Hillsborough Investigation

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Written Statements

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

In September 2012, the Hillsborough independent panel published their important report which sets out the truth about the Hillsborough disaster. I am today setting out the different pieces of work that will belatedly deliver justice for the victims and their families, and how this work fits together.

It will be the job of the criminal justice system and Government to work in three areas:

Investigation

Inquest

Prosecution

Investigation will need to cover all aspects of the truth set out in the report. Where the panel interrogated the documents, investigation of their report will go further and investigate all of the people and organisations involved—before, on, and after 15 April 1989. Investigation could lead to criminal prosecution; for serving police officers it could also lead to misconduct proceedings. Investigation will be the responsibility of both the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and Jon Stoddart. The IPCC will principally investigate the aftermath of Hillsborough; Jon Stoddart will principally investigate the deaths at Hillsborough. It is not possible to appoint a single lead investigator unless that person is a police officer. For something this serious and complex, where a previous police investigation into the police has failed already, we do not believe that the police should be solely responsible for investigating the actions of the police. Investigation of the police in such a serious case is the job of the IPCC.

New inquests will be established if the Attorney-General is successful today in his application to the High Court to quash the existing inquest verdicts and order new inquests to be held. Inquests are likely to need to undertake further investigation. Responsibility for that, and for who conducts the inquests, as well as for their timing and location, will rest with the coroner.

Prosecution for criminal matters may flow from the findings of the investigation and the inquest. Prosecution will be the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS will work closely with the investigations from the outset so that any risk to successful prosecutions is managed from the earliest stage, and throughout the process leading to the decision whether to prosecute and throughout any subsequent prosecution should there be any.

There will be two investigations—one into the deaths at Hillsborough and one into the police actions in the aftermath. The investigations will be integrated, working from the same office in Warrington. They will be run from a single major incident room, share access to documents and other evidence, and work together on liaison with families and survivors.

The IPCC has powers to investigate the police—serving and retired, for both criminality and misconduct—but does not have powers to investigate the other people and organisations involved in the Hillsborough disaster; Jon Stoddart, as a police officer, has the powers necessary to investigate these others. This is why the investigation into the aftermath will be headed by Deborah Glass, IPCC deputy chair, and the investigation into the deaths will be headed by Jon Stoddart. Investigation into the deaths will overlap both investigations—covering the police, as well as all the other organisations and individuals involved in decisions and actions ahead of and on 15 April 1989. Jon Stoddart’s investigation will report findings to the IPCC, in relation to police officers investigated.

The CPS will work closely with the investigations from the outset so that any risk to successful prosecutions is managed from the earliest stage, and throughout the process leading to prosecution.

Should new inquests be ordered, the coroner may decide that they need to direct further investigation into aspects of the deaths. It will be for the coroner to decide how that investigation should be conducted, if it is necessary.

The IPPC and Jon Stoddart’s investigations will not employ officers or former officers with any prior connection to the Hillsborough disaster, nor who have worked in West Midlands, South Yorkshire or Merseyside police forces.

Jon Stoddart and Deborah Glass will be resourced to appoint investigators and staff as necessary to ensure that they each have the team they need to investigate all aspects of the Hillsborough independent panel report as fully and swiftly as possible.

Jon Stoddart recently retired as chief constable of Durham Police. He is being appointed to the Metropolitan Police as an assistant commissioner (a rank equivalent to chief constable). This ensures that he can be re-attested as a police officer and can hold the same senior rank that he held before he retired. He will not be under the direction and control of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in leading this investigation and nor would the commissioner be responsible for any complaints raised against him. He will initially be seconded to the Home Office and then, once it exists in law, to the National Crime Agency (NCA).

I, the Home Secretary, lead in Government for co-ordination of this work.

The Bishop of Liverpool has agreed to act as an adviser to me on Hillsborough.

A liaison board will be supported by the Home Office to bring together the individuals and organisations responsible for this work on a regular basis. It will work to integrate the three major pieces of work, ensuring effective planning, organisation and exchange of information, as well as avoiding duplication and unnecessary delay. It will provide assurance to me in my co-ordinating role.

The IPCC and CPS are establishing an independent challenge panel which will inform and advise the investigations and the work of the CPS. This will involve independent experts, including individuals nominated by the Hillsborough Family Support Group and the Hillsborough Justice Campaign.

I have already said that we will ensure that the IPCC has both the resource and powers that it requires to undertake the investigations necessary. The Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill has passed both the Lords and Commons stages and we are currently awaiting Royal Assent. The Bill will give two new powers to the IPCC to assist them in investigating the Hillsborough independent panel’s report. The new powers are: to require a serving police officer to attend an interview as a witness; and to enable the IPCC to investigate matters which were previously investigated by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA).

Now that the truth about the Hillsborough disaster has finally been revealed, it is crucial that Government and the criminal justice system move swiftly to make sure that justice is done for all the loved ones who died on that day in 1989, and those who have been campaigning on their behalf ever since.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 6 and 7 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. Roseanna Cunningham MSP also attended the Justice day on behalf of the Administration in Scotland. The following items were discussed.

The Council began with the main committee and adopted the A points; political agreement was reached on the Dublin (III) regulation.

