigation will look not just at one famous and dreadful historical case, but at what some of us suspect was a much wider problem that covered many more families over many more years.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right that it is important that the investigation into the special demonstration squad covers other cases. That is exactly what Chief Constable Creedon is determined to do. Although there is a specific allegation about the work of the SDS in respect of the Stephen Lawrence murder, it is important that the investigation covers a wider range of activities. Its remit will allow it to do just that.

If I may correct myself, I said that the SDS was disbanded more than a decade ago. In fact, it was disbanded in the late 2000s, which is not quite a decade ago.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I welcome the prompt and positive action the Home Secretary has taken this morning in light of these revelations. I am sure they will be welcomed by the Lawrence family, who may be forgiven for believing that they have been punished twice over for the fact that they inconveniently allowed their son to be murdered while he stood innocently at a bus stop in south London in 1993. Does the Home Secretary accept that I, as Home Secretary, and the Metropolitan Police Authority knew absolutely nothing about the allegations, notwithstanding that it was well known that I established the Macpherson inquiry and wanted to know everything there was to know about the Metropolitan police’s conduct of that investigation? That conduct alone is reprehensible, as is the fact that we now understand that such information was kept from Lord Condon, the then commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Does she agree that finding out why we were kept in the dark, and, more importantly, why the Macpherson inquiry was kept in the dark, should be a focus of the investigation?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he says, he established the Macpherson inquiry and was in office when it published its report. At the time, there were some very concerning issues regarding the way the murder was investigated, both originally and later on, and the attitude, which the Macpherson inquiry looked into, of the Metropolitan police. He is right that we should be very concerned if information was deliberately withheld from those who should have been given it, which is why I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at the issue of the information that was given to the Macpherson inquiry. The remit of Operation Herne, now under Chief Constable Creedon, includes looking at reporting mechanisms within the SDS, and at how information was disseminated.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Is the Home Secretary aware of the growing concern regarding the actions of the police in some instances and the inactions of the police in others? Can she comment on the reports at the weekend that the police have uncovered widespread use of private investigators to hack telephones not just by journalists, but by lawyers’ firms and other corporations? Can she say why it appears that the police thought it right to tell Lord Justice Leveson about that, but not pursue any action against those who committed criminal offences?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend will be well aware that decisions on whether the police investigate individuals and alleged offences are an operational matter for the police, and that it is for the police, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether those investigations lead to charges and prosecution. However, I recognise the degree of concern that he raises. Phone hacking by some aspects of the press has caused disquiet in this House for some time. Suggestions that it could have been more widespread are, of course, equally worrying.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and join her in condemning the shocking revelations that were made in relation to the Lawrence family. The Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report on undercover police officers on 1 March. It expressed deep concern that Operation Herne had taken 20 months, cost £1.2 million and involved 23 officers, and yet nobody had been arrested. Chief Constable Creedon is a full-time serving chief constable. Frankly, with 50,000 documents to look through it will take years to resolve this matter. We need a timetable. What words of comfort does she have for the families whose dead children’s identities have been used by undercover agents? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that the time has come to look seriously at a public inquiry into the use of undercover agents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I recognise the concern that the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Affairs Committee have raised about the timetable for Operation Herne, but I would make two comments in response. First, Chief Constable Mick Creedon expects to be able to respond on the issue of the use of dead children’s identities before the House rises for the summer recess. That is one part of the inquiry. Where possible, his intention is to report on issues as they arise, rather than waiting until the end of all the investigations, but obviously that will be done where appropriate and depending on what has been found and what he is able to report on. Secondly, it is also fair to say—the right hon. Gentleman is right about this—that the Metropolitan police had been conducting Operation Herne for some time before Chief Constable Creedon was brought in, but sometimes it is easier for somebody coming into an investigation from outside the home force being investigated to interview people and get the evidence required.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the register.

Surely we need to be clear that the police’s role is to investigate crime, not to smear the victims of crime. Given that in this case it has taken a long time for these details to emerge, is the Home Secretary satisfied that if a junior police officer is given an instruction by a more senior colleague to do something that he or she thinks is clearly inappropriate, there is the appropriate mechanism for that junior officer to do something about it?

[Mrs May]

I am absolutely clear that any junior officer asked to do something that they should not be being asked to do by a senior officer should be able to report that and ensure that appropriate action is taken. Any former officer in the special demonstration squad or anybody who has any information or allegations about the squad should come forward so that Operation Herne can have all the information available to it in the investigations that we all agree it must undertake.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Can the Home Secretary think of a more grotesquely perverted case of police priorities than one where, instead of hunting down and prosecuting those responsible for the vicious racist murder of a talented British youngster, they infiltrate an undercover agent into the campaign to secure justice? Will she assure the House that she will look personally at every undercover operation and check that nothing so dreadful is going on today?

[Mrs May]

It is of course right that we have changed the arrangements in order to put in place a stronger procedure for the deployment of undercover officers and that the Office of Surveillance Commissioners has been brought in to consider cases where it is suggested that an undercover officer should be in place for more than 12 months. Of course, the House will be concerned about the allegations made over the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family, but as to the suggestion that the Home Secretary should be responsible for deciding on undercover operations—

[Mr Hain]

I did not say that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I might have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that operational independence is important, and we should always retain that.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that it now appears that the Macpherson report, which was so controversial at the time, actually understated the scale of the problem, and that the response that Neville and Doreen Lawrence received when their son was brutally murdered fell so far short of what they had a right to expect that it is almost beyond belief? Given that the Metropolitan police cannot do their job unless they have the support of all London’s communities, is it not essential that we get to the bottom of what has happened as soon as possible and that anyone found guilty of wrongdoing feels the full weight of justice?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Neville and Doreen Lawrence had every right to expect that the police would do nothing less than hunt down those who murdered their son Stephen. Sadly, as we have seen, it was many years before anyone was brought to justice and there were issues with how the investigation was conducted and with the Metropolitan police, as was shown in the Macpherson report. He is right that if the police are to do their job, they need the confidence and support of the community, which is why it is imperative that where there is wrongdoing, it is identified, and that those who have committed wrongdoing, be it misconduct or criminal activity, are brought to the appropriate justice.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House today. Will she tell us when she was first informed of these serious allegations about the undercover operation relating to the Lawrence family?

