Justice and Home Affairs Council (Pre-Council Statement)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 6 and 7 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) where the presidency is expected to report significant progress on the Schengen evaluation mechanism and make a statement on the latest compromise package. The UK’s priority has been to ensure the UK’s participation in the mechanism, and retention of a peer- to-peer process as the basis for the mechanism, as agreed by the Council in June 2012. The presidency will also present the latest Commission report on the functioning of the Schengen area.

Next, Greece will update the Council on progress in implementing the Greek action plan on asylum and migration management. The UK supports Greece’s efforts to reform its asylum and migration system, and notes the significant progress made in reducing illegal immigration at the Greece-Turkey land border. However, more rapid and effective action is needed to address issues around the availability and use of EU funding, access to asylum procedures, and Greek operational capacity on the Aegean islands.

Over a working lunch there will be a discussion of free movement, which the presidency intends to report back to the Council plenary. This follows a request for a substantive discussion from the UK in a joint letter co-signed by Interior Ministers from Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. The UK will voice its concerns about the impacts of abuse of free movement and benefit tourism by EU and third-country nationals and will urge the Council to work together to tackle these issues.

During the main Council there will be an update on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The UK has opted in to the Dublin (III) regulation and the new Eurodac (II) proposal, but not the recast directives on asylum reception conditions, procedures and qualifications. Dublin (III) will be put forward for adoption at the Council. Eurodac (II) will be put forward for “political agreement” with adoption likely later in June. We are content with both.

The Council will be updated on progress in reaching agreement on the proposed legal migration directives on conditions of entry and stay for third-country national intra-corporate transferees and on seasonal workers. The UK has not opted in to these measures. The Council will also be provided with an update on initial discussions on the recently published proposal for a new directive on the entry and stay of third-country national students and researchers. The Government will be making a decision on whether it will opt in to this measure in due course.

There will be an orientation debate on the proposal for a new Europol legal base, also encompassing CEPOL, where the UK will highlight the risk of mandatory obligations to share information with Europol, to seek clarity that Europol cannot order investigations and reiterate the UK’s objection to the Europol/CEPOL merger.

There will be a discussion on foreign fighters and the threat they pose if and when they return to Europe. While not a new issue, the situation in Syria is attracting significant numbers of EU citizens who have various reasons for engaging in the conflict. The UK welcomes the opportunity to discuss with member states how individuals are engaging with extremists while overseas, the extent to which they may develop the intent and capability to conduct an attack against the UK/Europe as well as the risk of radicalising others upon their return. The UK supports the work that the EU CT co-ordinator has been doing to understand the scale of the problem, and agrees that there is value in enhancing our understanding of how others are addressing the problem and how we can work collectively in mitigating this potential threat.

There will also be a discussion on the protection of refugees from Syria during which the UK will reiterate its interest in joining the Regional Protection Programme (RPP) steering committee.

There will be a presentation by the Commission on their communication “Maximising the Development Impact of Migration: the EU contribution for the UN High-level Dialogue and next steps towards broadening the development-migration nexus”.

Under AOB there will be a presentation by Lithuania of the incoming presidency programme and a presentation by Sweden on the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). Hungary will update on recent developments with the Budapest process (an intergovernmental forum on migration) and the presidency will use this opportunity to update on the recent fifth ministerial conference that took place on 19 April in Istanbul, launching the new Silk Routes Partnership on migration, on which the Budapest process will now focus. The UK is committed to its participation in the Silk Routes Partnership. The UK is leading a “bridging project”, ahead of the commencement of EU funding, to ensure the momentum generated by the ministerial conference is maintained, and that the new partnership is focused on concrete practical co-operation initiatives.

The justice day will begin with a discussion on key issues on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data. The presidency has issued a “key issues” paper with seven draft conclusions as well as a further redraft of the whole of chapters I-IV of the text. The presidency will also look to gain political agreement on some elements of the text.

The Council will be aiming for a general approach on a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law.

This will be followed by an orientation debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European account preservation order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. The UK has not opted in to this proposal due to a number of concerns, the main concern being the lack of protection for debtors in what can be a draconian procedure.



There will also be an orientation debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council regulation on insolvency proceedings. The UK is in support of this proposal.

The Commission will present the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and the introduction of common format, multi-lingual public documents. The document seeks to promote the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU.

On non-legislative activities, there will be a discussion of the Council conclusions on how to support fundamental rights and the rule of law, where it is likely that adoption of the conclusions will be sought in the member states. The UK has long been a champion of rule of law values throughout the world but would want to be satisfied that any action at EU level genuinely added value to existing mechanisms, for example in the Council of Europe, and is not persuaded that there is any need for new EU competences in this area.

There will be a presentation by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction (EMCDDA) on the EU Drugs Strategy Action Plan 2013-2017, which is scheduled for adoption.

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

The presidency will also provide an update on work achieved during its term on e-Justice, a project which seeks to improve access to justice across borders through the use of IT.

Under AOB the presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals, including the progress of the proposed regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. Given that the UK does not have similar property regimes for married couples or civil partners, we have not opted in to either proposal.

The Lithuanian delegation will then provide the Council with a presentation on their programme for the presidency, which is due to start in July.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Written Statements

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

In accordance with section 20(2), 20(3), 20(4) and 20(5) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, prepared a report on the operation of the Act in 2012, which I laid before the House on 14 March 2013.

I am grateful to David Anderson QC for his report, the first on the operation of the TPIM Act 2011. Following consultation within my Department and with other relevant agencies, I am today laying before the House my response to the independent reviewer’s report.

Copies of the Government response will be available in the Vote Office and through the Gov.UK website.

Daniel Morgan

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Friday 10th May 2013 Written Statements

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

Daniel Morgan, a private investigator, was found murdered in a pub car park in south-east London on 10 March 1987. It is one of the country’s most notorious unsolved murder cases. After numerous separate police investigations into the case between 1987 and 2002, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the final attempted prosecution against five suspects in 2011.

The Metropolitan Police (MPS) have indicated that there is no likelihood of any successful prosecutions being brought in the foreseeable future. They have also admitted that police corruption was a “debilitating factor” in the original investigation. This has led to calls for an inquiry from Mr Morgan’s family, who have waged a long campaign for those responsible for his murder to be brought to justice. I have met the family and, after further serious consideration with them and their representatives, I am today announcing the creation of the Daniel Morgan independent panel.

Importantly, the panel’s work will put Mr Morgan’s family at the centre of the process and the approach to this issue has the support of the MPS Commissioner and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The panel will utilise learning from the Hillsborough independent panel process in addressing how to approach its work. The panel will be chaired by Sir Stanley Burnton, a retired Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal. The appointment of other members of the panel will take place over the coming weeks and will be announced as soon as possible.

The remit of the panel will be to shine a light on the circumstances of Daniel Morgan’s murder, its background and the handling of the case over the period since 1987. In doing so, the panel will seek to address the questions arising, including those relating to:

police involvement in the murder;

the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption;

the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the News of the World and other parts of the media and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them.

The panel will ensure maximum possible disclosure of all relevant documentation, including information held by all relevant Government Departments and agencies and by the police and other investigative and prosecuting authorities. There is a serious and considerable public interest in having an independent panel look at this case, as part of the Government’s commitment to identifying, exposing and addressing corruption.

Recognising the volume of material that must be catalogued, analysed and preserved, the panel will seek to complete its work within a year of the documentation being made available.

A copy of the full terms of reference of the Daniel Morgan independent panel has been placed in the Library of the House.

Home Affairs

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The Gracious Speech we heard yesterday put forward a comprehensive legislative programme. Underlying it is a basic principle: this Government want to ensure that people who work hard and want to get on in life are able to do so. We believe that it is part of the Government’s role to help people who want to work hard to succeed. We want to ensure that those who do the right thing do not find themselves penalised for their honesty and their commitment to playing fair. The corollary of that is that those who cheat the system and who do not play by the rules should be prevented from being able to take advantage, at the expense of the decent and hard-working majority.

Nowhere is this more true than in the immigration system. We are going to make the UK a harder place to live for an immigrant who has not played by the rules—who has dishonestly overstayed their visa, for example, or who does not have one at all—or who has committed a serious crime. The immigration Bill referred to in the Gracious Speech will do three things. First, it will diminish the pull factors that make migrants want to come to Britain to take but not to contribute. Secondly, it will make Britain a harder place to live for those who have no right to be here. Thirdly, it will make it easier to remove foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes and who should be deported. It will streamline the appeals system, making it much less slow and cumbersome, and give fewer opportunities for using the Human Rights Act 1998 to avoid deportation.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary explain to the House why she has sent back fewer foreign prisoners than were sent back in the last year of the Labour Government?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady cares to look at the figures, she will see that there has been a significant increase in the number of appeals by foreign national prisoners, which is delaying their deportation. That is exactly why this Government are bringing forward measures in the immigration Bill to deal with the appeals system, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will support them.

One of the most fundamental injustices of the present system is one that many Members will be aware of from the complaints of their constituents. It is the extent to which immigrants can call on publicly funded services without having made any contribution to the system that provides them. Our system is one of universal provision, and it will remain so under this Government, but it is also one that requires some contribution to be made in order for that provision to be accessed. That is the basic principle of justice that underpins the system, but it is a principle that has been flouted. When the Bill becomes law, it will be respected.

The Bill will ensure that temporary migrants and others will not be able to have free access to the NHS until they have made at least some contribution to the Exchequer. Furthermore, the Bill will strengthen legislation that penalises businesses that employ illegal immigrants. It is obviously unfair that those who are not entitled to be in Britain should be able to take jobs that ought to be filled by people who are so entitled. The Bill will strengthen our ability to enforce penalties on employers that have used illegal workers. It will also confirm that a migrant must have lawful immigration status of more than six months to qualify for a UK driving licence.

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

On the Home Secretary’s point about businesses that employ illegal migrants, will she explain why the number of businesses fined for so doing has dropped by 40% since the general election?