On the common European asylum system (CEAS) the presidency summarised the progress made on the outstanding asylum instruments. The Commission (Malmström) welcomed the progress, and urged the Council to look positively upon some of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament on the Eurodac regulation, which raised the level of safeguards for law-enforcement access. The overarching message from those Ministers who intervened was that quality should not be forfeited for speed. Some Ministers remained concerned by the direction of negotiations on the asylum procedures directive, signalling that the current Council mandate on unaccompanied minors and vulnerable persons remained a red line in order for national authorities to be able to tackle abuse of their asylum systems. The UK has opted in to the Dublin (III) and Eurodac (II) proposals but has not opted in to the three other directives which make up the CEAS.

The EU counter-terrorism (CT) co-ordinator (Gilles de Kerchove) presented his update on the implementation of the EU counter-terrorism strategy and set out where he thought the EU should focus over the next year. He highlighted how the rise of the lone wolf phenomenon and the increase in EU citizens travelling to conflict areas to engage in Jihad underlined the need for an EU strategy to combat radicalisation. He also thought that member states should address the external dimension of terrorism, in particular the threat coming from the Sahel, and that they should find a way to resolve their differences on the level of EU involvement in the protection of critical infrastructure. The UK considered aviation security an area where the EU can continue to add value and welcomed the extension of the current risk-threat methodology applied to inbound cargo to other areas of EU aviation security, such as passengers and prohibited items. The UK also described how the EU could add value by facilitating the sharing of best practice on countering radicalisation; the recent discovery of a far-right plot in Poland reinforced the importance of addressing the needs of vulnerable people and halting the growth of extremism. The UK shared the concerns of the CT co-ordinator about the threat from international terrorism, in particular al-Qaeda exploiting the conflict in Syria, and highlighted that it was vital that member states work collectively to see how to mitigate threats from these regions.

The mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) started with an update on the implementation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The Commission informed Council that an interim solution had been found to address the delays in a member state’s preparation of its national Schengen Information System (SIS) II platform. If implemented immediately this would avoid significant costs and delays to other member states and the Commission. The UK supports the continuation of the current SIS II project.

The Commission (Malmström) presented its second biannual report on the Schengen area. The political discussion that ensued was wide-ranging and while all welcomed the factual report, Ministers were frank in highlighting their concerns. These included calls for progress to be made on the smart borders package, the need for a new legislative proposal to replace the annulled Council decision on Frontex maritime operations, calls for progress on the Schengen legislative package, continuing concern regarding the effects of visa liberalisation in the western Balkans, and the need for further action regarding the situations in Syria and at the Greece-Turkey border. The UK expressed its continued interest in the management of migration in the Schengen area, and noted the recent visit by the UK Immigration Minister to the Greece-Turkey border, which highlighted the good work being done and the importance of co-operation with Turkey on broader JHA issues. The UK said it valued its co-operation with Frontex and other member states to combat illegal immigration, thought that we also needed to keep a close eye on displacement of migratory flows, and highlighted returns and readmissions as an integral part of successfully managing migratory pressures.

The presidency briefly updated the Council on obstacles to information exchange including issues arising from the transposition of the Swedish decision on information exchange. The participation of judicial authorities as gatekeepers of law enforcement data in some member states had had an effect on those countries’ ability to transpose the decision, given its limitation to law enforcement data only. The presidency looked forward to a more in-depth debate following publication of the Commission’s proposal for an information exchange model (EIXM).

Over lunch Ministers discussed how EU visa policy focused on the balance between using visas to promote growth and tourism on the one hand and maintaining security and tackling illegal immigration on the other. Member states were divided on where the priority should be and there was a return to some of the ground covered in the October JHA Council on abuse of visa liberalisation agreements with third countries.

Under AOB the presidency reported on the legal migration directives and the Schengen package. Progress had been made on intra-corporate transferees, and on seasonal workers the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) had approved a mandate for discussion with the European Parliament the day before Council. The UK has not opted in to either of these directives. The presidency reported that it was doing its utmost to agree the Schengen package: informal agreement with the European Parliament had been reached on the reciprocity mechanism in the 539 regulation (common visa list) and the file would go to COREPER on 17 December; the first trilogue meeting on the Eurosur (border surveillance) regulation was scheduled for 17 December; progress was being made on the Home Affairs multi-financial framework package; and agreement was in sight on the technical amendments to the Schengen borders code.

Also under AOB the Commission (Malmström) said that no decision had yet been made on the possible merger of Europol and CEPOL (the EU police training college), but argued that a merger could strengthen the links between training and operations, be more efficient and save money over time. On Syria, the Commission stressed the importance of monitoring the situation in Syria and its neighbours and indicated it would take forward work on the regional protection pilot. The incoming Irish Presidency committed to having a debate during its Presidency on the issue.

In a joint session with Justice Ministers, the presidency introduced its review of progress on the Stockholm programme—the five-year programme for Justice and Home Affairs—and handed over to both Commissioners (Reding and Malmström) who summarised achievements to date. The UK noted that the Stockholm programme had been agreed under the previous Government, and that the present Government did not endorse it all. The UK welcomed the progress report, but remained concerned about the missing elements in the paper; PNR needed to be a priority in order to effectively tackle terrorism and serious crime, and it was important to continue tackling abuse of free movement, something to which the JHA Council had committed itself under the road map on migratory pressures. The UK could not entirely agree with the focus on bringing forward a proposal on the European public prosecutor (EPP), and had limited appetite for giving extra powers to Eurojust, but instead could see that the EU’s energies could be better focused on ensuring the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) was well equipped to support member states in implementing the asylum legislation and helping those under asylum pressure. In the UK’s view the Council conclusions on solidarity adopted earlier this year provided the right blueprint for priorities across the asylum and migration area for the coming year.