[Mrs May]

I was made aware that there was a possibility that this allegation was being made only towards the end of last week.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

In February, the Home Secretary announced to the House an expansion of the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A key issue that my constituents raise with me is the timeliness of the decisions by the IPCC. Is she confident that the commission is sufficiently resourced to give quick, timely turnarounds when serious allegations are made against the police?

[Mrs May]

As part of the work that we are doing to expand the remit of the IPCC so that it can look into all serious allegations against police officers, we are discussing with the commission the extra resources that will need to be made available in order to ensure that it can do that. There is of course always a tension between the need for a timely response to an allegation and the need to ensure that the investigation has been conducted properly. We shall be discussing with the IPCC the level of resource that it needs to ensure that it can undertake the extra duties that we require of it.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary referred in her statement to last year’s report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which made a number of recommendations about the authorisation arrangements for undercover operations. On several occasions, she has mentioned new legislation in relation to operations lasting more than 12 months, but does she have any measures in mind that would strengthen the arrangements for serious operations lasting less than 12 months?

[Mrs May]

Yes, we have been looking at this, and HMIC will be reporting on the extent to which there is better management of those deployments of officers. One of the issues that came up in the Mark Kennedy case, which initiated that HMIC report, related not only to the length of time an individual had been operating in a particular undercover operation but to whether there had been proper management of the deployment during the course of the operation. That is something that we and HMIC will be returning to.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Mick Creedon found that the use of dead children’s identities by undercover officers had been commonplace. Does the Home Secretary recognise that until such time as the parents of all children whose identities have been stolen in that way have been informed, any parent who has lost a child will, having grieved, be left to wonder what deception might have been carried out in their child’s name? How long will it be before this matter can be resolved and those parents can be given the reassurance that they need?

[Mrs May]

Chief Constable Creedon has indicated that he hopes to be able to respond on that issue before the House breaks for the summer recess. I cannot say what his response to the available information will be, but I hope that Members will welcome the fact that he has put a priority on that particular issue.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

The full implications of the Home Secretary’s statement are truly shocking, and I share the reservations about the remedies that have been expressed by those on the Labour Front Bench. One thing that the Home Secretary could do now is address the issue raised with her by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and confirm to the House that the report he referred to exists. Will she get a copy of it and place it in the House of Commons Library? Will she also give a copy to the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who should have been given it some years ago?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will, of course, take seriously the references made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Undercover work requires exceptional personnel and thorough controls. Selection and training are vital components to ensure that such operations as have been reported to us today do not happen again. Will my right hon. Friend look at training across the country to ensure that the training of undercover officers is of the highest standard and that the training of senior police officers ensures that they understand the very important need for control throughout an operation, whether it be a short-term or a long-term one?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance not only of training for individual officers, but of the need to ensure that senior officers properly manage any deployment of undercover operatives. That is indeed one of the issues that, as I mentioned earlier, was raised in the HMIC report last year. HMIC will, of course, look at the implementation of its recommendations, and will be reporting this Thursday. Having set up the College of Policing, we now have a body that is responsible for ensuring that for police operations across the board, appropriate training is given and to the right and correct standards.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Another of the allegations that have been made is that an undercover police officer was one of the co-authors of the leaflet that led to what became known as the McLibel court case, and that another undercover police officer had a two-year relationship with one of the defendants in that case. Will the Home Secretary ensure that this is also thoroughly investigated?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the remit of Operation Herne in relation to the SDS goes very wide. It is not focused just on a limited number of cases; it looks at the whole operation of the SDS, including the reporting lines, as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and a number of other matters. It has a wide-ranging remit.

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

These allegations are very shocking, but for those of us involved in campaigning around those issues at the time, they are not entirely surprising. It was era when, for instance, there was a death in police custody and negative information very quickly found its way into the public domain. I was the first Member of Parliament to raise this case on the Floor of the House and I was close to the Lawrence family at the time. I remember that the reason why Doreen was so angry, so upset and so determined was that she felt that the police were not even trying. Now, it seems clear that they not only were not trying, but were actively trying to denigrate and smear the family. Does the Home Secretary appreciate that this was a totemic case for a generation and that she owes it the Lawrence family, but also to the wider community, to get to the bottom of what happened, who knew and who authorised this operation?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I fully understand the seriousness of this case and the allegations made around it. The Operation Herne investigation will get to the bottom of this; it is the whole point of having that investigation, and also the Mark Ellison review to look at issues around the Macpherson inquiry and other matters. We will get to the bottom of this, find out what was happening and how the SDS was operating, how it was being tasked and so forth.

The hon. Lady is right to say that this is a case about which many people were concerned. As she says, she was the first Member of Parliament to raise it in this House—and appropriately so. I can only join the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family for the work they have done over the years not to take no for an answer and to carry on campaigning until they have seen at least a degree of justice in relation to Stephen’s murder. But as we have seen from these allegations, there is still more to be done.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Home Secretary for the statement she has given today. It is something beyond disgusting that, when many of us thought that Macpherson was a moving-on stage in the whole area of public policy in relation to the black community and to policing, we find out that whole elements of the Metropolitan police had not moved on at all, and indeed were busy smearing and obstructing justice in exactly the way they had beforehand. The Guardian reported at great length on Saturday the behaviour of two undercover police officers, Bob Lambert and John Dines. Bob Lambert is known to some of us in this House and is a very clever operator—there is no question about that. It is also clear that during the undercover operations used against the Lawrence family and in the McLibel case and a number of other cases, senior officers in Scotland Yard must have known who was doing what and known of the disreputable personal behaviour of such people, and must still know. I hope the inquiry is not restricted within the police force but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), is open and public, and that heads roll at a high level in Scotland Yard for those who have covered up the truth and allowed smearing and injustice to go on for a very long time. Unless that inquiry gets to the bottom of these matters, there will be no credibility and no public confidence in policing.

[Mrs May]

The investigation is, of course, looking into allegations that attempts were made to smear the Lawrence family, is looking widely at the operation and tasking of the special demonstration squad, and is looking at how reporting was undertaken, which I assume will include the question of who was aware of what was being done. It is clear that a number of cases are already under the supervision of the IPCC because they relate to the conduct of officers, which it is appropriate for the IPCC to consider, but I am clear, as are those involved in the investigation, that they should follow the evidence, and we must ensure that those who are guilty of wrongdoing will be brought to justice.

