Border Force
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
From today, the Border Force has been split from the UK Border Agency to become a separate operational command within the Home Office. We will finalise the detail of the operational and structural arrangements over the coming weeks, but I would like to inform the House of the high-level arrangements that we have put in place.
Brian Moore, chief constable of Wiltshire police, has taken up post as the interim head of the Border Force and, with the agreement of HM Treasury, I have designated him as the director of Border Revenue under section 6 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Rob Whiteman will remain chief executive of the UK Border Agency. The Border Force will be responsible for entry controls and customs functions at the border, including our juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. The UK Border Agency will be responsible for immigration casework, in-country enforcement activity, the immigration detention estate and our overseas immigration operations.
All obligations, commitments and undertakings given by the UK Border Agency will continue to be honoured by the Border Force where they relate to operations at the border. Relevant agreements, guidance and documentation will be amended in due course but for the time being should be read, where appropriate, as applying to the Border Force as well as the UK Border Agency.
John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, will be responsible for the inspection of both the UK Border Agency and the Border Force.
Immigration
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In June last year, I published a consultation document on employment-related settlement, tier 5 of the points-based system and overseas domestic workers. That document set out proposals to break the automatic link between coming to the UK and settling here permanently, and to reform the other routes. Today, I am setting out our plans following the consultation.
Until now, settlement has been a virtually automatic consequence of five years’ residence in the UK as a skilled worker. Those who have settled have tended to be less well paid and lower-skilled than those who have not. And the volumes of migrant workers settling have reached record levels in recent years. In 1997, there were fewer than 10,000 migrant workers and their dependants were granted settlement, but by 2010 this had risen to 84,000. So in future, we will exercise control to ensure that only the brightest and best remain permanently.
Following advice commissioned from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, we will apply a minimum pay threshold to skilled workers in the tier 2 (General) and tier 2 (Sportsperson) routes who want to settle. The threshold will be £35,000 per annum. In order to settle, a worker must be paid at that threshold or at the appropriate rate for the job as specified in codes of practice published by the UK Border Agency, whichever is higher. The £35,000 figure reflects the median pay of UK workers in tier 2 level jobs.
To provide flexibility where there are skills shortages in the domestic labour market, we will waive the £35,000 threshold for migrants who are being sponsored to do jobs which are on the shortage occupation list, or have appeared on the shortage occupation list at a time while the migrant has been sponsored to do that job. Similarly, to help maintain the UK’s position as a hub for the world’s best scientists and researchers, we will not apply the threshold to those scientists and researchers, who are in specified “PhD level” jobs. However, as now, these settlement applicants will need to be paid the appropriate rate for their job, as set out in the UK Border Agency codes of practice.
We will apply the new settlement pay threshold to tier 2 migrants applying for settlement from April 2016. To provide certainty for migrants and employers, we will hold the threshold at £35,000 until April 2018. We will confirm the threshold for 2018-19 next year and review it annually thereafter.
Tier 2 is intended to provide a solution to temporary skills gaps in the domestic labour market. So in future, temporary leave as a skilled worker will be limited to a maximum stay of six years and tier 2 migrants who leave the UK will need to wait 12 months after the expiry of their leave before they may reapply to return under tier 2. At a time of high unemployment, we owe it to British workers to ensure that our migration system does not perpetuate reliance on migrant labour.
We intend to leave the settlement rules for tier 1 migrants unchanged. These arrangements, for investors, entrepreneurs and those of exceptional talent, were put in place as recently as 2011 and are consistent with welcoming the high value individuals the UK needs to drive economic growth.
The predominant message from the consultation was that employers wanted a settlement system that provided certainty, simplicity and flexibility. These measures will deliver that.
Turning to the overseas domestic worker (ODW) routes, we will introduce changes to align these categories with our wider migration policy. At a time when we are reserving settlement for the brightest and best and moving towards a more selective system in general, it is not right that domestic worker routes should lead to settlement in the UK. In 2011, 16,430 visas were issued to ODWs in private households, including dependants, and 1,280 grants of settlement were made to ODWs and their dependants. So we shall reform the rules as follows.