The presidency asked member states to support its compromise text on the directive on freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime, in order to be able to open discussions with the European Parliament. The Commission (Malmström) could not support the presidency’s text. There were three areas where it fell short of the level needed to add value to the fight against organised crime: non-conviction based confiscation needed to cover deceased persons; extended confiscation should not be limited to serious offences as defined in national law; and the protections for individuals needed to be strengthened. The Commission was, however, positive about the prospects of a good outcome to discussions with the Parliament. Most member states could support the text as a compromise for the purposes of making progress, but acknowledged that almost all aspects of the text would be revisited in trilogue, as the Commission had suggested. The UK reiterated the conflict between the non-conviction based provision and the criminal law legal base of this instrument. The current provision would have little impact on those member states which did not have non-conviction based confiscation already, yet for the UK which had extensive civil forfeiture powers (covering a much wider range of circumstances than contemplated here) it would require those powers to be either limited or duplicated using criminal law mechanisms. That was a bad outcome for all: the provision should either be deleted or be amended so that it did not apply to those member states which already have civil forfeiture powers. The incoming Irish Presidency congratulated the current presidency on securing a general approach and looked forward to progressing what would clearly be a lively trilogue negotiation.

The presidency secured a general approach on the market abuse directive (MAD—criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation) which will enable trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament to begin. The UK has not opted in to this directive.

The presidency presented its progress report on the data protection regulation and directive. Three horizontal themes had been discussed: the number of delegated and implementing acts; the risk of disproportionate administrative burdens on data controllers; and the different issues arising for the public and private sector. These issues were linked to the choice of legal instrument (regulation or directive) which would need to be addressed later. The UK urged other member states to look hard at the potential impact of the regulation on business and jobs. The presidency concluded that the Data Protection Working Group should look at strengthening the risk-based approach, and that the question of flexibility for the public sector should be reassessed upon conclusion of the group’s first reading of the text.

A general approach was agreed for the regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, with the presidency noting that the UK parliamentary reservation was still in place. Trilogue discussions will now take place alongside further negotiations on some remaining issues and additional recitals.

The presidency updated delegations on continuing discussions on the proposal for a directive on the protection of the Union’s financial interests through criminal law. The presidency and the Commission were confident there would be a quick conclusion under the Irish Presidency. The UK, supported by a number of other member states raised the concern that the legal base of this instrument still had not been resolved.

There was an orientation debate on the proposed regulation on the European account preservation order. There was general agreement on the importance of providing sufficient safeguards to the debtor although exactly how that is to be done has yet to be agreed. Many delegations underlined that the regulation should only apply cross-border and flagged the importance of the necessity for the order to be issued by a Court. Ireland confirmed that this dossier would be a priority during their presidency. The UK did not opt in to this proposal, but is playing a full-part in the negotiations; with a view to a possible post-adoption opt in.

The presidency presented their guidelines for further work on the proposals on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. Discussion centred on whether the dossiers should be negotiated in parallel or whether there should be a focus on the matrimonial property regimes proposal. The presidency concluded that broad support for the guidelines existed and invited the working party to continue negotiations. The UK has not opted in to these proposed regulations, and has no plans to opt in post-adoption.

In updates on the main legislative files the presidency reported that the second trilogue on the European investigation order had been cancelled. Negotiations on the access to a lawyer directive had also stalled, as the European Parliament were not able to proceed at the same pace as the Council. Discussions will continue under the Irish Presidency. Lastty on the Justice Financial Instruments 2014-20, good progress was being made in discussions with the European Parliament.

The Council endorsed the report of the working party on e-law (e-justice) and the working party was encouraged to continue to make progress and report to COREPER in the first half of next year. The presidency noted in particular the communications strategy which would increase visibility of the e-justice portal.

Under non-legislative activities, the EU drugs strategy (2013-20) was discussed. The presidency thanked the experts who had drafted the strategy for having created an evidence-based, balanced strategy. The strategy would be implemented through two action plans—the Irish presidency would be responsible for the first and underlined that it would be a priority for them under their presidency. The Commission indicated it would present a legislative proposal during the course of next year to limit new psychoactive substances (legal highs).

The presidency also provided a state of play update on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The presidency underlined that during its term it had undertaken intensive discussions on the internal rules in Brussels in parallel with progressing negotiations in Strasbourg. The Commission underlined that it was determined to move forward; it was confident that solutions to difficult issues could be found and accepted that the internal rules were necessary to make accession operational in practice.