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

In view of the latest allegations of disgraceful conduct, as well as the names of dead children being used by police agents, and previous misconduct relating to Hillsborough—for which the Prime Minister has apologised—the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, was there not something rotten at the heart of policing for many years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of issues other than the operations of the special demonstration squad—of course, the House has debated the events that took place at Hillsborough, which are also being investigated by both former Chief Constable Jon Stoddart and the IPCC—and it is right that we get to the bottom of such matters. What is as important is that we ensure that lessons have been learned from how things were done in the past, and that changes have taken place. As I said in relation to the deployment of undercover operatives, we are clear that we need to continue to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place and that where those operatives are working—they do good work in many cases to keep the public safe—they do so according to ethical lines, and appropriately.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It seems that a host of different organisations is involved in looking at the allegations—Chief Constable Creedon, the IPCC, Mr Mark Ellison QC—but would it not be better to have one properly resourced investigation with clear timetables, preferably led by the IPCC?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are several strands to the work that is taking place; it is being done in that way for very good reasons. The investigation of Operation Herne, now led by Chief Constable Creedon, with some aspects supervised by the IPCC, is looking at a wide remit in the operation of the special demonstration squad, but also at whether any criminal activities took place, and whether any appropriate action must be taken in relation to such criminal activities or misconduct by police officers. The Mark Ellison review was set up to look at the information available, to see whether specific corruption was taking place around the investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder and whether all the information that should have been given to the Macpherson inquiry was given to it. In due course, there may be a need for investigations to come out of that review, but I suggest we wait until the review is completed before making that decision.

European Arrest Warrant

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Written Statements

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

On 16 April 2013, I informed the House that the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) had identified an error in the way in which they had captured and reported the number of outgoing (part 3) European arrest warrants (EAWs) that have been issued since 2009-10. As I set out in April, I take this matter extremely seriously, and undertook to establish whether any adverse consequential issues may have arisen, as well as ensure that any inaccurate data that may have been provided to Parliament are corrected. Accordingly, I asked HM chief inspector of constabulary (HMCIC), in collaboration with SOCA, to audit SOCA’s systems for collecting data on EAWs; to validate the EAW figures; to ensure that the error identified in collecting data had no detrimental impact on public protection; and to provide assurances that SOCA’s new case information management system (CIMS) will provide accurate data in future.

This audit is now complete and I would like to thank HMCIC for the work his inspectorate have done to produce their report so promptly, copies of which are in the House Library. The report found that; a) the audit SOCA undertook to verify the data was robust, and the part 1 audit would result in the identification of more arrests and surrenders than previously promulgated; b) there was no evidence of systemic weaknesses that would adversely affect public protection; and c) CIMS would help SOCA record more accurate data in future.

The report also made a number of recommendations about work going forward, including: extending the auditing process to compare SOCA’s EAW data with information held on the police national computer; to give consideration to a focused campaign to find and arrest fugitives hiding in the UK; and to review the progress of all other changes to SOCA’s EAW process (including the implementation of CIMS) before the end of 2013. SOCA has accepted all these recommendations.

My officials will work with SOCA and, going forward, the National Crime Agency, to ensure that these recommendations are fully implemented.

SOCA has now provided revised data relating to incoming (part 1) and outgoing (part 3) EAWs. A high-level summary of the data is attached to this statement. The revised data will also be published on both the Home Office and SOCA websites.

This information should be seen as superseding any figures on EAW numbers which had previously been provided to Parliament in response to parliamentary questions asked on this issue since 2009-10, as well as in response to enquiries and reports from parliamentary committees.

Summary of corrected EAW figures

The following tables refer to revised figures as issued by SOCA. A complete breakdown of the corrected figures can be found on the Home Office and SOCA websites:

http://www.soca.gov.uk/.

http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office.

Justice and Home Affairs Post Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 6 and 7 June in Luxembourg. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom.

The Council began with the Justice day. The presidency invited member states to give general support to part of the proposed regulation on data protection, while at the same time stressing that nothing would be formally agreed until agreement had been reached on the entire proposal. There was a detailed discussion during which a number of member states including the UK stressed that further work was needed, that clarity was required on where exemptions would apply, and supporting a properly-defined “risk-based” approach. The UK stressed the need to take account of the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises as well as major ones. A number of states, including the UK, argued that it was too soon to accept the presidency’s text and the level of “general support” called for by the presidency was not forthcoming. The relevant text will be further discussed in future negotiations.

The presidency secured a general approach on the proposed directive on protection of the financial interests of the Union by criminal law. The Council agreed to a number of amendments to the Commission’s proposal, including excluding VAT from scope and deleting the requirement for member states to set minimum terms of imprisonment. The presidency made it clear that the general approach was conditional on the text being based on article 83(2) rather than article 325 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This was an outcome which the UK supported.

The presidency presented a paper concerning the proposed regulation on a European account preservation order (EAPO), highlighting the importance of striking an appropriate balance between the interests of the creditor and the debtor—the concern that had led to the UK deciding not to opt in. Discussions covered the possible liability of a creditor who had suffered loss as a result of a wrongly issued EAPO, the possibility of the creditor being required to provide security, and the issue of ex parte proceedings.

Over lunch Ministers discussed the charter of fundamental rights, and rejected calls for work designed to increase its visibility.

The Council considered the proposed regulation on insolvency. All member states which spoke, including the UK, supported the proposal. The UK pressed for speed, highlighting the benefits of the proposed measure for the internal market. Various delegations intervened to raise points of detail.

The Commission presented its new proposal on acceptance of certain public documents as one which would reduce regulatory procedural burdens and enable savings of £255 million per year.

The Council adopted conclusions on fundamental rights, rule of law and the charter of fundamental rights. The Commission presented its annual report on the charter and made reference to the justice scoreboard. The UK stressed that the justice scoreboard had not been accepted by the Council and had no legal base; moreover; rule of law work at EU level should focus on an informal exchange of views—there was no power for the Commission in respect of member states’ constitutions.

A state of play report was given on EU accession and the presidency noted the progress made.

The Council adopted the EU action plan drugs strategy for 2013-17, and received a presentation by the director of the European monitoring centre for drugs and drugs addiction.

The Lithuanian Minister made a presentation of his country’s justice priorities for their forthcoming presidency. They included the common European sales law and data protection, and they would seek general approaches on the account preservation order and the insolvency regulation. They would also take forward proposals on counterfeiting and protection of the Union’s financial interests.