[Mrs May]

The rate of certain aspects of prosecutions taking place in relation to certain individuals has actually been higher under this Government than it was under the last Labour Government. That is one of the areas—[Interruption.] I have to say that I am not sure—

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. An hon. Member has just called across the House, saying, “Stop making that stupid face.” Is that parliamentary language?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I did not hear the expression concerned, but I think that it falls into the category of behaviour that is discourteous but not disorderly. We will leave it there for the time being, but I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to remember what I said yesterday. Speaking on behalf of the House and of the public, I believe that we should try to express ourselves with restraint, moderation and good humour, in the best traditions required by “Erskine May”.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Bill will also introduce a duty on private landlords to carry out immigration checks when letting property. It will penalise landlords who rent property to migrants who are not entitled to stay in Britain.

We shall also introduce an amendment to the immigration regulations covering EU nationals who come to the UK in search of work. They will cease to have a right to reside here and will have no access to benefits if, after six months, they do not have a job and do not have a realistic chance of getting one. There is a glaring unfairness in the way that immigrants’ claims to have the right to settle here are assessed. The system has become so complex that, as one senior judge said recently,

“immigration law has now become an impenetrable jungle of intertwined statutory provision and judicial decisions...There is an acute need for simplification”.

The immigration Bill will provide that simplification. It will also set out how the courts should interpret article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which sets out the right to respect for private and family life. Last July, we set out clearly before the House what the right to family life should mean. That interpretation was adopted by the House without a Division, because it was unopposed. Unfortunately, some judges have chosen to ignore that interpretation. The immigration Bill will provide them with rules on how article 8 should be interpreted that will have statutory force. It will place strict limits on the circumstances in which the right to family life can be invoked to block deportation. In particular, it will put an end to the unjust situation in which immigrants convicted of serious offences can escape deportation merely by claiming that it would interfere with their right to family life.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. The House has made it abundantly clear that the will of the British people is that we should be able to deport people whom it is considered undesirable to have in this country. What assurance can she give the House that judges are going to listen to what the House is saying this time, given that they have not done so in the past?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: many people are incredibly frustrated by cases in which judges decide that the right to family life means that someone should not be deported, despite evidence of a significant level of criminality. Last July, when we made changes to the immigration rules, I hoped and expected that judges would respond to those changes, given that there was cross-party support for them. As I said, there was no opposition to them in the House. The fundamental difference this time around is that the changes will be made through primary legislation rather than through the immigration rules.

I now move on to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill aims to diminish the extent to which honest and hard-working people are preyed on by criminals and by bullies who show no regard for the basic rules of civilised living. It will do so in three ways. First, it will make it easier for citizens to get the police or local authorities to take action against people whose antisocial behaviour disrupts their lives. Secondly, it includes measures to ensure that we can tackle organised crime more effectively. In particular, we are substantially increasing the maximum penalty for the illegal importation of guns, and creating a new offence of

“possession for sale or transfer”

of illegal firearms. Thirdly, it continues the process of reform of the police, so that police officers have clear professional standards and are able to spend more of their time fighting crime than filling in forms.

The Bill also contains a provision to make forcing a person to marry a criminal offence. Forced marriage is a serious problem in some communities in Britain today. It is an abomination: it is totally incompatible with the values of a free society that anyone should be forced into a marriage. Astonishingly, however, forcing a person into marriage is not a crime under our law. This Bill will remedy that situation, and in doing so, it will signal very clearly that this country does not tolerate the forcing of one person by another into marriage. The Bill will also make easier the prosecution of people who attempt it. Prosecutors will no longer have to identify other offences such as assault or kidnapping before they can start proceedings against someone for forcing another into marriage.

Antisocial behaviour is destructive, demoralising and damaging. When it is repeated over and over again on the same victims, its results can be tragic, as numerous cases involving some of the most vulnerable and easily hurt people in our society have shown. The existing means for dealing with antisocial behaviour are neither quick nor effective. The Bill will give new powers to the police, councils and landlords that will ensure that quick and effective remedies are available. It will also give people the power to require agencies to deal with antisocial behaviour. It will no longer be possible for a police force or a council to ignore repeated complaints, as it is now.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I invite my right hon. Friend to join me in congratulating the police on making savings and on working far more effectively in reducing crime. On the issue of antisocial behaviour, will she review whether unauthorised campers and Travellers returning to the same place, doing damage and causing costs can be dealt with more effectively? This sort of antisocial behaviour is not acceptable and it is resented by local residents.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the problem that my hon. Friend identifies as one that affects many communities up and down the country. I am pleased to say that in numerous places we have already seen the police taking a more robust approach in dealing with these particular issues. I encourage the police to do that when they are faced with these problems which, as my hon. Friend says, cause considerable concern to local residents.

This Bill aims to give people much greater control over the services that are meant to help them, but which have often in the past been operated for the convenience of those delivering them. The Bill will change that situation.

The Bill tackles another aspect of antisocial behaviour: irresponsible dog ownership. It will extend the offence of being in charge of a dog that is dangerously out of control to apply to any location.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

In looking at the problem of dangerous dogs, can we be more careful this time round, because the last time we attempted this performance, it was a bit of a fiasco and we ended up with bad legislation? The right hon. Lady is right to highlight this issue as a pressing need, but we need to be very careful about how we frame this legislation.

[Mrs May]

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says—that it is important in introducing legislation to look carefully at what its impact might be. The clauses relating to dangerous dogs are limited in number. They extend the ability to deal with dangerous dogs into private places. Sadly, we have seen a number of cases where individuals, and particularly children, have been attacked by dogs in the family home. The current legislation does not cover that, but the Bill will enable us to do so. We will, of course, look carefully at the drafting to make sure that the provision is as effective as everybody would want it to be.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The proposals to amend legislation to cover attacks on private property are, of course, very welcome. However, it is extremely disappointing that there is no dog control notice measure or something similar, to prevent attacks from happening in the first place.

[Mrs May]

I am conscious that a number of people have been asking specifically for a dog control notice. We have not introduced it because we believe that the other powers and orders we are introducing under this antisocial behaviour Bill will give sufficient power to the police to be able to deal with dangerous dogs without needing to introduce a separate—and yet another—notice.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I was bitten by what was obviously a weapon dog during the last election campaign, so although I was not seriously hurt and did not suffer too much, I am very concerned about this issue. I am also concerned about it on behalf of my constituents, who have made many complaints about dangerous dogs. Are the Government going to be serious about dealing with this problem and reintroduce licensing, with every dog having to be chipped, and with a proactive role for dog wardens and the police to ensure that dogs are not dangerous?

[Mrs May]

Excellent work is done by dog wardens in many local authorities throughout the country. We feel that the legislation we are introducing, which will extend the ability to deal with dangerous dogs, is sufficient to be able to cover the issues that cannot be covered at present. I know some people say, “Why don’t we go back to having the dog licence that was held in the past?” Not only is that quite difficult to administer, but, unfortunately, all too often the owners of dogs we will need to be concerned about do not bother to get a dog licence, whereas the law-abiding citizens do. Giving the police extra powers to deal with dangerous dogs so that they can deal with them in all situations, even within the private home where the dog normally resides, gives the important extension of powers to the police that will enable them to deal with dangerous dogs wherever they may be in the community.

I am sorry to hear of the experience the hon. Gentleman had during the last election campaign. Dogs and letterboxes are the major problems for campaigners. [Interruption.] Yes, I think there would be widespread support for measures on that.

The reform of the police and the modernisation of their regulatory framework has been one of the most important aims of this Government, and it still is. We have ended the tyranny of national targets, eliminated useless bureaucracy and freed up police officers’ time so they can fight crime rather than fill in forms. We have set up the National Crime Agency to fight the cancer of organised crime, we set up the Winsor review of police pay and conditions, and we are determined that the priorities of the police should reflect those of the public they serve.

With the election of police and crime commissioners, we have made local police forces more accountable to the people they serve. This Bill will provide the new College of Policing with the powers it needs to set standards for the police in England and Wales. It will also ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has the powers it needs to investigate complaints of misconduct effectively.

Although this was not specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech yesterday, we intend to introduce measures to clarify the compensation arrangements for those whose property is damaged by riots. The law on this has not been changed since 1886, and, unsurprisingly, it is in great need of modernisation: for example, the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 does not cover damage to cars, because, of course, in 1886 there were no cars. This month, an independent review of the 1886 Act that I have commissioned will commence. It should conclude by the end of September. We shall then consult publicly, before looking to publish a draft Bill in spring 2014, with the aim of introducing it in the fourth Session of this Parliament.

It is one of the fundamental duties of Government to protect the law-abiding public from the effects of criminal behaviour, and I would like to update the House on the position regarding our proposals on communications data. The Government are committed to ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to protect the public. Existing legislation already allows those agencies to monitor who has communicated by telephone, as well as with whom, when and where. These data are used in 95% of all investigations into serious and organised crime, and they have played a role in every major counter-terrorism operation by the security services in the last decade, but terrorists, paedophiles and criminal gangs today increasingly communicate with each other over the internet using the latest electronic technology. Our proposals are simply about ensuring that we can keep up with criminals as they shift to e-mails, instant messages and the internet, rather than making phone calls. We cannot leave the British public exposed to dangers which could be eliminated were communications data obtained. As the Gracious Speech yesterday indicated, we will be bringing forward proposals to address this most important issue.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is well aware of my position, and I thank her for giving way. Will she confirm that, as was said in the Gracious Speech, these proposals will relate only to the aspects involving internet protocol address matching, on which she and I agree, and will be coupled with the safeguards requested by the Joint Committee?

[Mrs May]

I was about to say that the hon. Gentleman was a little slow in jumping up; I thought he might have done so when I first mentioned communications data. He was a member of that scrutiny Committee, so he will be aware that it said there was a case for legislation in this area. We accepted a number of the Joint Committee’s recommendations on the proposed Communications Data Bill. As I have just explained, because this is an important area for catching criminals and for dealing with terrorists and paedophiles, it is right that the Government are looking to address the issue. The wording of the Queen’s Speech yesterday made it clear that the Government intend to address the issue and, as I say, proposals will be brought forward.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am being very generous to the hon. Lady.