The presidency provided an update on the multi-annual financial framework for the agency for fundamental rights. Approval of the multi-annual framework proposal will be put to the European Parliament at the plenary on 13 December. The presidency noted that the UK had to maintain its parliamentary scrutiny reservation and accordingly proposed that the Council make a request to the FRA to undertake the projects set out in its 2013 annual work programme, which was developed with reference to the current MAF, until this reserve was lifted. To this end the presidency has developed Council conclusions. The UK will positively consider the Council conclusions and the presidency concluded that it had broad support. The Council conclusions would be considered by the relevant working group and the presidency hoped they would be agreed before end of the year.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Written Statements

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

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

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

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 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 December in Brussels. 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 there will be an update on the second generation Schengen information system (SIS II). The UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project. The Commission has committed to deliver the central element of SIS II in early 2013.

The Commission will present its second biannual report on the functioning of Schengen co-operation and the application of the Schengen acquis. The report will form the basis for a political and strategic discussion.

There will be a report by the presidency on obstacles to effective information exchange, with a particular focus on the use of the Swedish initiative (on police information) and on Prüm (on DNA, vehicle registration and fingerprint data). More widely the Commission is undertaking a piece of work on information exchange and intends to publish a communication on the European information exchange model (EIXM). The UK believes that this piece of work should be incorporated into the EIXM to give an overall picture of the tools that are available to member states on information sharing.

Under AOB the Irish delegation will provide the Council with a presentation on its presidency programme, which is due to start on 1 January.

Over lunch there will be a discussion on EU visa policy based on the recent package of Commission documents on visas and growth, local Schengen co-operation, on reciprocity with third countries and the proposal on the common visa list regulation.

The main Council will start with a “state of play” discussion on the common European asylum system (CEAS), on which the presidency is keen to make as much progress as possible by the end of the year. The UK has opted in to the Dublin (III) and Eurodac (II) proposals. Negotiations on these dossiers are progressing well and both are now close to agreement. The UK participates in these measures but has not opted in to the three other directives which make up the CEAS.

The Council will discuss the annual report on the implementation of the EU counter-terrorism (CT) strategy. Member states have been asked to reflect on EU achievements on counter-terrorism over the last six months and consider where efforts should be prioritised over the next six months. This discussion provides a useful opportunity for the UK to set out its priorities and help shape the EU CT agenda. There will also be a presentation of Council conclusions on aviation security. This proposal to extend the threat-risk assessment methodology, developed to underpin the EU in-bound cargo regime, to other areas of EU-led aviation security is welcome. The UK was influential in establishing the EU in-bound cargo regime, which has raised the security bar for all air cargo entering the EU, and supports its wider application.

There will be a joint Justice and Home Affairs session on Thursday afternoon which will start with a mid-term review of the Stockholm programme. The presidency will present its own assessment of progress under the Stockholm programme, the EU’s five-year Justice and Home Affairs work programme, which was agreed in 2009. The presidency’s paper will be used as a basis for discussion, providing an opportunity to take stock of JHA work completed in the last three years and discuss priorities for work to be taken forward until the end of the programme in 2014. While the Government do not agree with the programme in its entirety, the UK supports stronger action against abuse of free movement rights, closer practical co-operation on migration and asylum, and attaches importance to agreeing the passenger name records directive.

This will be followed by items on the data protection framework. There will be an orientation debate on the regulation and a state of play update provided on the directive. The UK is participating in both these measures having decided not to exercise the opt out under the Schengen protocol in relation to the proposed directive.

The justice day will begin with the presidency aiming to agree a general approach on the proposal for a directive on the confiscation of criminal assets. The confiscation directive will create minimum standards for laws on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. The UK is still seeking changes to the text, particularly with regard to the non-conviction-based confiscation measure, which creates risks for our domestic civil recovery regime. The UK has not opted in to this directive.

Dependent on the status of related files progressing through the Economic and Financial Affairs Council the presidency will seek to gain a general approach on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation. The proposal aims to establish minimum EU rules concerning the definition of criminal offences for market abuse. The UK has not opted in to this directive.

The presidency will be providing a state of play update on the proposed directive on the protection of the financial interests of the EU by criminal law (“the PFI directive”). The draft directive would repeal and replace the existing EU convention and protocols on protection of financial interests (PFI). The Commission presented the proposed directive at the October Council.

There will be an orientation debate on the proposals on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. The proposals lay down the rules by which it is decided which courts have jurisdiction to resolve disputes on such matters, the law that should be applied and the mechanism by which decisions from one country are recognised and enforced in another. The UK has not opted in to these proposed regulations, and has no plans to opt in post-adoption.

The presidency will also seek to gain a general approach on the proposed regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, which was discussed at the October Council. The instrument aims to establish an effective recognition and enforcement process of protective/preventative orders among member states and complements the directive on the European protection order in criminal matters. The UK supports the overall policy aim of the proposal and has opted in to it. The proposal has yet to clear scrutiny in either House.

There will then be an orientation debate on the proposed regulation for the European account preservation order. This proposal aims to establish a self-standing European procedure to freeze the bank accounts of debtors in cross-border civil cases with cross-border implications to prevent assets being taken beyond the reach of the courts. The UK did not opt in to this proposal, but is playing a full part in the negotiations with a view to a possible post-adoption opt in.

Under non-legislative activities, the EU drugs strategy (2013-20) will be discussed. The strategy aims to reduce significantly the demand for and supply of drugs, to promote international co-operation, research, information and evaluation.