The second day began in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States) where Ministers welcomed the deal reached in trilogue on the Schengen evaluation mechanism (SEM) and Schengen borders code (SBC). The package retains the member state peer-to-peer evaluation system and control over reintroduction of temporary internal border controls, with a greater role for the Commission in the implementation of the evaluation system and increased European Parliament access to documents. The presidency also welcomed the third biannual Schengen governance report. The Commission noted that the pressure at the Greece-Turkey land border had decreased, but warned member states to remain vigilant for displacement pressure.

The Greek Minister then presented an overview of progress made on the Greek national action plan on asylum and migration (GNAP). The Minister highlighted what he saw as key achievements, the greatest being the full operation of the new asylum service, as well as the appointment of a single co-ordinator to administer the structural funds. He noted that the focus would now be on raising the standards by opening new reception centres, introducing mobile screening units and through quicker processing. The Greek Minister thanked the UK for its financial support for returns from Greece. The Commission welcomed Greece’s progress, but remained concerned about conditions in some detention centres, and reminded Greece that, given continuing under spending of EU funds, increasing absorption capacity should be a focus for the Greek authorities.

The main Council started with a discussion on foreign fighters and the potential threat they pose if and when they return to Europe. Member states expressed concern about the matter and I agreed to take forward work with a small number of affected member states. The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (Gilles de Kerchove) provided an overview of his recent paper on foreign fighters and urged Ministers to take immediate action to address the potential threat to EU internal security that jihadists travelling to Syria posed. The UK highlighted the importance in supporting those who wanted to do all they can to support the humanitarian effort, while deterring them from actually travelling out to Syria where they are at risk of putting themselves and innocent Syrians in danger. I expressed my disappointment that the European Parliament had failed to adopt its report on the EU PNR directive. The external action service (Maciej Popowski) cautioned against viewing all those who travelled to Syria as terrorists and reminded member states of the need also to address counter-proliferation. The Commission declared its intention to carry out a risk assessment on foreign fighters and enhance the work of the radicalisation awareness network. The presidency concluded that there was broad support for the ideas in the CTC’s paper which would be taken forward at working level. The UK also provided a brief update on the recent attack in Woolwich and thanked colleagues for their messages of condolence.

Next the presidency sought views on the Commission’s proposal for a new Europol regulation focusing on the proposed merger of Europol and the European Police College (CEPOL) and strengthened obligations on member states to provide Europol with information. There was a clear consensus against the merger despite the Commission highlighting that the Council had a duty to follow the common approach on EU decentralised agencies and make efficiency and cost savings. The UK spoke out against the merger, agreeing with 18 other member states that it would have a negative impact on both training and operational activities and that the Commission’s own calculations had failed to demonstrate cost savings. The presidency concluded that work would begin at expert level on the assumption that the merger would not be included in the regulation.

On the proposed obligation to share information, a number of member states expressed opposition to the Commission’s proposals. The UK acknowledged the importance of information sharing but said we could not accept any proposal that made national law enforcement agencies accountable to Europol, or that would lead to member states losing control over decisions on what data they share and with whom. Increased obligations could also result in member states overwhelming Europol with information in order to comply with the regulation, to the detriment of the quality of the information. The UK also raised concerns over obligations to carry out domestic investigations at the request of Europol. No other member states intervened on this point. Discussion will move to expert level.

There was an update on the common European asylum system (CEAS). After four years of negotiations, three of the four instruments were adopted by the Council, and the final element (Eurodac regulation) will be adopted at the June Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) Council.

There was a discussion on the protection of refugees from Syria. The European external action service was pleased to announce that President Barroso had secured additional aid for Syria, and hoped that the Geneva II process, the international peace conference held in Geneva that discusses the conflict in Syria, would make progress in the medium term. According to the European asylum support office, Syria remained in the top three asylum intake for the EU member states and anticipated that this trend would remain. The Commission welcomed the increase in humanitarian aid and noted that the UNHCR would shortly call for the humanitarian admission of 10,000 refugees, with a further 2,000 set aside for resettlement to the EU. The Commissioner welcomed the high recognition rate within the EU, but remained concerned about the divergent practices between member states and the detention of Syrian nationals. The UK noted an increase in Syrian asylum seekers, and pointed to increased humanitarian aid as the most urgent short-term priority for the EU; the UK had pledged £170 million to date. The medium-term priority should be the establishment of the regional protection programme (RPP) to provide support in the regions affected and the UK hoped its place on the steering committee for the programme would be confirmed soon. Finally, the UK welcomed work by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to develop an accurate picture of asylum claims and in co-ordination of any special support that would be requited as a result. The presidency noted that this discussion would continue at the Informal Council in July, where the UNHCR would outline further the plans for the admission and resettlement of Syrian nationals.

In the margins of the Council, the Ministers of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK signed the mobility partnership with Morocco, alongside Commissioner Malmström and the Moroccan Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Saad Dine El Otmani.

Over a working lunch Ministers discussed free movement an issue the UK has been working hard to get the Council to consider. Although there was a divergence of views on how to deal with this issue, all Ministers agreed that free movement was a core right that should be protected and expressed a wish to work together to look at possible abuse of free movement. The UK, supported by a number of other member states, stressed the need to tackle abuse to ensure continued public confidence in the principle, and called for follow-up work in the Council with a report back to JHA Ministers. However, led by the Commission, a number of member states resisted, arguing that the discussion should be led by the Commission with a focus on the evidence of the problem. The presidency asked a Commission-led group to investigate the issue to provide an interim report to the October JHA Council and a final report in December. It was decided that the EPSCO Ministers would also be given the opportunity to feed into the report. The UK thanked the presidency for the discussion and for the recognition that there should be follow up work at EU level and indicated that the UK, Germany and a number of other member states would also be progressing work on ways of dealing with the abuse of free movement.

Under any other business the presidency reported on work on the Eurosur regulation, regulation 562 (Schengen borders code) and regulation 539 (visa requirements for nationals of non-EU countries). The presidency also provided updates on the three legal migration directives. It called for member states’ flexibility on the files on seasonal workers and intracorporate transferees (ICTs) as they hoped to reach first reading deals. Negotiations for the students and researchers proposal would continue under the Lithuanian presidency. The Commission emphasised the importance of the instruments in making the EU more attractive for companies and highly skilled workers while protecting those who were at risk of exploitation. The UK has not opted in to the proposals on seasonal workers and intracorporate transferees and is considering whether to opt in to the third measure on students and researchers.