ODWs in private households will only be permitted to accompany and work for visitors. They must leave the UK with the visitor, after a maximum of six months. They may not extend their stay, switch employer, sponsor dependants or settle here. ODWs in diplomatic households will be able to remain for the diplomat’s duration of stay, up to a maximum of five years. They may not switch employer or settle but may be accompanied by their dependants.
We recognise that the ODW routes can at times result in the import of abusive employer/employee relationships to the UK. It is important that those who use these routes to bring their staff here understand what is and is not acceptable. So we will be strengthening pre-entry measures to ensure that domestic workers and their employers understand their respective rights and responsibilities. Key to this will be written terms and conditions of employment that are agreed by both employee and employer. But the biggest protection for these workers will be delivered by limiting access to the UK through these routes. We are restoring them to their original purpose—to allow visitors and diplomats to be accompanied by their domestic staff—not to provide permanent access to the UK for unskilled workers.
Tier 5 of the points-based system caters for people coming to the UK for temporary, primarily non-economic purposes. The consultation revealed that the routes in tier 5 are too diverse to adopt blanket rules, for example on length of leave, ability to sponsor dependants and skills requirements. However, there will be some tightening of the current provisions. Internships and work experience type schemes within the Government authorised exchange scheme sub-category will be restricted to one-off stays of a maximum of 12 months, as this is sufficient time to obtain the necessary experience. From the autumn, leave for contractual service suppliers and independent professionals using the international agreement sub-category will be restricted to six months in 12, in line with our commitments under the general agreement on trade in services (GATS) and other free trade agreements.
We shall also make some deregulatory changes. In response to feedback that sponsorship requirements in the PBS can be unduly onerous and inflexible in some circumstances, we intend to create a new route outside the points-based system for certain fee-paid activities. Visitors in this new category (“permitted paid engagements”) will be able to undertake specific fee paid activities for up to one month without the need for formal sponsorship by a UK-based employer. Those who will be able to benefit will include certain professionals, for example visiting lecturers and examiners, artists exhibiting works, authors undertaking book signings, entertainers giving one-off or a very short series of performances and sportspeople undertaking broadcasting work. They will have to demonstrate they intend to leave the UK after a month.
We have already overhauled much of the immigration system since May 2010. We have closed the old tier 1 general route that allowed migrants to come here without a job and replaced it with reformed routes for entrepreneurs and investors and a new route for those of exceptional talent—the people the UK really needs. We have limited the number of skilled workers who can enter through tier 2 to fill specific vacancies; tightened the skills and language requirements and introduced new rules on intra-company transfers. We have refocused the student visa system so that only high-quality, genuine students can come to the UK and we continue to tighten the rules. A statement of intent published on 13 February sets out how changes to the student rules, which were announced to the House last March and which are due to come into effect from April, will operate. We have a clear goal: to reduce net migration to sustainable levels and to build an immigration system that is smarter, more selective and more responsive.
The changes already made are starting to deliver results. The policies described in this statement represent the next phase in our programme of immigration reform. Taken together, they form a balanced package of measures that will contribute to reducing net migration and delivering a sustainable, selective immigration system. They will break the link between coming to work and settling permanently helping to ensure that we remain in control of who comes and who stays.
Today, I shall publish a statement of intent on the Home Office and UKBA websites setting out in more detail the measures that I have announced to the House today. Two further documents which I shall make available on the departmental websites are a summary of the responses to the public consultation and an analysis by the UK Border Agency of the salary and occupations of a sample of skilled workers who settled in 2011. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Library.
We will lay the necessary changes to the immigration rules before Parliament in mid-March, to come into effect from 6 April. The exception is the changes to the tier 5 international agreement sub-category, where we shall bring forward rules changes in the autumn.
With the exception of the tier 2 settlement rules changes, the rules changes laid in mid-March will apply to those submitting applications on or after 6 April 2012. As previously notified, the new tier 2 settlement rules will affect those who entered the points-based system under the rules in force from 6 April 2011 and who will be eligible to apply for settlement from April 2016. Further details are provided in the statement of intent.
UK Border Agency
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on border security. In November last year, it became apparent that certain border security checks had been suspended without ministerial approval. As a result, the head of the UK Border Force was suspended with immediate effect, full controls were reinstated, and I commissioned John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to report on what had happened. Today, I have laid the report before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office.