The presidency will also provide a state of play update on the accession of the European Union to the European convention on human rights. The accession by the EU will mean that the EU and its institutions are directly bound by the convention. The Government are keen to ensure that the accession agreement is workable and meets the needs of the EU and its member states as well as the needs of Members of the Council of Europe. The UK welcomes the presidency’s conclusion that binding internal rules on how accession will work in practice must be agreed before the accession agreement can be finalised.

There will then be a discussion on e-justice and the work achieved during the second semester of 2012. The aim of European e-justice is to provide a mechanism to make it easier for national authorities, citizens and businesses to access justice information and services from different member states using electronic means.

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

Over lunch, there will be a ministerial discussion on “Three years after the Lisbon

treaty in the criminal justice area”.

Points of Order

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is: first, timely answers are not just desirable, but essential; secondly, the Home Secretary is on the Bench and is almost thirsting to rise from her seat—she can if she wishes; thirdly, I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the House is in his place and I know he will want to chase an early reply. If the Home Secretary wishes to come to the Dispatch Box, she may do so.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to his particular question. I will ensure that that matter is chased up and he receives a more timely reply.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and I hope that is regarded as helpful. I hope there will not be many more points of order, as I do not want other people to be unduly delayed. However, I will take a last point of order from Mr Jim Dowd.

G6 Ministerial Meeting

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Written Statements

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

The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland held its most recent meeting in London on 20 and 21 November 2012. The French Interior Minister was unable to attend.

I chaired the meeting which was divided into three working sessions over one day, with a dinner the previous evening. The participating states were represented by: Anna-Maria Cancellieri (Italy), Jacek Cichocki (Poland), Hans-Peter Friedrich (Germany) and Jorge Fernández Díaz (Spain). The French Interior Minister, Manuel Valls, was represented by his diplomatic advisor, Emmanuel Barbe. The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmstrom attended for the whole meeting, and the US Attorney-General, Eric Holder and the Secretary for Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attended as guests for the first session.

The first working session was on radicalisation and north Africa and the Sahel. I outlined how the UK approach has developed over the years and how we work with vulnerable people and other sectors such as universities and prisons. I raised concerns regarding developments around terrorist groups in north Africa and the Sahel and noted that opportunities for individuals to undertake terrorist training were increasing. I urged participants to agree to open a dialogue on how extremism is developing in some countries and how it is being driven by events in north Africa.

The second session focused on free movement of persons. I recognised that this issue is a key principle of the EU but sought views on how it operated in practice. I emphasised that fraud and abuse of free movement undermined the principle and must be tackled, and that the interpretation of the courts must not make it harder to do this. I also raised the question of whether the courts had extended the scope of free movement beyond the original intentions of the member states and whether it still benefited those EU citizens for whom it was originally intended. At the end of this session the German Interior Minister presented on smart borders.

The third session addressed the issue of how to improve the exchange of criminal records of child sex offenders. The director of Europol (Rob Wainwright) joined us for this session. I outlined that, while co-operation between law enforcement agencies was generally very good, such co-operation generally happened once a crime had been committed and I asked what more could be done to prevent serious crimes from happening. I acknowledged the different approaches that take place in member states and suggested that more work is needed to establish the best means of protecting children from these offenders.

The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in Italy in February.

Alcohol Consultation

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing “A consultation on delivering the Government’s policies to cut alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour”.

In the past few years the Government have already legislated for a wide set of reforms to tackle binge drinking and the corrosive effect it has on individuals and our communities. We have:

Rebalanced the Licensing Act in favour of local communities, for instance by removing the “vicinity test” to ensure that anyone—no matter where they live—can input into a decision to grant or revoke a licence;

Legislated to introduce a late night levy, empowering local authorities to make those businesses that sell alcohol late at night contribute towards the cost of policing and wider local authority action;

Introduced early-morning alcohol restriction orders, enabling local areas to restrict the sale of alcohol late at night in all or part of their area if there are problems.

However we need to continue the work to tackle the drink-fuelled antisocial behaviour and crime blighting our communities. So we are launching a 10-week consultation, seeking views on five new areas:

A ban on multi-buy promotions in shops and off-licences to reduce excessive alcohol consumption;

A review of the mandatory licensing conditions, to ensure that they are sufficiently targeting problems such as irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs;

Health as a new alcohol licensing objective for cumulative impacts so that licensing authorities can consider alcohol-related health harms when managing the problems relating to the number of premises in their area;

Cutting red tape for responsible businesses to reduce the burden of regulation on responsible businesses while maintaining the integrity of the licensing system; and,

A minimum unit price of 45p per unit, ensuring for the first time that alcohol can only be sold at a sensible and appropriate price.

We are consulting on these measures because too many of our high streets and town centres have become no-go areas on a Friday and Saturday night. Just under half of all violent crimes involve alcohol and a great deal of antisocial behaviour is alcohol-fuelled.

It is responsible drinkers, businesses and the wider community who are paying the price in terms of crime and disorder on our streets, violent, alcohol-related injuries clogging up our accident and emergency rooms and significant long-term health problems. The Government will consult on a new approach to turn the tide against irresponsible drinking which costs the taxpayer £21 billion a year. It will help reverse a culture that led to almost 1 million alcohol-related violent crimes and 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions last year alone.

The consultation is targeted explicitly at those harmful drinkers, problem pubs and irresponsible shops. It is not about stopping sensible, responsible drinking or penalising responsible shops, pubs and off-licences.