The multi-annual financial framework (MFF) was making good progress, and the presidency hoped to secure the basis of a deal before the end of June. The presidency highlighted that negotiations continued on the asylum and migration fund (AMF) and internal security fund (ISF police). On the former, there were a number of issues that required flexibility from member states but there was agreement on the latter, subject to the actual budget itself.

The Lithuanian presidency noted that theirs would be the last full term presidency before the European Parliament elections, so there would be a concerted effort to conclude all outstanding negotiations. In addition, Lithuania had put Europol and cyber security high on the agenda and a debate on the latter would be a focus for the Informal Council in July, alongside a review of the Stockholm programme, a discussion on Syria, and the annual report on immigration and asylum. The eastern partnership would be a horizontal priority for the presidency, and the Minister noted that the eastern partners would be present at the October JHA Council.

Finally, the Commission presented its Communication on migration and development in preparation for the forthcoming high-level dialogue; Sweden briefly explained the role of the global forum on migration and development (GFMD) and looked forward to welcoming member states to the meeting in Stockholm next May; Hungary fed back from the recent ministerial meeting in Istanbul on the Budapest process and discussions on the silk routes partnership; and Slovenia provided an update on the Brdo process (intended to strengthen ties with the western Balkans) and the recent informal meeting of Ministers which discussed action to tackle abuse of visa liberalisation and co-operation on combating illegal arms trafficking. The EU-Russia summit on 3-4 June had briefly touched on JHA issues, in particular the visa facilitation agreement (VFA), which the Commission hoped would be signed soon.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 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.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘House’ to end and add

‘believes that the decision on exercising the UK’s opt out from EU former third pillar measures should be taken in the national interest, with consideration given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms; and welcomes the commitment made by the Minister for Europe on 20 January 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government makes a formal decision on whether it wishes to opt out.’.

Let me first set out some of the background to this important issue, because judging from the speech that we have just heard, there seems to be some confusion among Opposition Members. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the Opposition signed up to, the United Kingdom must decide by the end of May 2014 whether we opt out of, or remain bound by, roughly 130 EU police and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the Lisbon treaty came into force. I provided a full list of those measures to the House on 21 May. The Government are required, under the treaty, to reach a final decision by 31 May 2014, with that decision taking effect on 1 December 2014.

Let me also set out the commitment that this Government have made on this matter. On 20 January 2011 my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe set out in a written ministerial statement that a vote would be held in both Houses of Parliament before the Government make a formal decision on whether they wish to opt out. That remains the Government position and I am happy today to reiterate our commitment to hold a vote on this matter. That is why I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion as premature, and support the Government’s amendment.

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

The Home Secretary knows that there has been considerable correspondence from the European Scrutiny Committee to the Government at all levels asking them to list those measures that they intend to opt into. We have the practical problem of how that will be done. Will we be able to vote to opt in or opt out knowing exactly and in detail what the Government will then opt back into before the vote is taken?

[Mrs May]

Yes. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is indeed the Government’s intention to provide Parliament with a list of the measures that we wish to opt back into, so Parliament will have that before it votes on the matter.

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

The Government have repeatedly said that they want to engage with Select Committees as part of the process, but still, many months after they were promised, we do not have the explanatory memorandums, and Committees are not in a position to factor into their work the consideration that will be required to inform the vote that the Home Secretary has just referred to.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend makes. We will supply the Select Committees with explanatory memorandums and the list of measures that the Government propose to opt back into, and we will also discuss with relevant Committees how the vote will be taken in Parliament.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the European arrest warrant, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding and to achieve maximum clarity, will the Home Secretary say here and now that it is the Government’s intention to opt into the European arrest warrant because she recognises that it is so important to this country?

[Mrs May]

I will announce what the Government will do in relation to the European arrest warrant at the time that I list those measures that we wish to opt into or not rejoin, so the hon. Gentleman will just have to be a little more patient.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I hope that part of the consultation will be with the devolved Parliaments, because the Home Secretary will know of the very real concern from the Scottish Government and from Police Scotland about the loss of the European arrest warrant. The Justice Secretary said that could have appalling consequences for Scottish justice. Will the Home Secretary make sure that she consults properly and listens carefully to what Scotland has to say on the matter?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly pre-empted something that I was going to say a little later in my speech, so I will bring it forward in answer to his question. Following my announcement in October, Ministers have engaged with the devolved Administrations and their operational partners. The Minister responsible for security has visited both Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a particular issue in relation to Northern Ireland and we are aware of the importance of taking into account any implications that the 2014 decision might have for policing, given the land border with the Republic of Ireland, and we will continue to work with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that those matters are fully considered.

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

Have negotiations on the measures that the Home Secretary hopes to opt back into commenced or is she planning to wait until December 2014 and then seek to opt into various measures? Has she had any indication which ones our European partners will accept?

[Mrs May]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have listened to the remarks I made earlier in my speech, when I made it clear that a decision by the Government has to be taken by 31 May 2014, while 1 December 2014 is the date by which the opt-out takes final effect, so by definition any negotiations in relation to opt-in must take place before that takes effect.

This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly, despite the entreaties of the Opposition. I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made on this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

Under what circumstances does the Home Secretary think it would be acceptable to stay out of the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I will move on to the principles that the Government will follow when looking at each and every measure and considering whether to opt back in. In her speech, the right hon. Lady made something of an issue about the timetable and asked why we had not yet come to a decision. I refer her to the remarks of the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty in 2008. She said that

“on the whole body of police, criminal and judicial measures that are transferred, it is our decision—six months before that five-year period finishes—as to whether we want to continue in those measures, if they have not been renegotiated or repealed during that time. We will make that decision on the basis of whether continuing in those measures, with ECJ jurisdiction, is in the national interest. We have negotiated the ability to make that decision and we have negotiated that transitional period.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]

That is precisely what this Government are following.

My statement on 15 October last year set out the Government’s approach: we intend to opt out of all police and criminal justice measures that pre-date the Lisbon treaty and then negotiate with the Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin. That remains the Government’s position.

As I explained in a letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in November last year, we will consider how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. We will also consider the impact of each measure on our civil rights and traditional liberties.