The Vine report reveals that security checks carried out at the border have been suspended regularly and applied inconsistently since at least 2007. In June of that year, Ministers accepted a policy that allowed the limited suspension of warnings index checks on certain health and safety grounds, but the Vine report found that those checks were suspended on many occasions for other reasons.
In July 2008, Ministers approved the relaxation of warnings index checks for school coach parties at specified French ports, but the Vine report found that the Border Force had waived checks for other passenger groups over and above what had been approved by Ministers. The report also uncovered evidence that, between 2007 and 2011, warnings index checks were not carried out on European economic area nationals travelling to the UK on Eurostar services from a number of French resorts. This is likely to have resulted in 500,000 EEA nationals not being checked against the warnings index. To put those numbers into context, around 100 million passengers enter the UK each year. These Eurostar passengers are judged to be low risk and they still had their passports checked, but the fact remains that these suspensions were completely unauthorised and that is simply not acceptable.
The Vine report is clear that the risk to the border needs to be kept in perspective. No one was waved through, everyone had their passports checked, and warnings index checks were almost always carried out so that those who had previously come to the attention of the authorities would still be identified and refused entry. Quite reasonably, Ministers in the previous Government gave permission for warnings index checks to be suspended in limited circumstances, but the report shows that the Border Force went much further, suspending those checks in unauthorised circumstances and abandoning them entirely for some passengers. The report is clear that that happened without the authorisation of Ministers in either this or the previous Government.
The report also makes it clear that the suspension of checks of which I informed the House in November occurred without ministerial approval. I have just described the suspensions of warnings index checks, which date back several years, but the report also finds that secure ID, the system for checking the fingerprints of foreign nationals who require a visa to come to Britain, was suspended on a number of occasions without ministerial approval. Although the report makes it clear that there should have been a policy setting out the use of secure ID when it was introduced from 2009, it finds that Ministers and senior Border Force officials believed that secure ID should be a mandatory check.
In May 2011, when officials asked for permission sometimes to suspend secure ID checks, I explicitly refused. The report finds that, despite that clear instruction, secure ID checks continued to be suspended at Heathrow. It also confirms that checks on the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, were sometimes suspended without ministerial approval.
The report makes it clear that the suspensions of checks were, as I told the House last year, entirely separate from the pilot I authorised. I remind the House that that pilot meant that in limited circumstances EEA national children travelling with their parents or as part of a school group would be checked against the warnings index only when assessed by a Border Force official to be a credible risk. It also allowed Border Force officials the discretion, in limited circumstances, to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, in the passports of EEA nationals.
The pilot was designed to focus resources on the highest risk passengers and journeys and allow Border Force officers to conduct more targeted, intelligence-led checks. As the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded, it could have been a promising framework for a new approach to border security. However, as a result of the unauthorised suspension of checks, it is impossible to know fully what effect the pilot had. Although we can remain open-minded about the principle of risk-based checks, they must be implemented only in a controlled and authorised way.
The Vine report also uncovered a local initiative at Heathrow that allowed students from supposedly low-risk countries to enter the UK even when they did not have the necessary entry clearance. There was no ministerial authorisation for this activity. The report finds that Operation Savant, as it was called, was potentially discriminatory and unlawful. The Home Office permanent secretary is undertaking a review of this activity and will decide whether any disciplinary action should follow. That review will report by the end of March.
The Vine report reveals a Border Force that suspended important checks without permission; spent millions on new technologies but chose not to use them; was led by managers who did not communicate with their staff; and sent reports to Ministers that were inaccurate, unbalanced and excluded key information. The report makes a series of recommendations on how to improve the operation at the border, and I accept them all. Many of them we are already implementing, and the rest we will implement in full. Most importantly, I want to make it clear to the House that all the suspensions detailed in the report have now been stopped. We will shortly issue an operating policy on the use of secure ID fingerprint checks, and we will follow it up by implementing a new operating mandate for border control. This will detail the minimum level of mandatory checks for all passengers; set out which additional checks apply to which groups of passengers; and cover the opening of chips on passports, interviews for visa holders and the use of secure ID. It will detail explicitly the additional checks that border officers can apply at their discretion. It will specify the record-keeping standards to be maintained and make it clear that no unauthorised suspension of checks is acceptable under any circumstances.