A copy of the consultation will be placed in the House Library.

“Ending Gang and Youth Violence Report: One Year On”

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House that the “Ending Gang and Youth Violence Report: One Year On” has been laid before Parliament today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

The original “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report was published in November 2011. It contained a number of cross-Government actions in key areas ranging from early intervention and prevention, through to actions to enable our partners to take tough enforcement action against those who refuse to leave their violent lifestyle.

The ending gang and youth violence programme which emanated from the report was designed to provide peer support to the 29 areas across the country facing the biggest challenges in relation to youth violence and gangs. The Home Office re-prioritised £10 million of its funding for 2012-13 to help these areas develop their capacity to respond effectively to their particular local issues.

The one year on report sets out our collective achievements since November last year, both in terms of national, cross-Government policy, and particular actions in local areas, facilitated or otherwise supported by our front-line ending gang and youth violence team. It also includes further Government actions which will build on this success over the next year and beyond.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

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

Last month I made a commitment to ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has the powers and resources it needs to carry out its investigations into the Hillsborough disaster. This commitment was made in the knowledge that the families of the victims and the survivors have waited 23 years for the truth about the disaster to be revealed.

I have today published fast-track legislation that will enable the IPCC to conduct a thorough, transparent and exhaustive investigation into the Hillsborough disaster.

This legislation will provide the IPCC with two new powers:

The first is to compel individuals currently serving with the police or certain other policing bodies, to attend an interview in relation to any investigation managed or undertaken by the IPCC in the capacity of a witness.

The second will allow the IPCC to investigate matters which were previously subject to investigation by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. This power will only be exercised where the IPCC is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case justify its use.

These enhancements are being made at the request of the IPCC and will ensure they can investigate the conduct of the police at Hillsborough in depth and without delay. The IPCC has indicated that as part of its ongoing investigations, it will likely be in a position to call witnesses early in 2013.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

1. What change in the number of front-line police officers there has been since May 2010.

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

May I take this opportunity first to welcome the 41 police and crime commissioners who were elected last Thursday? They have important responsibilities and will be an important voice for people in their force areas in policing local communities. Police and crime commissioners take up their office officially this Thursday. I look forward to working with them in future to do everything we can to ensure that we can continue to cut crime.

Between March 2010 and March 2012, the total number of front-line officers fell by 6,778.

[Mr Slaughter]

There are more people here than voted for police and crime commissioners.

The Mayor of London has cut 3,500 police officers and police community support officers in the last two years. The Metropolitan police is getting rid of borough commanders and neighbourhood sergeants, and closing 65 police stations to the public across London, including Shepherd’s Bush in my constituency and South Norwood in Croydon North. Does the Home Secretary think that will make the public in London feel safer or less safe?

[Mrs May]

Of course, the Metropolitan police has put forward some proposals today in relation to its budget, including proposals to cut central costs significantly and actually increase the number of constables. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor those on his Front Bench are able to get it yet. The Opposition have continually claimed that it is not possible to cut budgets without damaging front-line services or without crime going up; yet budgets are being cut, front-line services are being protected, the number of neighbourhood officers is going up and crime is falling.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

As the Home Secretary correctly says, it is possible to do more with less, as the recent crime statistics have demonstrated. Does she agree that the election of PCCs, such as the excellent Angus Macpherson in Wiltshire—the first ever to be announced—is central to deciding how we can use scarce resources to best effect in tackling crime?

[Mrs May]

I congratulate Angus Macpherson on his election; indeed, it was good to see that as the first result. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that PCCs will have an important role to play in ensuring that police forces are delivering against their budgets in a way that we all want, which is by ensuring the protection of services such that we can continue to cut crime.

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

In last week’s elections for the Home Secretary’s flagship policy, 85% of the public decided not to vote. She chose to spend £100 million on having these elections and this transition, which could have been spent on 3,000 police officers this year. She chose to hold the elections in November, to get the Home Office to run them and to deny the public proper information. She was warned in the Commons and the Lords, and by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society, that those decisions were wrong. Given the overwhelming public message she received last week, will she now tell us which of those decisions she regrets?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady really needs to get her story straight on this. She complains about the amount of money that was spent on the police and crime commissioner elections, yet in the same breath she wants more money to be spent on them. Which is it: too much money or too little?

[Yvette Cooper]

That was not an answer to the question. The Home Secretary has to take some responsibility for the shambles that she has created. In April she got the decision and the date wrong over Abu Qatada by accident; in November she got the date wrong on the elections deliberately. By not holding them in November, she could have saved £25 million alone, but she chose not to. People did not want these elections last week. They said it was a waste of money, they said they did not know anything about it, they objected to the policy and they did not want to vote in the dark. She did not listen to those warnings and she is not listening to the public now or the message that they sent last week. Why does she not listen to them and apologise for the shambles that this Home Secretary and her decisions have created?