[Keith Vaz]

The Home Affairs Committee certainly looks forward to receiving the list when the Home Secretary has it ready. There is a measure on her desk at the moment concerning Europol that is not related to the opt-in/opt-out issue. It is very important that we sign up to it, because it affects the governance of that organisation, and I know that she is a supporter of Rob Wainwright and Europol. Is she now in a position to sign up to that new regulation?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Commission has brought forward some new proposals relating to Europol. Some parts of the proposals cause concern to the Government, and indeed those of most member states across the European Union, but there will be a debate in this House—at the beginning of July, I believe—on whether the Government propose to opt back into that measure. The scrutiny is continuing, but obviously the Government will make clear our position when the debate takes place.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion that what is really going on here is that the Labour party would love to sign up to all this European justice agenda but dares not say so because it is frightened of the UK Independence party?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not at all clear from the shadow Home Secretary’s speech what the Labour party’s position is on this. Does it wish to exercise the opt-out it negotiated, or does it wish to be bound by all the measures? We are at a loss to know where it stands on the issue. I am also at a loss to see what she can object to in the approach I have just set out regarding the policies and principles we will follow in looking at every single measure. It involves exercising a treaty right that was negotiated by the previous Government. Why on earth did they bother negotiating it if they were not going to use it? The Labour party, when in government, laid the paving stones, but it criticises us for walking down them. I am at even more of a loss in trying to untangle the Opposition’s position from the confusion of today’s debate.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On the subject of the Labour party, I think that we need to reassure the public, because the shadow Home Secretary gave a series of grisly examples of murders, people being beaten up and eye sockets being staved in. The implication is that if we are not part of the European arrest warrant none of the perpetrators would be dealt with. Can we at least have a sensible debate and say that those people could be dealt with after reciprocal arrangements are made?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is correct that we have extradition treaties with other countries that are not members of the European Union, and we had extradition arrangements before the European arrest warrant came into place. However, as I set out earlier, we will look at each measure to determine whether it contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. I think that those are entirely sensible principles on which to base the proposals that the Government will bring forward in due course.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the Home Secretary also take into account the impact that all these things have on British democracy? Some of us are deeply worried that Ministers do not have enough powers and cannot be accountable to this House because they can be trumped by perverse European Court of Justice judgments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right. In looking at these decisions, we have to bear in mind the fact of ECJ jurisdiction, which will now be applicable to these measures but was not when they were originally established. I have to say that one of the more interesting exchanges I have seen this afternoon raised the idea of the shadow Home Secretary being tempted by my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I think that I had better move swiftly on.

We are now in complete confusion as to whether the Opposition want to exercise the opt-out and whether they want to change anything about our justice and home affairs arrangements. If they do not want to change anything, why does their motion refer to reforming the European arrest warrant? In their motion they list seven measures that they think we should be opting back into, but the right hon. Lady raised other measures that she implied we should opt back into. She talked about party politics. I am afraid that the only party politics lie in calling this debate, and it is the Opposition who want to put narrow politics before the national interest.

The shadow Home Secretary suggests that our approach, which her own Government set in train, will play into the hands of criminals. That is an outrageous accusation. As Home Secretary, I am absolutely clear in my duty to protect the United Kingdom against crime and terrorism and to keep our borders secure. She said that crime does not stop at the borders, and she is absolutely right. That is exactly why this Government are creating the National Crime Agency, which will be a powerful crime-fighting body that deals with crime across borders, particularly serious organised and complex crime. The UK is a sovereign nation, and we must not carelessly hand over more and more powers to the European Commission or the European Court of Justice.

It is clearly important that law enforcers have the tools they need to work with our European neighbours and protect the British public. That is why we have been listening to the views of law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies on this matter. The Justice Secretary and I have met representatives from the Association of Chief Police Offices, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the security services, and the Serious Fraud Office, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are listening to, and taking seriously, what those on the front line have to say. As I said, we have also had discussions with the devolved Administrations. But this is a decision for the Government to take, and we will not absolve ourselves of that responsibility by delegating the decision to others as the Opposition apparently wish us to.

As I have said to this House previously, under the terms of the treaty signed by Labour, the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, cannot pick and choose the measures from which we wish to opt out. The shadow Home Secretary may well prefer that we could, but thanks to her party’s negotiation we can only opt out en masse and then seek to rejoin individual measures. Operational experience shows that some of the pre-Lisbon measures are useful, while some are less so and some are now entirely defunct. For example, one measure establishes a directory on organised crime competences that was closed by Europol in February 2012. Although the directory is closed, it remains a measure subject to the 2014 decision under which, arguably, member states are still obliged to update their contributions to it. We do not see any reason to subject this measure to formal enforcement powers. Some other measures have not been implemented and doing so would require considerable time and money. Not being ready by 1 December 2014 would immediately open the UK up to substantial risk of infraction and the very real risk of being fined millions of pounds.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am being very indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, but I give way.

[Michael Connarty]

The Home Secretary is well aware of the position. In fact, her own Government are making quite a hue and cry about the fact that the European Commission can strike out any of these things as redundant and has been doing so for the past three or four years. Regarding this nonsense about being trapped in some directory that does not exist any more, it is very simple: the European Commission can simply strike it out, as it has on many occasions. She might like to consult the Europe Minister, who could inform her of the facts.

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of what is and what is not in the list of the 2014 decision that we have to take, and the measure that I have referred to is in it.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is right to refer to that particular directory as being defunct. Arguably, therefore, it is relatively harmless. If she has such a precise view on that measure, will she tell us her view on the European arrest warrant? That, not all the defunct directories, is the central subject of the motion and the most important measure at stake. ACPO has said how crucial it is and it has been used in countless different criminal cases. Why does the Home Secretary seem to be the only person who does not have a view on the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

Sadly, the right hon. Lady does not seem to understand what the decision is about and, therefore, what her debate is about. Her debate is about the fact that her Government negotiated a situation in which we can either opt out of all the measures and then try to opt back in, or opt into all the measures.

I have been very open that it would not be appropriate to opt into any measure that we think would take considerable time and money. We will not be in a position to immediately rejoin Prüm, which requires member states to allow the reciprocal searching of their databases for DNA profiles, vehicle registration data and fingerprints, because implementing it fully will take years and require substantial funding. The previous Government estimated that it would cost more than £30 million back in 2007—that figure may well be higher now—and they subsequently did nothing to implement it.