[Helen Goodman]

The Home Secretary is indeed being most generous this morning. When she is considering what to do about IP addresses, will she also look into having better, tighter systems for age verification? We hear a lot about how a better age-verification system would deal with many of the problems that we are facing on the net.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady’s point does not technically come under the remit of the communications data issue and deals with access to the internet more widely. If I have understood the point she is making, there is an issue to address. Some hon. Members have been taking this point up; my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), for example, has been doing a lot of work in this area and examining any possible changes.

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

I am a little confused about what is being proposed for data now. Will it deal solely and exclusively with IP addresses or is the plan to bring in, either in this Session or the next one, what we all described as a snooper’s charter?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the proposed measure as a snooper’s charter, as others have done, but it was not about snooping and it was not a charter. It is about ensuring—this will continue in the proposal we bring forward—that we are able to deal with the situation that is emerging, where it is becoming harder to identify these communications because people are using new methods of communication that are not covered by existing legislation.

Hon. Members will note that I have not referred to the justice Bill, which will increase public protection by ending early release schemes for dangerous offenders, or to the offender rehabilitation Bill, which, as we have just heard in my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary’s statement, will require that all offenders released from prison, including those given short sentences, serve at least 12 months under statutory supervision in the community. Neither of those important Bills is the subject of debate today. The Opposition are in charge of the debate following the Gracious Speech, so will the shadow Home Secretary explain why the Labour party does not consider the rehabilitation of offenders and cutting reoffending to be worthy of inclusion in the debate? Perhaps she does not feel that the shadow Justice Secretary is up to the debate, which might well be true, given that he was not even here to respond to that statement, but we would like to know.

The Bills I have outlined send an unambiguous message: we are on the side of hard-working families; we will help people who play by the rules and who want to get on in life; and people should be able to receive benefits only if they contribute something first. On crime, antisocial behaviour and immigration, the Government and this legislative programme are on the side of the people, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself to squabbling within his coalition and struggling to get some answers. We have always said that action will be needed to ensure that the police can keep up with changing technology. However, the draft data communications Bill drawn up by the Home Secretary was far too wide; it gave the Home Secretary far too many powers and there were far too few safeguards for privacy. It was absolutely right that something had to be done, but that Bill was not the right approach. We must wait to see what approach the Home Secretary will now take, because Government Members are squabbling so much among themselves that the result is a shambolic approach to a serious issue. Time and again, that is what we see: there is strong rhetoric from the Home Secretary, and then the reality simply does not stack up.

It is the same when we come to the so-called “flagship” immigration Bill. We now discover that the Bill will not be published until the autumn, because the Government have obviously still not worked out what on earth to do about it. This is an area where we agree that action is needed. Yesterday, the Government told us that the Bill would have five central elements, but now it turns out that three already exist and will not require primary legislation, and two are merely proposals for consultation.

On jobseeker’s allowance, the Government are replicating the exact words in existing regulations. When the Health Secretary was asked about the NHS, all he could say was that he promised to examine the extent of the problem and do an audit. On private landlords, the Government cannot tell us how their policy will be enforced, because they do not know who the landlords are and they will not have a statutory register. Time and time again this Queen’s Speech has not set out the detailed proposals that we need. Instead of “flagship” Bills, all we have are proposals that seem to have been sketched out on the back of a fag packet—no wonder the Government wanted to get rid of the cigarette packaging legislation.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has made an attempt at two jokes during her speech, which is probably two more than we normally have. I have a simple question for her: does she agree that net migration was too high under the previous Labour Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have already said that the pace of migration was too fast and that the level should come down; we have supported measures in that regard. However, although the Home Secretary has made grand claims about net migration and the Immigration Minister is attempting to do the same, they will recognise that two thirds of their drop in net migration is a result of an increase in British citizens leaving the country and fewer British citizens returning home.

Let me quote the numbers to the Home Secretary; she is on the edge of her seat, itching to intervene. In fact, the drop in net migration has been 72,000. Of those, 27,000 more Brits are leaving the country and 20,000 fewer Brits are coming home. Is she proud of a set of policies that have driven British people out of the country? I will give way to her if she wants to respond to that point.

[Mrs May]

On that statistical point, I suggest the right hon. Lady looks at what the Office for National Statistics said, which was that it was not the emigration of British people that led to the drop in net migration. We have reduced net migration by a third. I think she said that she accepted that net migration was too high under the Labour Government. Will she now apologise for that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is targeting net migration, which she knows is affected by British people leaving the country—by people leaving as well as people arriving. I state the figures again: a 72,000 drop, 27,000 more Brits leaving the country and 20,000 fewer coming home. People obviously do not want to come back to Britain under her Government. That is the problem that she has to face.

Police Pay Review Body

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Written Statements

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

On 24 October 2012, Official Report, column 56WS, I issued a written statement to the House launching a public consultation seeking views on how to implement Tom Winsor’s recommendations on changes to the police officer pay machinery, including establishing a pay review body for officers. In seeking views, I set out the Government’s belief that Tom Winsor’s report as a whole provided a good basis for discussion and consultation. The consultation closed on 14 January 2013. A total of 56 responses were received, from members of the public, individual officers, staff associations, and others.

I am today publishing the Government’s response to that consultation exercise, which will be available on the Gov.uk website and in the Library of the House. I have carefully considered the detailed issues which were raised in response to the consultation. My overriding concern has been to establish a pay review body which is able to take as wide a view of police remuneration as possible, to act in a strategic, forward-looking manner and not be constrained by the inefficiencies and time delays brought about by the current system of collective bargaining. This is in keeping with the thrust of Tom Winsor’s recommendations. The new review body will make recommendations on police officer remuneration up to and including the rank of chief superintendent. The Senior Salaries Review Body will make recommendations on chief officer pay.

The changes to the way in which police pay and conditions are determined is part of a wider programme of police reform which includes the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the creation of the College of Policing, the establishment of the National Crime Agency, and legislating to ensure a more independent HM inspectorate of constabulary. Police officers deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, and enable them to deliver effectively for the public. The Police Remuneration Review Body will help deliver this and to provide pay and conditions that are not only fair to police officers, but are fair to the public as well.

Passports

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Written Statements

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

The British passport is a secure document issued in accordance with international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The British passport achieves a very high standard of security to protect the identity of the individual, to enable the freedom of travel for British citizens and to contribute to public protection in the United Kingdom and overseas.

There is no entitlement to a passport and no statutory right to have access to a passport. The decision to issue, withdraw, or refuse a British passport is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department—the Home Secretary—under the royal prerogative.

This written ministerial statement updates previous statements made to Parliament from time to time on the exercise of the royal prerogative and sets out the circumstances under which a passport can be issued, withdrawn, or refused. It redefines the public interest criteria to refuse or withdraw a passport.

A decision to refuse or withdraw a passport must be necessary and proportionate. The decision to withdraw or refuse a passport and the reason for that decision will be conveyed to the applicant or passport holder. The disclosure of information used to determine such a decision will be subject to the individual circumstances of the case.

The decision to refuse or to withdraw a passport under the public interest criteria will be used only sparingly. The exercise of this criteria will be subject to careful consideration of a person’s past, present or proposed activities.

For example, passport facilities may be refused to or withdrawn from British nationals who may seek to harm the UK or its allies by travelling on a British passport to, for example, engage in terrorism-related activity or other serious or organised criminal activity.

This may include individuals who seek to engage in fighting, extremist activity or terrorist training outside the United Kingdom, for example, and then return to the UK with enhanced capabilities that they then use to conduct an attack on UK soil. The need to disrupt people who travel for these purposes has become increasingly apparent with developments in various parts of the world.

Operational responsibility for the application of the criteria for issuance or refusal is a matter for the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) acting on behalf of the Home Secretary. The criteria under which IPS can issue, withdraw or refuse a passport is set out below.

Passports are issued when the Home Secretary is satisfied as to:

i. the identity of an applicant; and

ii. the British nationality of applicants, in accordance with relevant nationality legislation; and

iii. there being no other reasons—as set out below—for refusing a passport. IPS may make any checks necessary to ensure that the applicant is entitled to a British passport.

A passport application may be refused or an existing passport may be withdrawn. These are the persons who may be refused a British passport or who may have their existing passport withdrawn:

i. a minor whose journey was known to be contrary to a court order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority in whose favour a residence or care order had been made or who had been awarded custody; or care and control; or

ii. a person for whose arrest a warrant had been issued in the United Kingdom, or

iii. a person who was wanted by the United Kingdom police on suspicion of a serious crime; or a person who is the subject of:

a court order, made by a court in the United Kingdom, or any other order made pursuant to a statutory power, which imposes travel restrictions or restrictions on the possession of a valid United Kingdom passport; or

bail conditions, imposed by a police officer or a court in the United Kingdom, which include travel restrictions or restrictions on the possession of a valid United Kingdom passport; or

an order issued by the European Union or the United Nations which prevents a person travelling or entering a country other than the country in which they hold citizenship; or

a declaration made under section 15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

iv. A person may be prevented from benefitting from the possession of a passport if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. This may be the case where:

a person has been repatriated from abroad at public expense and their debt has not yet been repaid. This is because the passport fee supports the provision of consular services for British citizens overseas; or

a person whose past, present or proposed activities, actual or suspected, are believed by the Home Secretary to be so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is contrary to the public interest.

There may be circumstances in which the application of legislative powers is not appropriate to the individual applicant but there is a need to restrict the ability of a person to travel abroad.

The application of discretion by the Home Secretary will primarily focus on preventing overseas travel. There may be cases in which the Home Secretary believes that the past, present or proposed activities—actual or suspected—of the applicant or passport holder should prevent their enjoyment of a passport facility whether overseas travel was or was not a critical factor.