[Mrs May]

I make no apology for introducing police and crime commissioners, who have a democratic mandate for the first time. For the first time, the public know that there is somebody who has been elected who is visible, accessible and accountable to them. PCCs have replaced invisible, unaccountable, unelected police authorities. I think police and crime commissioners are going to make a real difference to cutting crime in this country.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Last week there was also a parliamentary by-election in Manchester Central, where the turnout was 18%, yet I notice that nobody is arguing that it was in any way a shambles or that there was a lack of a democratic mandate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all this says more about the Opposition’s party political point scoring than about any concern for police matters?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would also point out to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), that I believe that there was a freepost in that by-election, although it did not seem to drive up the turn-out. I have heard no comments about the legitimacy of the individual who has been elected as a Member of Parliament.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

2. What plans she has to review the timing, frequency and communication of changes to the immigration rules and associated guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

10. What steps her Department is taking through the visa system to enable business and tourist visitors to contribute to economic growth.

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

The UK Border Agency supports economic growth through delivering an effective visa service, which processed almost 2 million applications for visitor visas in 2011, and exceeding our public commitment to process 90% of cases within 15 working days. We take our economic responsibilities seriously and the UK Border Agency is constantly looking to improve the service it offers. Amongst other measures, it has launched priority services, such as providing a five-day visa service, premium lounges for high-value customers and out-of-hours appointments at visa application centres.

[Peter Aldous]

What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up clearance and entry for Chinese business visitors, tourists and investors who have been identified by Visit East Anglia, Suffolk chamber of commerce and chambers of commerce across the UK as a vital means of growing international trade and export markets?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of Chinese visitors to the UK. That is an important market for the UK and I am pleased to say that we have seen some strong growth in the number of Chinese visitors to the UK for both business and tourism. It is one of our priority markets, so we have undertaken a number of changes to our system. Half our Chinese business customers, for example, now benefit from access to a priority scheme. We have opened new expanded visa application centres in a number of cities, but we will continue to look at what we do to ensure that our clear message is that Britain is open for business and has a functioning visa system that ensures that those whom we wish to welcome to the UK can come.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

It is no good saying that we are open for business when the perception out there is that we are not. Will the Home Secretary consider meeting admission tutors from the Russell group and representatives of chambers of commerce to familiarise herself with what is happening on the ground? The perception is that we are not open for business and that access is not as quick as it should be.

[Mrs May]

One problem is that a lot of people are claiming that the UK is not open for business because of our visa system. The former Immigration Minister went out to visit China and clearly gave out the message. The former and current Immigration Ministers and I have met people from the universities, the CBI and other business sectors to talk to them about the issue. It is not just for the Government to go out and say that Britain is open for business—business organisations and universities should give out that message. As the Immigration Minister said earlier, UCAS figures show that the number of applications from non-EU overseas students to our universities has gone up. The universities should stop claiming that there is a problem and go out and say that they are open for business.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What assessment she has made of the potential for achieving savings through economies of scale in police procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

13. When she plans to meet the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester.

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

I welcome Tony Lloyd to his new role as the first police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. I am writing, I hope today, to all PCCs in advance of their assuming office on Thursday, to congratulate them and to invite them to join me and my ministerial team for an event on 3 December.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful for that answer and for the warm welcome from the Home Secretary. I am sure that when she meets Tony Lloyd, she will want to thank him for standing in the election because without Labour last Thursday, the turnout in Greater Manchester would have been lower than 7%. Given the level of concern expressed during the campaign about antisocial behaviour, will she review her current approach and, instead of rebranding and weakening antisocial behaviour orders, will she work with Tony Lloyd and other police and crime commissioners to strengthen the law in this respect so that those who make other people’s lives unbearable can be dealt with effectively?

[Mrs May]

I note that Tony Lloyd, referring to the turnout at the elections, said:

“It doesn’t take away the mandate of the PCC… That, like any good politician, is earned not only at the election; it’s earned by working with the public, being there to listen to the public and to represent the public.”

On antisocial behaviour orders, we are strengthening the ability of the police and others to work against antisocial behaviour. Crucially, we are giving local communities and individuals greater powers, such as the community trigger, which will enable people, if action is not being taken on antisocial behaviour, to require that action is taken. That did not happen under the Labour party.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Let me tell the Home Secretary:

“What we ended up with was a toxic mix of low voter awareness about the role, the absence of an active public information campaign, near silence from politicians and polling day moved to a time of year when it gets dark at 4 pm.”

Those are the words of the Conservative Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). In truth, Members across the House have raised concerns about the elections. Does she accept that any mistakes were made?

[Mrs May]

As I have said elsewhere, of course I am disappointed about the turnout. I believe that the turnout at the next elections will be higher because people will have seen police and crime commissioners in their role and the commissioners will have a record to defend, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) has just said, but it was up to politicians across the board and others to go out and campaign, and the Government did run an awareness campaign. I return to the point I made at the beginning of Question Time: police and crime commissioners replace police authorities, which were invisible, unaccountable and unelected. Police and crime commissioners are elected, visible, accessible and, crucially, accountable to the people.

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

14. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the effectiveness of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in tackling trafficked labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

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

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

The Government have a comprehensive programme of police reform. To make policing more professional and evidence-based, we are establishing a college of policing. To get tough on organised crime, we are establishing the National Crime Agency. To ensure we reward specialist skills, we are reforming police pay. To give the public a stronger voice, we have introduced crime maps and mandatory beat meetings, and the election of police and crime commissioners will give the public a say for the first time in how their local police forces are run. Police reform is working; the front-line service is being maintained and crime is falling. I commend police officers for their achievements.