As part of our wider work to improve the border, we have already made a number of other important improvements. We have separated immigration policy work from operations. We have created a Strategy and Intelligence Directorate to analyse intelligence; measure performance; develop rules, procedures and guidance; and monitor compliance with those rules. We have established a new UKBA training academy to raise professional standards and are reviewing service standards for queuing times and staffing levels. But I do not believe that the answer to the very significant problems exposed in the Vine report is just a series of management changes. The Border Force needs a whole new management culture, and I can tell the House today that I have appointed Brian Moore, currently the chief constable of Wiltshire police, as the interim head of the Border Force. In addition, from next year the new National Crime Agency will be charged with improving our intelligence capability at the border, investigating serious and organised border crime and tasking law enforcement assets across all the relevant agencies.
There are many hard-working and dedicated members of staff in the Border Force. They want to get on with their work securing our border, and I want to make it clear that this report is in no way a criticism of them, but, as the Home Affairs Committee and its Chairman have argued consistently, there is no getting away from the fact that UKBA, of which the Border Force is part, has been a troubled organisation since it was founded in 2008. From foreign national prisoners to the asylum-seeker backlog and the removal of illegal immigrants, it has reacted to a series of problems instead of positively managing its responsibilities.
I believe that, with a new chief executive and a plan for comprehensive change, UKBA is in better hands for the future, but I believe also that the extent of the transformational change required—in the agency’s casework functions and in the Border Force—is too great for one organisation. I can therefore tell the House that from 1 March the UK Border Force will split from UKBA and become a separate operational command, with its own ethos of law enforcement, led by its own director general and accountable directly to Ministers.
Many of the changes that I have outlined today cannot happen overnight; they will take time, but we will make them as quickly as possible. They will ensure not only that we have a stronger border in future, but that the Border Force becomes the disciplined law enforcement organisation that it was established to be. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement, in which she makes important points about the fiascos at our border last summer, but it does not cover everything in the report from John Vine. In less than the hour that we have had to look at the report, we have found that it says something very different from the points that the Home Secretary has made.
For example, on the watch index checks from Calais, the Home Secretary’s statement today gives the House reason to believe that the problems had been going on since 2007. In fact, the watch index checks were suspended zero times in 2007, zero times in 2008, six times in 2009, 33 times in 2010 and 50 times in the first nine months of 2011. The report states:
“Although the figure for 2011 only covered nine months to the end of September, this represented a 51% increase over the previous year. The Agency should assess whether this increase can be attributed to changes in port infrastructure, increases in passenger numbers, a reduction in staff or a combination of all three.”
So the clear suggestion in the report is that a lack of staff may have increased the problems at the UK Border Agency in the past year, but the Home Secretary in her statement to Parliament has hidden that information.
On secure ID, the report states that it was suspended 482 times under this Government. The Immigration Minister approved the reduction in secure ID checks as part of the risk-based approach in January 2011, and again the Home Secretary has not explained how far Ministers’ authorisation, even if provisional, contributed to the downgrading of secure ID checks.
On the Immigration Minister’s further agreement to proposals, the report quotes the former head of the Border Force, who said:
“The Immigration Minister was clear that this did not require Home Secretary sign-off and he had followed up with a note stating that we should progress with the implementation.”
Time and again the Home Secretary has not set out the full information in the report.
On the level 2 pilots, the report is clear that they were downgraded over 2,000 times. That is not occasional, or under the “limited circumstances” that the Home Secretary told us about last year.
We have asked the Home Secretary before about the operational instruction that states:
“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”
She told the House on 9 November 2011 that that operational instruction did reflect Government policy, and that is the very guidance that led to checks being downgraded 2,000 times, for hours at a time, covering huge numbers of people.
On page 12, the report states:
“We found that the language used in both the ‘Summer pressures’ submission to Ministers and the response provided, was not clear and as a result was open to misinterpretation… For example, the written response from the Home Secretary’s office said that ‘the change in checks should not be a routine measure but only used when the queues get beyond a reasonable length.’ As the key terms were not clearly defined, we found this had been interpreted and operated in different ways at different ports.”
The report is clear:
“Given the importance of decisions to suspend border security checks, it is imperative that the language used is absolutely clear and unambiguous.”
Clearly, the language from the Home Secretary’s private office was not clear and unambiguous, and that led to huge confusion in the Border Force across the country.