EU Treaties (Justice and Home Affairs)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Written Statements

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

The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have prepared the third annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (“the treaties”) in relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) matters. The report, which is today being laid before the House, is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and that of the Secretary of State for Justice.

On 9 June 2008 the right hon. Baroness Ashton, the then Leader of the House of Lords, made a statement setting out commitments by the Government to Parliament in respect of the scrutiny of decisions to be taken by the Government in accordance with protocol (No 21) to the treaties on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice (“the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol”). These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.

This included a pledge that the Government would table a report in Parliament each year and make it available for debate, both looking ahead to the Government’s approach to EU Justice and Home Affairs policy and forthcoming dossiers, including in relation to the opt-in, and providing a retrospective annual report on the UK’s application of the opt-in protocol.

On 20 January 2011, the Minister for Europe confirmed in his statement to Parliament on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of decisions in the area of EU Justice and Home Affairs that the coalition Government have undertaken to maintain this commitment, and this is the third such report. It covers the period 1 December 2011 to 30 November 2012. For completeness, the report also covers the application of protocol 19 to the treaties on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU (“the Schengen opt-out protocol”). The Government’s decision-making process for this protocol is the same as for the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol.

It is important to note that decisions taken pursuant to the JHA opt-in and Schengen opt-out protocols are separate from the decision the UK must take, by 31 May, 2014, pursuant to article 10(4) of protocol 36 to the TEU and TFEU (the “2014 decision”).

Abu Qatada

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 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 case of Abu Qatada.

As the whole House will know, successive Governments have sought the deportation of this dangerous man since 2001. The prospect of his deportation now depends on one very narrow issue: the question of whether evidence obtained through the mistreatment of others might be used against him in his home country of Jordan. In January last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there was indeed such a risk, and therefore blocked his deportation. Following that ruling, the British Government sought from the Jordanian Government further information and assurances not just in relation to the treatment of Qatada himself, but about the quality of the legal processes that would be followed throughout his trial.

Although the Special Immigration Appeals Commission noted that the Jordanian Government

“will do everything within their power to ensure that a retrial is fair”,

in November last year it ruled that there was still a risk that a trial in Jordan would breach Qatada’s rights under article 6 of the European convention. Since then, the Government have pursued a twin strategy: first, to appeal SIAC’s decision; and secondly to work with the Jordanian Government to seek further assurances to convince the courts that Qatada would indeed receive a fair trial. I want to take each of those approaches in turn.

First, I shall deal with the Government’s appeal. On 27 March, the Court of Appeal confirmed SIAC’s interpretation of the law and ruled that we could not deport Abu Qatada to Jordan under present conditions. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal refused the Government’s application to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. The Government disagree with that ruling, and I can tell the House that we will now seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court itself.

Secondly, I can tell the House that I have signed a comprehensive mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan. This agreement is fully reciprocal, offers considerable advantages to both countries and reflects our joint commitment to tackling international crime. It covers assistance in obtaining evidence for the investigation and prosecution of crimes in either country and provides a framework for assistance in the restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. It also includes a number of fair trial guarantees that would apply to anyone being deported from either country. I believe that these guarantees will provide the courts with the assurance that Qatada will not face evidence that might have been obtained by torture in a re-trial in Jordan.

Before the agreement can come into force and become a formal treaty, it must be ratified by both countries, and the Jordanian Government will be laying the draft treaty before its Parliament shortly. In the United Kingdom, the agreement does not require any changes to our domestic law, but it must be placed before both Houses for 21 sitting days before it is ratified. So I can confirm that the text of the treaty has been laid before both Houses today, and, depending on the date of Parliament’s prorogation, we expect the 21 days to be completed before the end of June. Under Jordanian law, once ratified the provisions of the treaty will take primacy over existing Jordanian law in cases such as Qatada’s. We therefore believe that the treaty will deliver the protections required by SIAC to secure Qatada’s deportation.

I believe that the treaty we have agreed with Jordan, once ratified by both Parliaments, will finally make possible the deportation of Abu Qatada, but as I have warned the House before, even when the treaty is fully ratified, it will not mean that Qatada will be on a plane to Jordan within days. We will be able to issue a new deportation decision, but Qatada will still have legal appeals available to him, and it will therefore be up to the courts to make the final decision. That legal process may well still take many months, but in the meantime I believe that Qatada should remain behind bars.

Lastly, I would like to say this: as any sane observer of this case will conclude, it is absurd for the deportation of a suspected foreign terrorist to take so many years and cost the taxpayer so much money. That is why we need to make sense of our human rights laws and remove the many layers of appeals available to foreign nationals we want to deport. In the meantime, however, the Government are doing everything they can to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan. I believe that this treaty gives us every chance of succeeding in that aim, so I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Home Secretary and the courts have agreed that Abu Qatada is a dangerous man who puts security in this country at risk, and the House is united in wanting him deported to stand fair trial in Jordan so that justice can be done and in wanting him to remain in prison in the meantime. I welcome the work that she continues to do to get Abu Qatada deported and the further assurances that she has sought from Jordan, although she will know that the history of Home Office problems in this area means that serious questions remain.

The Home Secretary referred to the European Court judgment of January 2012, which she has previously said she strongly disagrees with. Once that passed, she had two choices: to appeal against its conclusions about the level of proof that the British Government needed to provide before Abu Qatada could be deported or to provide enough evidence from Jordan that she could meet that level of proof. So far, the Home Office has not managed to do either. I welcome this further work with Jordan, but the question for the House and the Court will be whether it meets the specific test that the Court has set.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled six months ago:

“Until and unless a change is made to the…Code of Criminal Procedure and/or authoritative rulings are made by the Court of Cassation or Constitutional Court which establish that statements made to a public prosecutor by accomplices who are no longer subject to criminal proceedings cannot be admitted probatively against a returning fugitive and/or that it is for the prosecutor to prove to a high standard that the statements were not procured by torture, that real risk will remain.”

Will the Home Secretary tell us more about how the new mutual legal assistance agreement will meet those tests? The treaty refers to the obligation on the prosecution, but will she explain whether and how this will be an equivalent of a change to the code of criminal procedure, and whether it will supersede any ruling made by the court of cassation or the constitutional court? We wish the Home Secretary well with the mutual legal assistance treaty, and we hope that it will work. We will support it in the House, and suggest that we hold a debate and a vote in the Commons to demonstrate the strength of support that exists across the House.

Let me ask the Home Secretary more about her approach to the European Court. Everyone agrees that the European Courts have taken way too long over this, as did the British courts—that has rightly been seen as a source of frustration for Home Secretaries—but will she tell us again why she chose, in January 2012, not to appeal against the judgment that she said she disagreed with? I ask her again to show shadow Ministers and the relevant Select Committee Chairs, on Privy Council terms, the legal advice on why she did not appeal. Until she does so, doubts will remain about her legal strategy and about the credibility of her criticism of the European Court.

Will the Home Secretary also tell us whether she is planning to withdraw temporarily from the European convention on human rights, as has been suggested in briefings from No. 10 to the media, and how she would justify such a decision when she has chosen not to appeal against the European Court’s decisions?

The Home Secretary must forgive us for being cautious about her claims and assurances today when some of her previous promises on this matter have been overblown. Twelve months ago, we remember the media being invited to Abu Qatada’s arrest as she told the House that

“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 173.]

However, within 24 hours, the process had stalled. We also remember her saying last year:

“The Government are clear that Qatada has no right to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 507.]

However, the European Court said that the request had been submitted within the three-month time limit. And 12 months ago, she also told us:

“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 175.]

Today, however, we are back to a legal square one again, going through the deportation process.

We want to work with the Home Secretary to make the process work, so that Abu Qatada can be deported as soon as possible. In the past, however, she has overstated the evidence, overstated her legal position, and overstated her legal strategy, which has not worked. None of us wants that to happen again.

[Mrs May]

May I say in response to the shadow Home Secretary’s first question that she should perhaps listen to what she herself said in her statement? She said that SIAC had suggested that there should be a change to a number of aspects of Jordanian law and/or a change to the obligations on the prosecutor. It is such a change to the obligations on the prosecutor that is in the mutual legal assistance agreement that I have signed with Jordan and that has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and that will therefore deal with that particular issue.

The right hon. Lady asked about the failure to appeal to the European Court. She has raised that issue before and I have answered her before. She seems to think that I should have appealed to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, but that would have jeopardised the Government’s wider deportation with assurances programme and risked the blockage of many other deportation cases. She should also look at what she has previously said on this issue. What she is saying today is not what she was saying last year. In this House, on 17 April last year, she said of me:

“I welcome the assurances that she has obtained from Jordan. Previous agreements were in place, but she was right to pursue further assurances.”

If she thought we should have appealed to the Grand Chamber, why did she think that we needed to pursue those assurances? If that is not clear, she should also remember what else she said:

“We understand, too, that the Home Secretary believes it is too risky to appeal to the Grand Chamber. I understand she would have had legal advice on that, and I do not want her to pursue an unwise and risky process”.

The right hon. Lady asked about the relationship with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The House will know that it is my clear view that we need to fix that relationship and that all options, including leaving the convention altogether, should be on the table. The Prime Minister is looking at all options, and that is the only sensible thing to do.

There are a number of questions for the right hon. Lady. She talked about why this did not happen sooner, and we have heard all sorts of claims from the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Immigration Minister about what I have said. A year ago, I said in this House:

“hon. Members must be aware that”

what I was announcing at that time

“does not necessarily mean that he”—

Abu Qatada—

“will be on a plane to Jordan within days. There is still a potential avenue of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission court, and beyond. That appeal process could take many months”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 175-6.]

I have to tell the right hon. Lady that simply repeating something and wanting it to be true does not make it true; she should look at what was actually said here.