[Christopher Pincher]

Since the passage of the Human Rights Act a decade ago, the time taken to deport potentially dangerous individuals, such as Abu Hamza and now Abu Qatada, has reached unacceptable lengths. Will my right hon. Friend pursue any and all measures to ensure that those people who may represent a threat to our country can be quickly deported from our country?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a point that I know is of concern not only to Members of this House, but to many members of the public. I assure him that the Government are looking at pursuing a number of avenues to ensure that we can reduce the length of time it takes both to deport people from this country and, indeed, to extradite people. In the case of Abu Hamza, the judiciary has itself made comments about the need to look at the processes that we follow, to ensure that we can use not only the reforms of the European Court, but those in our own judicial processes to reduce the length of time it takes to deport those people who are a potential threat to this country.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

T2. Following my comments in the House about Cyril Smith’s abuse of boys, I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service has now located investigation files relating to Smith from the 1960s. Could the Home Secretary now look at whether it is true that the then Director of Public Prosecutions received a second opinion recommending that Smith be prosecuted; why he concluded that it was not in the public interest; what role, if any, the security services played; and how the Government intend to get to the bottom of what several former police officers are now referring to as a cover-up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T7. To many, it seems that the rights of dangerous hate preachers are now more important than the rights of the British people to a peaceful and secure life. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure the safety of the British people and that there is no place in this country for those who would harm us?

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend points out, he is raising a concern that is felt by many members of the public. Obviously, we have recently had the judgment in relation to Abu Qatada, which I think may have triggered my hon. Friend’s thinking on this issue. We are seeking leave to appeal that judgment, but we will also continue to work with the Jordanian Government to see what can be done. We will pursue all avenues to ensure that we can deport Abu Qatada. This Government have taken a stronger line on whether we allow those who can be described as hate preachers into this country and have ensured that fewer of them cross our shores.

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

The Home Secretary will be aware that there are concerns about the provisions in the Justice and Security Bill, which is being debated in the other place today, that introduce closed material proceedings. The provisions will enable judges to see all the evidence in cases that affect national security, while protecting vital intelligence. Will she work with the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) to reassure Members of the Lords and of this House that those proceedings, while essential, will be used only when absolutely necessary?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give the right hon. Lady an assurance to that effect. This is an important Bill, because in a very small but growing number of cases, it is not possible for the Government to defend themselves because the information cannot be made available in open court. As a result, settlements have to be made and there is no justice, because there is no trial or judgment on the rights and wrongs of the case. Hence, there is a desire to introduce closed material proceedings in a very limited number of cases, where it is necessary and proportionate. I am obviously working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio to that end.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T8. The net receipts under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were £165 million last year. I appreciate that a fair chunk of that money is reinvested in local crime-fighting initiatives, but will the ministerial team look at the percentage that is allocated to local community projects, so that more groups like the Thornton Lodge action group can be successful in their bids?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

T9. Mindful of the Home Secretary’s well known views on the Human Rights Act 1998, but also of the difficulties of coalition government, will she persuade the Leader of the House to make time available for my forthcoming ten-minute rule Bill, which would repeal that Act?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to make comments on that particular issue. I am sure that the Leader of the House, who is present, has heard what he said and will give due consideration to the issue that he raised.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Police and community support officers are incredibly popular in West Mercia, and their numbers should be sustained at current levels. Does the Home Secretary believe that, by the time of next election, the number of PCSOs in the West Mercia area and in Telford will be at current levels, or will there be fewer or more?

[Mrs May]

The change that we have made as a Government is that we say to local police forces, “With the police and crime commissioners in place, it will be up to you to decide how you wish to have the staffing, and the numbers that you want.” That decision will be taken at police force area level, not dictated by the Home Office. I believe that that is right.

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

Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, not only on reducing crime figures in the London area, but on his ambition to have 2,000 extra police constables each year for the next three years so that, by March 2015, there will be a record number of 26,000 police constables in Greater London? Will she congratulate him—effusively, if she wants?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to commend the work that the Mayor of London as police commissioner and the deputy Mayor have done for several years, although the Mayor formally became a police and crime commissioner only in January this year. He has always emphasised recruiting and the number of constables who are out there and available. Obviously, the Met and the deputy Mayor, who has responsibility for crime and policing, are looking carefully at the Met’s budget to ensure that they can take out waste and that the money is spent cost effectively, as they said today, on recruiting more constables.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given the large number of voluntary organisations around the country, including SAIVE in Staffordshire, that look to provide counselling for the children who were abused in sex scandals, will the Home Secretary consider assessing the extra resources that are needed to provide counselling as a result of the inquiries that she has set up?

[Mrs May]

I think I recall that the hon. Lady raised the point when I made the statement on north Wales. I have taken away that issue. Obviously, the Home Office does not provide the particular service that she mentioned, which comes under other Departments. I will raise the matter with those Departments.

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

Does the Home Secretary agree with the conclusion of the Home Affairs Committee that, compared with police authorities, the police and crime commissioners will

“have a greater incentive to make savings since the level of police precept will be one of the most visible indicators of their performance to their electorate”?

[Mrs May]

I am very pleased to agree with my hon. Friend and the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.

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

Some women asylum seekers end up on the detained fast-track procedure because they have been reluctant to disclose sexual violence and abuse. How can Ministers ensure that the system will be sensitive to such women’s experiences?