There is no evidence in the report of proper monitoring by Ministers. It is scathing about the way in which checks were downgraded and talks about unauthorised activity. Why on earth were Ministers not asking for information and not properly monitoring the pilot that they had authorised and introduced? One of the updates, which it appears did not go to Ministers, makes it clear that secure ID was suspended as part of the checks over the summer. Why did that update not go to Ministers and why did they not ask for that information? Why did they accept only three updates over the course of the summer, when seven were provided? Why were Ministers not visiting the ports to ensure that the pilot that they had introduced was being properly implemented? Ministers decided to roll back the principle that had been in operation for many years—that we should gradually strengthen and tighten our border checks, using new technology and biometrics—and to introduce a huge experiment with border security. They made no proper checks to see what was happening during the fiasco last summer.
Finally, when confronted last November with the problems that had arisen, the Home Secretary told us that
“initial UKBA statistics show an almost 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants and a 48% increase in the identification of forged documents compared with the year before.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 318.]
She said that that had happened as a result of her pilots. However, the facts in the report show something very different. The Heathrow data alone show that the number of people refused entry was more than 100 lower each month—not higher—compared with 2010. The official statistics show a 10% drop in the number of non-asylum seekers who were stopped at ports compared with the previous year. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to apologise to the House for giving it premature and inaccurate information about the supposed success of her pilots, when clearly they were a huge failure in controlling the border?
The Home Secretary told us that her pilots did not weaken border security. The report states that
“it is not possible to quantify the extent of the risk that these measures presented to the border.”
The implications of that for our border are very serious, yet the Home Secretary continues to hide. She has hidden behind a report and not set out its full consequences, just as she has blamed officials, hidden from the media and hidden behind spurious statistics. In opposition, she said of a former Immigration Minister:
“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”
That is what she is doing now. It is time for her to stop hiding and to take responsibility for things that have happened on her watch: the unclear instructions from her office, the policy decisions to downgrade our border controls, the failure to monitor and check what was going on, and her failure to take responsibility. This mess escalated on her watch with every month that went by. Unless she accepts responsibility for this fiasco, she will fail to sort it out and she will fail to reassure the House that she can cope with future fiascos and that she is the Home Secretary to keep our borders secure.
Mrs May
The shadow Home Secretary’s mock outrage would have rather greater credibility if she had shown any real interest in immigration or border control at any stage over the year for which she has been doing her job. I remind her that the Vine report states that security checks have been suspended without ministerial authorisation since at least 2007. The suspension of checks of which I told the House in November happened without ministerial authorisation, and that unauthorised suspension had nothing to do with the pilot that I authorised last summer.
The right hon. Lady makes a number of claims in relation to the report. I suggest that she consider her track record on such claims. The Vine report exposes everything that she claimed last November as plain wrong. She said that the pilot was reckless, but the Vine report shows that Labour Ministers approved similar measures. She said that the pilot gave the Border Force the green light to suspend other checks, but the report shows that the suspensions were unauthorised.
The right hon. Lady said that by sometimes suspending warnings index checks on certain children, we risked an increase in trafficking. Not only is that wrong, but the Vine report makes it clear that Labour Ministers approved the suspension of checks on children. She said that we should have known about the unauthorised suspension of checks, but the Vine report makes it clear that information was withheld from Ministers and that unauthorised suspensions have been going on since at least 2007. She repeated that Labour increased checks on passengers and improved security, but the Vine report shows that it did not.
The right hon. Lady mentioned information about what happened during the pilot. I did indeed report figures to the House in November. They were the ones that were available at the time, and I faithfully reported them to the House. Since then, the chief inspector has discovered that unauthorised suspensions were made, so it is not possible to give a full picture of what effect the pilot had. We remain open-minded about risk-based checks, but they must be implemented in a controlled and authorised way.
The right hon. Lady blamed what has happened on cuts. I know that is her Pavlovian response to everything, but I would have thought she had noted that on the second page of the Vine report the chief inspector states that the suspensions were
“affected by a number of factors including…the numbers of staff deployed”—
the numbers deployed, not the numbers employed. As with the police, the right hon. Lady seems to find it very difficult to get her head around that. Just in case she has forgotten, I remind her that the previous Government planned to cut UKBA budgets.