Finally, the right hon. Lady herself has to answer some questions. Does she support what the Government have done? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says she wants a vote. I am asking her very clearly whether she believes that the Government have taken the right course of action in what we have done. Beyond that, will the Opposition support what we want to do, which is to strip out appeal rights for foreign nationals, or not? Will we have a cross-party agreement that we need to deal with the issue of the length of time deportations take? We could do that by taking out layers of appeal. Perhaps even more significantly, will the Opposition agree with us that we need to sort out our human rights laws, which were passed by their Government?

This mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan has clauses within it that, as I say, address the issue raised by the SIAC court and the European Court about Abu Qatada. I hope that the right hon. Lady will support the Government—not just on this case, but in sorting out our human rights laws and our processes of deportation.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given the way in which successive British Governments have been made to look impotent by the European convention and regime, when will my right hon. Friend bring proposals before this House to ensure that the will of Parliament and of the overwhelming majority of the British people can be upheld, common sense applied and justice delivered in these difficult cases?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend will have to wait and see what we intend and are able to bring to this House. I have already indicated that I intend to address some of these issues in a new immigration Bill if parliamentary time allows for it.

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

Abu Qatada’s legal team have used the Human Rights Act 1998 to suggest that if extradition took place, evidence gained through torture would be used in a trial against him. Surely his team would have more success if it changed tack and argued that Abu Qatada might commit suicide, in which case they would have the support of the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

I do not think that that intervention was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

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

I support the Home Secretary’s attempts to deport Abu Qatada and her respect for the courts, even though Governments sometimes clearly disagree with their decisions. Given that agreement with Jordan could be a game changer—in this case and in others—is there an intention to seek similar agreements with other countries where these issues arise? Will she update us on her intention to look again at prosecuting Abu Qatada in this country, which I know she was investigating at the end of last year?

[Mrs May]

On the first issue, we have a number of deportation with assurances agreements that we have signed with other countries, and deportations have been possible under them. Mutual legal assistance agreements also exist with a number of other countries. A very particular point has been raised by the courts in respect of one case, but we will obviously look at the wider implications.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, as he will know, we have always made it clear that we will continue to consider whether there is any prospect of our prosecuting Abu Qatada here in the United Kingdom. The Metropolitan police are investigating the issue of the breach of bail conditions, and the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on an ongoing police investigation.

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

The Home Secretary has rightly said that Abu Qatada is a dangerous man who should remain behind bars. How confident is she that the bail conditions can be sustained for a lengthy period, given that the appeals will no doubt continue for many months? If she is not able to sustain them—because they will be challenged by Abu Qatada’s team—does she intend to impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure on him, involving the maximum restrictions, so that we can ensure that he is not free to walk the streets of this country?

[Mrs May]

Given her experience, the right hon. Lady will know that we do not comment publicly on whether or not we intend to impose TPIMs on individuals. If an application for bail is made, the Home Office will vigorously defend its belief, and my belief, that Abu Qatada should remain behind bars.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What is the worst thing that could happen to us if we did just put Abu Qatada on a plane? If it is a fine or incurring the displeasure of the European Court of Human Rights, would it not be best for us to withdraw temporarily, put him on a plane, and then rejoin?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend and others have been raising for some time the possibility of our simply defying our international legal obligations and putting Abu Qatada on a plane. My answer to her today is the same as the answer that I have given to others in the past: I believe that the UK Government should abide by the rule of law.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

This has turned into a political and judicial farce. The Home Secretary has spent a huge amount of time on the issue, and she must feel very let down by the Home Office silks who kept telling her that there was enough evidence to remove Abu Qatada. While of course I welcome the treaty that she has signed, it does seem extraordinary that we have conducted a treaty with a foreign Government just to remove one individual. Is she satisfied that that will be enough, or does she think that it will be necessary for her to go to Jordan to deal with any other outstanding points? Can she also assure us that if the Court wants to hear from the Jordanian Government as an amicus curiae, the Jordanian Government will be able to put representations directly to it?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear at every stage that we should continue to talk to the Jordanian Government, and should do our utmost to ensure that we can achieve what is wanted by every Member in the Chamber, and, I believe, by all members of the public, namely the deportation of Abu Qatada. We have been clear about our twin-track approach, and we continue that approach.

I must challenge the right hon. Gentleman on one point. As I said, we have signed a wide-ranging mutual legal assurance agreement with the Jordanian Government, which will affect the deportations of individuals in both directions regardless of whether or not they are Abu Qatada. It so happens that within that agreement are fair trial guarantees that could be applied in the case of Abu Qatada, but the agreement itself is a wider document, which has been signed by the two Governments and which, following full ratification in both the Jordanian Parliament and our Parliament, will take the status of a treaty.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

All that my constituents see are judges who are ignoring the will of Parliament, ignoring the cost to the taxpayer, and ignoring the victims of terrorism. Is it not time for us to change the law and extricate ourselves from all the human rights legislation, so that this sort of thing never happens again?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear both in the Chamber and outside it, I believe that we need to think about our relationship with the European convention on human rights and European Court of Human Rights. I believe that while we are members of the convention and subject to the Court, we should abide by the rule of law—that is what people would expect the Government to do—but I also believe that we need to change the relationship, and that everything should be on the table in that regard.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary recognise that the influence of the European convention on human rights over many years has been beneficial in outlawing questioning under torture and protecting the human rights of many people throughout Europe, including people in this country? Does she also recognise that persuading Jordan to accept a non-torture clause in the putative treaty that she has presented to the House was a product of the values of the European convention? Is it not the case that we should be talking not about leaving it, but about extending the values contained in it to the rest of the world if we can possibly do so?

[Mrs May]

The European convention was signed for a particular purpose. Over the years, the European Court has itself interpreted the convention in particular ways, and I believe that when it raised the issue of Abu Qatada and article 6, it moved the goalposts.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned torture in connection with Jordan and the agreement that has been signed. I remind him that the Jordanian Government themselves changed their constitution to outlaw torture. The case of Abu Qatada went before SIAC, and SIAC reached the judgment that it did, because the case law had not been tested at that stage. The Jordanian Government themselves took the step of outlawing torture, and I think that we should congratulate them on the changes that they have already made in their legal system.

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

The Home Secretary has to convince the Supreme Court that her case raises an arguable point of law of general public importance. Should she not therefore put the key constitutional question: is Strasbourg entitled to move the goalposts, or does our Supreme Court have the last word?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend and I have had a number of discussions and question-and-answer sessions relating to this issue, not least in the Home Affairs Committee last week. At the heart of the point that he has raised today is the issue of the relationship between Britain and the European Court of Human Rights.

As I have already said in answer to other questions, I believe that we should consider all the options, and that that should include leaving the jurisdiction of the Court altogether. However, we are currently signatories to the convention and must abide by its rulings, and I believe that Governments must abide by the law. Even if we were to ignore the Court and put Abu Qatada on a plane regardless of its ruling—and I do not believe that we would be able to do so in practice—we would risk being ordered by the Court to bring him back to Britain and pay him compensation. Worse than that, as soon as we started to ignore our obligations under international law, we would not be able to rely on other countries’ obligations to us under international law. I think that that would jeopardise our national security and, indeed, jeopardise many other deportation cases.

I fully understand the frustration felt by my hon. Friend and others who share his views, but our options involve operating within the law, and I believe that we should operate within the law or change the law. Dare I describe urging the Government to break the law as a rather reckless step?

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

The Home Secretary has now discovered how difficult it is to put this man on a plane to Jordan. Given the possibility that her latest efforts will be thwarted, has she considered trying to negotiate a fair trial on neutral territory in order to overcome objections, using a model similar to the one that was used to bring the Libyan bomber to justice?

[Mrs May]

The suggestion that we have suddenly discovered how difficult it is to deport Abu Qatada is wide of the mark. That has been absolutely clear from the beginning. What I myself have made clear from the beginning is that we need to follow the processes of law. It has taken time and it will continue to take time, but I believe that it is the right thing to do, and that it will mean that we can eventually deport him.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeking a solution to this vexing situation. Do the fair trial guarantees in the comprehensive mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan match the standards for fair trial under the English court system? If so, does that not constitute a huge improvement for those who face trial as British subjects in Jordan?

[Mrs May]

Obviously, the mutual legal assistance agreement, which when ratified will become a treaty, provides for people other than Abu Qatada. It is a general agreement on fair trial arrangements, the exchange of information and other issues. It provides that in all cases, whether for somebody being deported to Jordan from the UK who is not Abu Qatada or for deportations the other way round.

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

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? Following on from an earlier question and some of the questions I have asked previously, why cannot the appropriate authorities look at prosecution in this country not just for breach of bail conditions but for some of the remarks he is alleged to have made that clearly incite race hatred? Like me, many people must find it difficult to understand why no attempt is being made to prosecute him in the United Kingdom.

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear on a number of occasions that prosecution has always been alongside the other activities that the Government are undertaking. It is looked at. At the moment, we have an active police investigation, on which it is not appropriate for me to comment. It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman’s question seems to imply, that prosecution has never previously been considered. I remind him that, as he well knows, prosecution is not a matter for the Home Secretary; it is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary realise that she has massive support from the British people for the work she has been doing to get rid of an odious man from this country? She has that support because people recognise the frustrations involved in the processes, thanks to the Labour Government’s human rights legislation. I congratulate her on the mutual legal assistance arrangements with Jordan, and I recommend that she continues on her course; eventually it will succeed and we will rid this country of a dangerous and odious man.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: everybody wants to see Abu Qatada deported to Jordan. It is frustrating that it has taken so long. As I said in my statement, the process started in 2001, so it is not something that has suddenly come up for this Government. We have been taking steps and we have progressed, in that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission accepted the assurances from the Jordanian Government in a number of areas in relation to a retrial. We still have the single point to deal with, and I believe that the mutual legal assistance agreement will provide widely for deportations between both countries and will also deal with the point about Abu Qatada.