The shadow Home Secretary’s spurious accusations about the Government’s European policy seem to be a cover for the confusion on her own Benches. I note that in response to a number of interventions she did not clearly state what her own policy is. It seems to be to negotiate an opt-out but not exercise it and to sign up to costly measures such as Prüm but not implement them. That is not the sort of leadership that the United Kingdom needs in Europe.

[Wayne David]

The Home Secretary says that she has had discussions with ACPO. What advice did it give her?

[Mrs May]

ACPO, as it has made clear to Committees of this House, has set out those measures that it feels will be useful in a policing sense. There is absolutely no secret about what ACPO has made clear.

[Mr Raab]

It may help the Home Secretary to know that in its submission to the House of Lords European Union Committee, ACPO reckoned that only 13 of the 135 measures were vital for law enforcement. Is she aware of that and does it not cast a shadow on the spurious law enforcement claims of the Opposition?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that ACPO went on to say that 55 of the measures had no practical effect whatsoever.

[Dr Huppert]

ACPO said a number of things. It also said that opting out of the European arrest warrant

“would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”

We should take all of ACPO’s advice, not just some of it.

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend that, given that I have not published a list, he is not in a position to know which parts of ACPO’s advice I have listened to or not. What I have said is that I have listened to ACPO’s advice and it is absolutely clear that it thinks that a very limited number of measures are beneficial to policing and that a significant number are of no practical benefit whatsoever. We have also listened to a number of other organisations with relevant experience in this particular field.

The Government have been clear that we must consider the full impact of ECJ jurisdiction on each of these measures. The European Union Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has made it clear that the old third pillar often led to outcomes at the lowest common denominator, mostly in order to secure unanimity. The vast majority of these measures were not negotiated with ECJ jurisdiction in mind, and the drafting often reflects that. We should be very careful about allowing the ECJ to interpret such measures.

Why do I say that? Because it is for this House to write the UK’s laws. For example, where Parliament agrees with the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, Parliament can pass a law to make its will clear and remedy the effect of that judgment. However, judgments passed down in Luxembourg by the European Court cannot be addressed in this way. Instead, they require a change to EU law, which cannot be brought about by the UK alone. That is an important point for us to consider.

In the Metock case, for example, the European Court of Justice made a ruling that extended free movement rights to illegal migrants if they are married to a European economic area national who is exercising those rights. Since the Metock judgment, we have seen a steady increase in sham marriages involving EEA nationals. However, the UK cannot fix that issue alone, despite there being agreement on both sides of the House.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that there is never a role for the European Court of Justice. If that was the case, we would never opt into any new measures. However, as a question of policy, we need carefully to consider the Court’s ability to interfere in our criminal justice system and weigh that against any benefits that the measure may bring.

As the shadow Home Secretary has said on quite a few occasions, the opt-out decision involves the European arrest warrant. I know that that measure is of particular interest to many Members. Let me start by refuting the fatuous suggestion that we would consider opting out of it simply because it has the word “European” in its title. The Government are looking at each measure on its merits and nothing else. When the case is made that a measure is in our national interest, we will participate in it. As I have said previously, we will consider how each measure contributes to public safety and security; whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it; and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if we pursued it by other mechanisms before making a final decision. The European arrest warrant is no different in that respect.

The arrest warrant has had some success in streamlining the extradition process within the EU. The shadow Home Secretary referred to the arrest last month of Andrew Moran, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives, by the Spanish police. However, as I set out in my statement in October, there have also been problems. The Government are concerned about the disproportionate use of the arrest warrant for trivial offences and its potential use for action in the United Kingdom in relation to activity that is not considered to be a crime in the UK. We also have concerns about the lengthy pre-trial detention of British citizens overseas.

The motion and the shadow Home Secretary’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) suggest that the Opposition finally share our concerns about the European arrest warrant and would like to see its operation reformed. If that is the case, the whole Government welcome the admission that Labour got it wrong on the European arrest warrant and I am glad that we will have its new-found support if we wish to make any changes in that regard.

We may not have had much clarity from the Opposition today, but I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the views of Parliament on this important matter. This Government, more than any before us, have done our utmost to ensure that Parliament has the time to scrutinise our decisions relating to the European Union and that its views are taken into account. As I have said, we have made a commitment to hold a vote in both Houses of Parliament before we take a final decision on the opt-out. That vote will take place in good time before May 2014. However, I remind hon. Members that current and forthcoming proposals in the EU will have an effect on the 2014 decision.

[Sir Alan Beith]

In giving that assurance, will the Home Secretary indicate when Select Committees will receive the explanatory memorandum that we have been promised for so long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am not able to set a date for the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise his enthusiasm for seeing the explanatory memorandum, but we are still looking at the structure of the list of measures that we want to opt back into.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned the new Europol regulation, which is a good example of the way in which the measures in the 2014 list are being affected. The existing Europol regulation is on the list, but we must decide whether to opt into the new regulation proposed by the European Commission by the end of July. Ultimately, our decision on whether to participate in the new proposal, either at the outset or post-adoption, will determine our long-term participation in Europol. The Government have offered a Lidington-style debate on the opt-in decision. That is a new parliamentary term that I am sure the Clerks will put into Standing Orders at an appropriate time. The debate will be held in the House on 3 July and I look forward to hearing the views of Parliament on that issue.

Similarly, we expect the Commission to publish proposals on Eurojust and a European public prosecutor’s office shortly. Again, we will have opt-in decisions to make. However, I remind all Members that the coalition agreement could not be clearer on this point: we will not participate in the creation of a new and needless pan-European public prosecutor. That is out of the question.

What we have heard today from the shadow Home Secretary is another example of her carping while the Government get on with the reforms our country needs. She was the one who said we could not cut police budgets without crime going up, and she was wrong. She was the one who argued against the Winsor review, and she was wrong. She was the one who opposed our immigration reforms, which have already cut net migration by more than a third—she was wrong. On measure after measure, the shadow Home Secretary has been left on her own, moaning from the sidelines.

The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest, with questions of public safety and security, and practical co-operation uppermost in our minds. I am delighted to reiterate the commitment made by the Minister for Europe in 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government make a formal decision. In the meantime, the country needs a careful, considered and constructive debate, not the sound and fury we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches today.