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

The Secretary of State rightly emphasised that, under present conditions, the SIAC ruling prevents her from deporting Qatada. Presumably, the comprehensive treaty with Jordan is designed to meet the circumstances to which SIAC refers. I assume that we cannot go back to SIAC for a revision of the ruling, although perhaps she will confirm that point, but perhaps we can use at the Supreme Court the arguments she has made today. If we cannot, this saga will run on and on, and will become an increasing farce, to the embarrassment of the whole House and to her in particular.

[Mrs May]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that as I said in my statement, we continue to adopt a twin-track approach. He referred to the Supreme Court. Obviously, we are seeking leave to appeal direct to the Supreme Court. If the appeal is accepted, the case will be on points of law in relation to the earlier SIAC judgment, and on only those points of law. Assuming that the treaty is ratified in both the Jordanian Parliament and this Parliament, it will enable me to make a fresh deportation decision about Abu Qatada.

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

As I understand it, this is the first time that a deportation order has been blocked on fair trial grounds under article 6. What assessment, if any, has the Home Office made of the number of claims likely to follow the judicial review, and will my right hon. Friend commit to a Bill in the Queen’s Speech that unequivocally deals in primary legislation with article 6 and article 8 grounds for frustrating deportation orders?

[Mrs May]

As I said previously, parliamentary time allowing, I intend to bring forward an immigration Bill to deal with the matters that can be dealt with. As my hon. Friend rightly says, although we are focusing on article 6 today, there is also an article 8 issue. Despite the fact that last year the House unanimously approved changes to immigration rules in relation to article 8, Members will know that unfortunately one of the judges in the lower tribunal indicated that it was only a weak parliamentary debate, which is why I intend and expect to bring primary legislation to the House.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is remarkable that the Home Secretary has had to confirm to the House that she does not intend to break the law. Can she confirm whether she is considering temporary withdrawal from the European convention to deal with the case of one man? What would that do to our international reputation?

[Mrs May]

I note the comment the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his remarks. I think it is important that a Home Secretary is willing to stand in the House and say that the Government should abide by the rule of law. There is an issue about the relationship between the Government and the European Court, but it is wider than this particular case. I believe that in dealing with that issue, all potential aspects should be on the table and should be considered.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The framers of the European convention on human rights never intended that it should usurp the autonomy of UK jurisdiction or the sovereignty of Parliament. The Home Secretary needs to be bold and look at the example of other countries with regard to the efficacy of suspension from the European Court of Human Rights. Apart from the wilder shores of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour left, there is clearly settled consensus on that. My constituents and those of other hon. Members are fed up with waiting; we want proposals at the earliest opportunity.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises points and puts a view as he has done in the past. He has been consistent. We too are consistent in accepting that we need to change the relationship with the European Court and that we need to look again at the Human Rights Act. Conservative Members came into the House at the last election with a commitment to repeal the Act and I have every confidence that we will go into the next election with that commitment.

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

This farce makes the Government look incompetent as well as impotent. Can the Home Secretary tell me whether previously loyal Conservatives will have to vote for the UK Independence party before she pays attention to them?

[Mrs May]

I am really not sure what relevance that has to the signing of a mutual legal assistance agreement with the Jordanian Government. Over the last three years, the Government have taken every step at every stage to ensure that we reach the end point we all want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her determination to remove that man, and on her commitment to do so within the law. She will be aware that many people believe that other countries that are signatories to the European convention act differently and can get rid of people who are a clear danger to their society. Does she think that the proposals she has outlined, including the removal of the layers of appeal available to foreign criminals, will reassure the public who hold that view?

[Mrs May]

While it is a view widely propounded that other countries find it easier to deport people, that view is not always based on as much fact as those who put it forward would like us to believe. It is important for us to shorten the deportation process. The steps we are looking at in relation to removing layers of appeal will both ensure that people have access to justice, which is important, and that we shorten the process so that we can deport people who are a danger to us rather more quickly than we have been able to do so far.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Her frustration is shared by all in the Chamber. In legal circles and in some of today’s press, it is stated that it may be necessary to suspend human rights legislation for six months to enable the deportation to happen. Can she confirm that that strategy is being considered as an option to ensure that the deportation of Abu Qatada can be completed?

[Mrs May]

In relation to the deportation of Abu Qatada, we are pursuing the twin track that I set out to the House. As I said, an important step has been taken with the signing of the wider-ranging mutual legal assistance agreement, but we retain the intention to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and we are seeking leave to do so. We are developing that twin track. The relationship between the Human Rights Act, the European Court and the European convention and the views of the UK and the Government is a wider issue and it is right that we look at all the options.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for yet again coming to the House to keep us informed. Further to the question of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), surely the Secretary of State should be following a third way by giving notice to the Council of Europe that we intend to come out of the convention in six months’ time, meaning that we would be able to withdraw and act legally by deporting Abu Qatada. We would then have six months to see whether the other process that she outlined will work. Does she not think that it would be a good idea to give that notice to the Council of Europe today?

[Mrs May]

I think it is right that the Government pursue the twin-track path that I have set out. I never thought that I would see the day when my hon. Friend would stand in the House of Commons proposing that we adopt a middle way.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is it not the case that there would be no human rights in Europe were it not for this country and its empire standing alone in 1940 against the forces of tyranny that threatened our continent, and that we need not be lectured about human rights by anyone else? Given the dysfunctionality of the discredited European convention, it is time for us to leave—and to leave now—and to establish our own Bill of Rights so that we can decide these things for ourselves.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the valiant stance that this country took against tyranny. He is also right to comment on the fact that we need to examine the relationship between this country and the European Court of Human Rights, which is of course part of the issue of the convention. I say to him, as I have said to everyone else, that all options are on the table, which include removing ourselves from the Court and the convention.

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

How much has this cost so far, and how much is it likely to cost in the future?

[Mrs May]

I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend a figure for the costs at this stage, although certain legal aid costs have been published. I undertook to inform the Home Affairs Committee of the position as best I can, because I was asked such a question at its sitting last week.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement; her evident exasperation will be widely reflected in my constituency. Even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling, what grounds are there to believe that the Supreme Court will overturn that decision, given that the Court of Appeal’s judgment stated that the contention that SIAC had erred in law was “particularly difficult to sustain”?

[Mrs May]

We will continue to argue on a point of law that we believe is arguable before the courts, notwithstanding the view taken by the Court of Appeal, but I cannot prejudge the decision that the Supreme Court will take. It is right that the Government continue to ask for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court so that, if the appeal is accepted, the case can be tested in the very highest court in the land.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which she has dealt with terrorists and suspected terrorists, because in the past three years, she has rescinded the British nationality of 16 individuals due to acts linked to terrorism that make it not conducive for them to be in this country, which is far more than any previous Secretary of State?

[Mrs May]

I note my hon. Friend’s comments. When we came into government, we were clear that we needed to ensure that we could act against extremists, including violent extremists, and we have been pursuing that in the way that he sets out, as well as though our policy of exclusions.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that she has done? She has already managed to remove one extremist, Abu Hamza—he has slung his hook off to America—and I have every faith that her work will continue. However, my constituents are frustrated not only because it is so difficult to unpick Labour’s Human Rights Act, but because of reports of the benefits that Abu Qatada might well be receiving in this country. Has my right hon. Friend spoken to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that Abu Qatada is not getting anything to which he is not entitled?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, but may I say that an awful lot of work and effort is also being put in by Home Office officials and the Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? On the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I simply say that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers about such matters.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the widespread anger throughout the country about the amount of time it is taking to deal with this, but is she also aware that there is widespread understanding throughout the country, if not among all Members of the House, that there is an obligation on the Home Secretary and the Government to obey the law and abide by the decision of the courts, so we appreciate that she has no choice in the matter? Will she confirm that the Government’s position is made more difficult by the human rights legislation that the previous Labour Government passed in this House, although Labour Members take no responsibility whatsoever for the mess that we are in?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right to remind us that the previous Labour Government passed the Human Rights Act. Several Labour Members have spoken about dealing with human rights, but they brought the European convention into British legislation, and we will have to deal with that legislation if we are to sort out the wider issue of our relationship with the European Court.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I welcome the arrangements that the Home Secretary is negotiating with Jordan. Does she agree that it is all very well for Opposition Members to carp and criticise in a typical fit of political opportunism, but that they should reflect on the massive contribution that they made to the mess in which we find ourselves? Indeed, what we would like from them is an apology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

One thing that we never seem to get from the Opposition, in any aspect of their policies, is an apology for what we had to inherit. The deportation of Abu Qatada has been considered by successive Governments since 2001. We have taken several steps that I believe have put us a position in which we will be able to achieve that end. I have been absolutely clear that rights of appeal will be available to Abu Qatada if a new deportation decision is issued, so the process could take many months—it will not be over quickly—but the Government have been absolutely right to take such action. We have reduced the issues that must be dealt with to this single point that we believe the agreement will address.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

It is a farce that it has taken so long—it will clearly take a while longer yet—to remove this individual, who we all agree is a danger. That farce damages faith in politics, plays into the hands of extremists and, tragically, undermines my constituents’ support for human rights legislation. In that context, may I warmly welcome what the Home Secretary says about changing the law so that we no longer find ourselves in the ridiculous position whereby the rights of one terror suspect seem to trump our constituents’ rights to live freely and safely?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. We should be able to balance the rights of the individual against the wider rights of society. I understand his point about his constituents’ attitude to human rights. Those who propounded the changes that took place need to understand the risk that the concept of human rights becomes discredited if people see it as being used consistently to stop us from deporting those who are a danger to this country.

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

My right hon. Friend has extradited several terrorist suspects from Britain, including Abu Hamza, so it is right that she maintains the same strong resolve to see Abu Qatada deported. Does she recall the number of years that the Labour party had in which to remove these dangerous individuals from our country and how it singularly failed to do so?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. As I said, Abu Qatada’s case started back in 2001 and we are attempting to achieve what the previous Government could not achieve. I believe we are closer to doing that as a result of the agreement that we have signed.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

My constituents consistently ask, “Why don’t we just stick this man on a plane and have done with it, regardless of what the European convention on human rights says?” Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that as much as we all want rid of this dreadful, odious little man, we all have greater benefit from living under a Government who stick to their own laws as they are in place at present?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. Many people say, “Why don’t you just put this individual on a plane?”, but that would not, I believe, be practically possible in relation to the action that the courts would take. Also, it is important—my hon. Friend says there are wider benefits—that the Government are willing to say that we abide not just by our rule of law, but by our international legal obligations.

European Arrest Warrants: Data

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Written Statements

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

I have been informed by the chair of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) that it has identified an error in the way in which the agency has captured and reported the number of outgoing (part 3) European arrest warrants (EAW) that have been issued since 2009-10. The chair of SOCA has assured me that there is no evidence to suggest that this error in data capture has had any operational impact on the way in which EAWs have been processed by SOCA, or any other part of the criminal justice system, or therefore on public protection.

What it does mean, however, is that some answers to parliamentary questions, and other reports to Parliament, will have been inaccurate and I wanted to make this clear to this House at an early opportunity and, reflecting the seriousness with which I regard this matter, set out the steps I am taking to ensure that this does not happen in future.

This error in capturing data was identified as a result of processes undertaken by SOCA in moving to a new case management system. In order to ensure that any revised figures are completely accurate, I have asked HM chief inspector of constabulary (HMCIC) to undertake an audit not only of data for part 3 (outgoing) cases collected since 2009-10 but of data for part 1 (incoming) cases over the same time period, a process which SOCA has already set in train, so that I am in a position to correct quickly any misleading information which has been given to Parliament. I want also to test the assurance I have been given about operational impact and public protection.

I have also asked HMCIC to assure me that the new case information management system (CIMS) will provide accurate data so that this House can, in future, have confidence in the data it is given by my Department in this area.

I have agreed with HMCIC that this work will be completed as soon as possible and by the middle of May at the latest. I will then update this House with the accurate figures and the necessary assurances about the CIMS system. This will include providing a list of parliamentary questions and other reports where the inaccurate information has been provided.

UK Border Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I think the words “follow that one” come to mind, Mr Speaker.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of the UK Border Agency. Since 2010, the Government have been getting to grips with the chaotic immigration system we inherited. We have introduced a limit on economic migration from outside the EU, cut out abuse of student visas and reformed family visas—as a result, net migration is down by a third. We have also started to get to grips with the performance of the organisations that enforce our immigration laws: through the Crime and Courts Bill, we are setting up a National Crime Agency with a border policing command; the UK Passport Service continues to operate to a high standard; and since we split the Border Force from UKBA last year, 98% of passengers go through passport control within target times and Border Force meets all its passenger service targets.

However, the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough. The agency struggles with the volume of its casework, which has led to historical backlogs running into the hundreds of thousands; the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number of people who are here illegally; and while the visa operation is internationally competitive, it could and should get better still. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has published many critical reports about UKBA’s performance. As I have said to the House before, the agency has been a troubled organisation since it was formed in 2008, and its performance is not good enough.

In truth, the agency was not set up to absorb the level of mass immigration that we saw under the last Government. That meant that it has never had the space to modernise its structures and systems, and get on top of its work load. I believe that the agency’s problems boil down to four main issues: the first is the sheer size of the agency, which means that it has conflicting cultures and all too often focuses on the crisis in hand at the expense of other important work; the second is its lack of transparency and accountability; the third is its inadequate IT systems; and the fourth is the policy and legal framework within which it has to operate. I want to update the House on the ways in which I propose to address each of those difficulties.

In keeping with the changes we made last year to the UK Border Force, the Government are splitting up the UK Border Agency. In its place will be an immigration and visa service, and an immigration law enforcement organisation. By creating two entities instead of one, we will be able to create distinct cultures. The first will be a high-volume service that makes high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of customer satisfaction for business men and visitors who want to come here legally. The second will be an organisation that has law enforcement at its heart and gets tough on those who break our immigration laws.

Two smaller entities will also mean greater transparency and accountability, and that brings me to the second change I intend to make. UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers. In making these changes it is important that we do not create new silos. That is why we are creating a strategic oversight board for all the constituent parts of the immigration system—immigration policy, the UK Passport Service, the UK Border Force and the two new entities we are creating. That oversight board will be chaired by the Home Office permanent secretary.

We will also work to make sure that each of the organisations in the immigration system shares services, including IT, because the third of the agency’s problems is its IT. UKBA’s IT systems are often incompatible and are not reliable enough. They require manual data entry instead of automated data collection, and they often involve paper files instead of modem electronic case management. So I have asked the permanent secretary and Home Office board to produce a new plan, building on the work done by Rob Whiteman, UKBA’s chief executive, to modernise IT across the whole immigration system.

The final problem I raised is the policy and legal framework within which UKBA has operated. The agency is often caught up in a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcement of its own policies, which makes it harder to remove people who are here illegally. That is why I intend to bring forward an immigration Bill in the next Session of Parliament that will address some of these problems.

The changes I have announced today are in keeping with the successes of this Government’s reforms so far. We are reducing net migration and we are improving the performance of the organisations that enforce our laws, but UKBA has been a troubled organisation for so many years. It has poor IT systems, and it operates within a complicated legal framework that often works against it. All those things mean that it will take many years to clear the backlogs and fix the system, but I believe the changes I have announced today will put us in a much stronger position to do so. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am afraid to say that, yet again, we received a characteristic response from the shadow Home Secretary. We still have not had an apology for Labour’s mass uncontrolled immigration, and we have had no apology today for the state in which the previous Labour Government created and then left the Border Agency.

I can reveal to the House today, however, that the shadow Home Secretary now has an immigration policy. In a recent article for PoliticsHome, she said:

“We need much stronger action against illegal immigration to be a priority.”

I am sure that everyone in the House would agree, but how does the shadow Home Secretary propose to get there? We need, she said, a “taskforce”. So, that is it. That is how the Opposition think that we will get control of our immigration system: the classic new Labour solution of a taskforce.

After all the comments the right hon. Lady made, let us remember who we have to thank for the structure that is being dealt with today. The plans to create UKBA were set out in a paper published by the Cabinet Office in November 2007. Who was the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the time? None other than her boss, the Leader of the Opposition.

The right hon. Lady cited a number of figures and raised a range of issues. She referred to the fact that, to use her terms, two thirds of visas were not processed on time. I have news for her: more than 90% of visas are processed within the performance target time. She referred to clearing up the backlogs, which originated with the Government of whom she was a member. I will respond to the point, nevertheless. The structural changes that we are making today will make for better-run organisations with greater clarity and greater focus, with more transparency, more accountability and stronger management. That, as we have seen with the Border Force, will deliver better performance; but it is not the only answer, which is why I have also referred to the need for us to change the law, deal with the IT systems and improve the processes in the organisation. It will take time, but today’s announcements are an important start.

The right hon. Lady made a number of references to the Border Force and its performance. Until I took the Border Force out of UKBA last year, it was not possible to tell what its performance was. The Vine report, published last year, showed that checks were being suspended routinely and without permission for many years. That is no longer the case, thanks to the changes that I made.

The right hon. Lady cited numerous statistics about the performance of the Border Agency, but I suggest that she should have listened to my statement. I know that the performance of the Border Agency is not good enough. It never has been. That is why we are making the changes that I have announced today. The question for the right hon. Lady is whether or not she supports those changes.

The right hon. Lady asked when the changes will be made. The agency status will be removed at the beginning of April, and I shall return to the House with a further statement on the detail of the structural changes in due course. She said that there had been no reference until today to the possibility of changes to UKBA, but that is not right. If she had paid attention during Home Office questions yesterday, she would have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration refer to the fact that I would bring forward proposals. The Prime Minister also referred to that fact in his excellent speech on immigration yesterday.

The right hon. Lady suggested that I have made this statement only in response to the report from the Home Affairs Committee that was published yesterday, but the decision has been taken after many hours of serious work over many months. If I restructured UKBA every time the Select Committee criticised it, I would have restructured it on more than one occasion. [Hon. Members: “Quarterly.”] My hon. Friends are suggesting that we would have done so quarterly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a member of that Committee and knows that the restructurings would have been rather more numerous than the one that I am suggesting today.

We must remember why the Border Agency got into this situation. After the mess that the previous Government made of the immigration system, John Reid turned up at the Home Office, called the immigration system not fit for purpose and, instead of fixing it, turned it into an agency at arm’s length to keep all the trouble away from Ministers. That was a soundbite with no substance; but under the right hon. Lady, the Labour party is regressing, as she does not even have a soundbite. The Government have a very clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and to sort out the enforcement of our immigration laws. The Opposition have nothing. She is not serious; they are not serious; and the British people know that they cannot trust Labour with immigration.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I hope that my right hon. Friend will take absolutely no advice from the Labour party, which delivered massive net immigration and an asylum backlog of 450,000 and put in no transitional arrangements for eastern Europeans when it was in office. I congratulate her on applying common sense by taking back responsibility at ministerial level for the security of this country’s borders. Can she confirm that placing the new bodies that she has announced today under the direct supervision of Ministers will ensure the maximum scrutiny of the work that they do?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. I can indeed confirm that we will be increasing scrutiny of the work that is done in relation to the immigration and visa system and immigration enforcement by bringing it into the Home Office, under a board chaired by the permanent secretary and reporting to Ministers. It is common sense and the right approach to deal with the problem caused by the creation of the agency under the previous Government.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Home Secretary on putting the United Kingdom backlogs agency out of its misery by delivering this lethal injection today? May I join her in paying tribute to colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), for their work over the years in exposing the agency’s shortcomings? I put this option to the Minister for Immigration yesterday and he said that he would reflect on it, so coming back in 24 hours is quite an achievement. Will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that uppermost in her mind will be the clearing of backlogs, strong and effective leadership and strong parliamentary scrutiny? Only then will we have an immigration system in which the British people can have confidence.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I said, the Home Affairs Committee has been assiduous in its consideration of matters relating to UKBA over the years and has had a consistent message about the need to deal with some of the problems. It is obviously important that we deal with backlogs. It is also important that we ensure that the agency makes the right decisions on an ongoing, day-to-day basis, that those decisions are made not just appropriately but fairly and that people are dealt with properly when they interact with the agency. That will take some time. I think that we share an aim about the quality of system provided, but it will take some time to ensure that we fix all the problems UKBA is having to deal with.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she say something about the staff, from Mr Whiteman, whom the Home Affairs Committee will see at 3 o’clock to discuss his terms and role, to staff across the agency? We have recently returned from Abu Dhabi, where they seem to have turned around the visa processing unit. I think that there are really good people in UKBA who just need to be better led.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it gives me an opportunity to say that many people working for UKBA are dedicated officers who do an excellent job. Certainly, in some of the examples that he and other members of the Home Affairs Committee will have seen, such as the overseas operations, real change has been brought about. The work of the vast majority of staff in the areas of enforcement or the immigration and visa system will not change, but there will of course be change for the directors general heading up those two operations. Obviously, those are personnel matters on which the permanent secretary will make announcements in due course.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to take the agency back into the Home Office, which I think is the right one. Which of the new units will inherit responsibility for dealing with the backlogs, and how will she ensure that this does not become yet another opportunity to loose case files, passports and other documents in the ritual buck passing with which we have all become too familiar?