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

The Whips will be pleased to know that I support the motion, but I do not have too much problem with the amendment. The problem is the timing of the amendment because it deals with generalities when we need to start talking about specifics, particularly if the Home Secretary’s pledge that this should be a matter for Parliament to decide is to be honoured. Truth to tell, the opt-out in article 10 to protocol 36 was negotiated as an insurance policy to give us the time and ability to look at all the measures. We must remember that police and criminal justice issues were not part of the European Union until the Maastricht treaty—which was agreed by the previous Conservative Government—introduced them, and even then there was no competency for the European Court of Justice. That was a big change, and if we could have negotiated the option to look at each individual policy and decide whether to stay in or out we would have done, but that was unachievable. No other country is subject to article 10 to protocol 36, and the transition we managed to achieve is exclusive to this country.

We are in a process of considering how we deal with this crucial matter. The Home Secretary mentioned that we were getting confused about the timetable. I heard no confusion about that from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, but the Prime Minister was certainly confused. On 28 September 2012 he said that the opt-out decision had to be made before the end of the year, and he added:

“We’ll be exercising that opt-out.”

Soon afterwards in October, the Home Secretary came to the House of Commons to clarify that and say that the Government’s “current thinking” was towards an opt-out.

In terms of a parliamentary process—remembering that Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal jurisdictions—there was no consultation whatsoever with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Scottish Government, or the Northern Ireland Administration, let alone with Committees of this House, before the Home Secretary announced that Government thinking was to opt out. Given how the process started—the Prime Minister getting the deadline wrong, and the Home Secretary’s lack of any consultation before saying where Government thinking was leading—you will forgive us, Mr Speaker, for having a certain concern about how it is going.

In July last year, the Foreign Secretary announced a review of competencies between the UK and the EU. Again, we are concerned about how that process is being dealt with, and I struggle to think of the kind of competencies that such a review will address—indeed, there is a fair amount of suspicion that this is some kind of Wilsonian trick. Leaving that aside, one would think that such things would be relevant to the 130 measures to which we must opt in or out. However, the process for the balance of competencies will begin looking at police and criminal justice measures in spring or autumn 2014, after the deadline for the decision to opt in or out has passed. That, to me, is incomprehensible.

We are, therefore, left with extreme concern about how the current thinking came about and about the absence of proper input from Parliament. Nine months have passed since the Home Secretary’s statement to the House. Apart from a couple of minor points I picked up in her speech today, the position remains exactly as it was nine months ago.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union has produced a splendid report, but without any information from Her Majesty’s Government on the measures they might seek to rejoin when they exercise the opt-out. Conservative Members make a valid point about the importance the Opposition place on the European arrest warrant. In a sense, the suspicion, which might be valid, is that the Opposition would accept the other 129 measures just to keep the precious EAW, and that we believe the EAW is that important. However, we have not heard from the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should have said Conservative Benches. We have not heard from Conservative Members their equivalent to the EAW if they opt out completely. If they read the motion from Her Majesty’s Opposition, they will see that we think a number of measures are important. However, I do not get any sense of what measure is worth risking our being unable to opt back in to all 130 measures. Why is the Government’s thinking to opt out rather than to opt in?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman perhaps gives the House a greater insight into Opposition policy than the shadow Home Secretary has. I take it from what he says that he believes Labour party policy is to opt in and not to opt out of any of the measures.

[Alan Johnson]

My point is that the Government came to the conclusion that they are minded to opt out. We have no idea where that thinking came from—there was no consultation with anyone. It is just as valid for the Government to be minded to opt in, but we have no sense of what big issue prevents them from doing so.

The Home Secretary said in October and has repeated today that some of the measures are useful, some are less useful, and some are now defunct, but she has never defined which measures are useful. There was a small concession in her speech, but the House of Lords EU Committee—an important Committee of the democratic process—had to do its work completely in the dark, with no sense of what was useful, what was not useful or what was defunct. Eventually, she gave three examples to the Committee of defunct measures, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has said, if the measures are defunct, they are harmless, and we need not worry about them because they will be weeded out and tidied up. The defunct measures are not the important part of the debate; the important part is on useful or not useful measures.

In its report, the House of Lords Committee, which is not the Labour party—in fact, most members of the Committee have been hostile to the Labour party throughout their political careers—states:

“The most effective way for the UK to cooperate with other Member States is to remain engaged in the existing EU measures in this area.”

The Committee’s current thinking, therefore, is to opt in to those measures. It says that clearly and backs it up with strong arguments—it interviewed a cross-section of people, including the Home Secretary.

The Christmas quiz is this: what is the common theme to all 130 measures? They were all agreed by unanimity. They were all agreed under a system where the UK had the veto. They were all then brought before this House and were agreed by various Committees—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was the Chair of one of them—to be scrutinised. Not a single one of the 130 measures was foisted on the UK against our will by a hostile European Administration. Even if the Euro myth of creating a superstate with an integrated criminal law, as propagated by some of the swivel-eyed loonies, were true, nothing in the 130 measures would contribute towards that aim. In fact, the opposite is the case: the vast majority relate to a mutual recognition of the diverse systems throughout the European Union.

There is as good an argument for the Government to be thinking about moving towards opting in as opting out, but I am persuadable. I just want to know where the Government stand as we get closer to 2014. I want the Justice Committee and the Home Affairs Committee to consider the matter. I want the arguments to be revealed.

My main concern is the European arrest warrant. I overcame minor antipathy to the other 129 measures to keep it. If we pull out and try to renegotiate, we will be in a much weaker position. The case has been made not just in the House of Lords Committee, but in the Scott Baker report commissioned by the Home Secretary herself. There are things we could do to improve the warrant—a proportionality test was a major issue raised by Scott Baker. I have to say, however, that adopting the European supervision order that would allow British citizens to be supervised in the UK until the trial in the requesting member state is being held would go an awful long way to meeting the objections of Scott Baker and of others on both sides of the House.

Politics is about the personal more than anything else. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned the savage murder of Moira Jones. I met her mother Beatrice when I was Home Secretary. The current Home Secretary would have had the same difficult job to do. When I met Beatrice Jones, she pointed out to me that the murderer of her daughter fled this country immediately. A European arrest warrant was issued 14 days later. Two days after that, he was arrested in Slovakia and brought to justice. I promised Mrs Jones that I would do my best to ensure that the European arrest warrant remains. I plan to keep that promise.