[Mrs May]

The differentiation between the two units will be clear: the immigration and visa section will deal with decisions on whether people should be entitled to enter or remain in the UK; and at the point at which those cases are closed and people need to be removed, cases pass to the enforcement part of the operation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on bringing the agency back into the Home Office—I suggest that he has more of a policy on the issue than Labour Front Benchers. We are very conscious that it is important to work out that separation, which is why I think that this clear-cut separation will help us to ensure that we do not see the sort of losses of files, passports and so forth that we have seen previously, so we have to look at the processes, too.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It will be a pleasure for the Home Affairs Committee no longer to have to report quarterly on ongoing problems within UKBA. I congratulate the Home Secretary on her decisive action. For too long the agency has stood in the way of a coherent, fair and credible immigration policy. My concern is that in 2006 the immigration and nationality directorate was spun out of the Home Office because it was not fit for purpose, had a vast backlog and was poorly led. We now have an agency that is still not fit for purpose, still has a vast backlog and still has leadership problems. How can she be so sure that it will work this time?

[Mrs May]

We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Is it not true that part of the problem is that ministerial attention has been diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches? Can the Home Secretary confirm that ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education? The Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said:

“If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN. With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.”

Can the Home Secretary confirm that statement?

[Mrs May]

We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors. We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children, but the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, which was that policy changes were about publicity stunts, is far from the truth. We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year. We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.

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

I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that one of UKBA’s main problems, apart from the inability to manage its data or communicate it correctly to the Home Affairs Committee, has been an identity crisis? It has tried to be an enforcement agency that pursues criminal investigations, but it has also tried to convey the message that Britain is open for business by offering a friendly customer service. Can she assure us that the new structure will fix that problem?

[Mrs May]

The aim of the new structure is that the two parts of the Home Office that will be dealing with these two areas of immigration policy will be focused more clearly on the roles within each part. The immigration and visa section will be focused clearly on giving an efficient and effective service on immigration and visa decisions, making the right decisions about who should be able to enter the country, but doing so in a way that gives individuals good customer service. The enforcement section will be able to focus clearly on the enforcement part. We are doing that precisely to get the focus my hon. Friend wants.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

From time to time, high-tech employers in my constituency ask for help with getting visas or work permits for highly skilled workers whom they desperately need for their businesses. If, in future, such workers do not have access to NHS care, there will be an increased cost either on the employer or the employee. Will the Government be reducing national insurance contributions for employers and employees in respect of those workers?

[Mr Speaker]

It is very hard to see the link with UKBA —[Interruption.] Well, it is a slightly strained connection, but we shall see, if the Home Secretary wants to give a brief reply.

[Mrs May]

It is a very strained connection. I understand that a similar point was raised in the urgent question yesterday and was responded to.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the immigration Bill that the Government will introduce in the next Session will seek to ensure that those who have no right to be within the jurisdiction are removed from it? Does she not think it a pity that the shadow Home Secretary does not have the same perspicacity as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee?

[Mrs May]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s latter point. Yes, the immigration Bill that I intend to introduce will look at a range of problems to do with deportation to ensure that we can remove from this country people who have no right to be here.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary alluded to the setting up of the National Crime Agency with the border police command. Will she reassure the House that there will be ongoing discussions to try to ensure that the entirety of the United Kingdom is safeguarded, particularly the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I recognise, Mr Speaker, that my referring to the National Crime Agency opened up the possibility for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am well aware of the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the agency is able to do the job that it needs to do across the United Kingdom, and we are happy to continue discussions with those who share the same aim.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement. Should not UKBA now join the long list of Labour’s immigration failures, including the Human Rights Act 1998, an immigration backlog of 450,000, out-of-control and increasing net immigration and a total lack of control of eastern European immigration?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes very good points. It is precisely because of the difficulty that Opposition Front Benchers have in defending their poor record on immigration that we hear them trying to go on the party political attack rather than accepting the necessary decisions to deal with our immigration system.

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

Will the Home Secretary confirm her estimates of the cost of her reorganisation and whether it will be met from existing budgets?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that any costs incurred in reorganisation will be met from existing budgets.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the shadow Home Secretary apologises for Labour’s shambolic immigration policy when in government, anything that she or her party says on immigration lacks any credibility whatsoever?

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

As the Home Secretary’s colleague, the Minister for Immigration, knows, I have been dealing with the case of Gordon Murray, a local councillor and college lecturer from Stornoway, who is trying to get his pregnant Chinese wife and unborn child from China to the Hebrides before she is unable to fly. The Minister has been very helpful—Gordon Murray and I are grateful for that—but he was bequeathed a system that is excessively bureaucratic and intimidatory and, in this case, is still cruelly dividing this family. Can we have, as Mr Murray has asked, a system that puts people’s needs at the centre rather than numbers and quotas?

[Mrs May]

I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been dealing with this case. I want the immigration and visa part of the Home Office, as it will now become, to focus on customer service, but, of course, against the background of making the right decisions for individuals who apply to come to the UK.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Many of my constituents work at the UK Border Agency in Leeds, as do many other people across Leeds. Will the Home Secretary reiterate what these changes mean to the people who work there? Will she comment on how they will be able to do their job more effectively and get the results that they strive to achieve?

[Mrs May]

We do not intend that as a result of these changes there will be changes to any of the UKBA’s current sites. Most people will continue to do the job that they have been doing. As I have said, many staff are doing that assiduously and with the right commitment. It should be easier for them to do their job in the future because that part of the organisation, when within the Home Office, will have a much clearer focus but will also be making decisions that will enable us to improve the IT system and the processes within the organisation.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee discovered a backlog of some 33,000 legacy asylum cases and found that 59,000 cases have not even been entered on to the computer system. Is not one of the major reasons for that the loss of staff and resources presided over by the Home Secretary since mid-2010? Will she pledge not to be so comprehensively out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor in the next spending review as she so clearly was in the previous one?

[Mrs May]

When the hon. Gentleman is thinking about figures he should remember that the Government inherited a backlog of half a million asylum cases. The Government have cleared that backlog.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Although we always find that we get great personal service from individual members of UKBA, she knows, because I have raised it with her before, that many people in my central London constituency find themselves frustrated by some of the current arrangements. Can she assure me that the new arrangements will make it easier for some high-performing people to get their visas more quickly and thus send a keen pro-business message?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that in the House, as she has done with me directly. We certainly intend to ensure that the service provides a premium service for business people and others who may need to come here on a faster basis. Indeed, we are setting up in India the first super-premium service, which will provide a 24-hour visa service for individuals who need it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. One of the biggest complaints in my office about the UK Border Agency is the processing of visas and passports, which often takes up to 12 months. Staff are always helpful, and we appreciate that, but what assurance can she give to my constituents, who are totally frustrated with the delays that they face?

[Mrs May]

I am very conscious that this is one of the issues that we have needed to address in relation to the processing of applications. Particular concerns have been raised with us about the length of time that it has been taking to process business applications for tier 2 workers to come to the UK. That is currently being dealt with inside UKBA. I believe that having a clearer focus on that part of the business, but also working overtime to improve the IT systems and processes within it, will lead to the sort of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given that most asylum seekers come to our shores via other nations, what happened to the previous convention of returning these people to the last safe country from which they came? If that has lapsed, can we bring it back through the immigration Bill that the Home Secretary has promised?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend refers to the Dublin regulation, which does indeed enable a country to return an asylum seeker to the first country in the European Union that they entered. We are still able to do that, with the exception of one country—Greece—and we do.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all see in our surgeries lots of cases—sometimes dozens or hundreds of cases—of bona fide applicants who are waiting months and months, sometimes years and years, beyond the guidelines to get their applications dealt with. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the changes will lead to improvements in the near future for these people? We do not want this reorganisation merely to lead to more interim delay while it is put into effect.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about ensuring that the reorganisation does not lead to further problems in the short term. Like the longer-term changes to IT systems and processes, it is intended to try to deal with precisely some of the problems that he identified regarding the length of time taken to make decisions.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new system will quickly implement judicial decisions to deport foreign criminals back to their countries?

[Mrs May]

A number of problems are encountered when trying to deport foreign national prisoners back to their country of origin. The new enforcement command in the Home Office will be able to put greater focus and emphasis on the removal of those who no longer have a right to be here and the deportation of foreign national offenders who should be removed. There are other issues in such cases and those will be dealt with in the immigration Bill that I intend to bring forward.