The right hon. Lady talked about information that was available to Ministers about the pilot. I remind her that the Vine report makes it clear that updates to Ministers on the pilot
“were not balanced…presented an inaccurate picture of performance”
and
“could not be relied upon to determine the success or otherwise of Level 2.”
There is nothing more important than the security of our border, so it is a shame that the right hon. Lady has taken the approach that she has and has not addressed the measures that we are undertaking to secure our border and ensure that the Border Force is the law enforcement agency it should be. We did not hear any of her views on the recommendations in the Vine report, the proposal to take the Border Force out of the UKBA or the proposal to change the approach that the Border Force takes, because she has nothing positive to say about immigration or border security.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As someone who supports what the Home Secretary is trying to do to get better control over our borders and a risk-based approach, may I ask her what explanation she has been offered of the failure of some officials to accept ministerial instructions? There is no point in having Ministers and Parliament if officials ignore everything that they tell them.
Mrs May
Sadly, the chief inspector describes in the report poor communication and poor managerial oversight in the Border Fore. He makes it clear that the information systems within the UKBA and the UK Border Force were not being used properly to enable proper assessments to be made of the proposals that were being made.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I take it from what the Home Secretary has said that she agrees with my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary that the number of those refused entry is 100 lower than she claimed, rather than higher? Will she say briefly what she thinks she has learned in the past 18 months about how she manages her Department?
Mrs May
I did not say in November that the overall number of refusals was higher. The report does indeed say that the number of refusals was lower, which was a result of the chief inspector’s investigation of what was happening at the border. We reported to Parliament about certain numbers of individuals who were stopped and about numbers of drug seizures.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It is clear from the Vine report that some immigration checks have been suspended since at least 2007 and that they were abandoned without ministerial authority. However, is not the important point that the country and our constituents do not want to hear a lot of huff and puff from Opposition Front Benchers trying to score points but to know that Ministers are now taking action to make our borders more secure? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate to the House, so that the information does not get lost, the new action that she is taking to make sure that our borders are more secure than they have been in the past?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that the public want to know that we are dealing with these issues. That is why I have appointed the chief constable of Wiltshire police to be the interim head of the Border Force and why the Border Force will be separated from UKBA. We will put a much greater focus on the Border Force as a control body that is securing our borders and has a greater emphasis on law enforcement. At the same time, we have made a number of changes to the way in which UKBA operates—for example, we have taken policy away so that there is a greater concentration on operations.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is to implement all the recommendations by John Vine. This is about a root and branch reform of a very troubled organisation. She was right not to personalise the matter, because it is a cultural problem to do with the way in which UKBA operates. Only last week, as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, I wrote to the chief executive to ask for certain information, which he refused to give. It is very important, not only for UKBA but for the new organisation that she is creating, that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the agencies. I warn her that if she does not reform the organisation, it will come back and bite her and other Ministers in future. I therefore welcome her proposals.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the serious and constructive way in which he has engaged in his comments. As I said, he and the Home Affairs Committee have consistently, over a number of years, pointed out the problems at UKBA. Through the Vine report, we see in depth the problems that were occurring, particularly in the Border Force. He is absolutely right that this is about a change of culture within the organisation. That is why we have separated the Border Force from UKBA, and we have a new chief executive at UKBA who has already made a number of changes that are starting to change the culture. We will have a new interim head of the Border Force, which will be separate from UKBA, and that can be the start of the culture change, but it does take time to change a culture.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary set out what regular performance assessment of UKBA there will be to ensure that it does not fall back into the ad-hoc, events-driven approach to border security and management that was so prevalent under the previous Government?
Mrs May
We will issue the UK Border Force with a new operating mandate that makes absolutely clear the circumstances in which certain discretion may be applied and which checks should be mandatory at our borders. We are already receiving more detailed reports on what is happening in relation to the Border Force and UKBA. UKBA’s task will be to deliver the Government’s immigration policy, and I am very pleased to say that we intend to deliver that policy by the next general election.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree with the report that it is imperative that the language used by ministers is absolutely clear and unambiguous? If so, does she agree that her key terms were not clearly defined because the pilot was interpreted and operated in different ways in different ports—or will she just blame the officials again?
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
The Home Affairs Committee report found that one primary reason the problem continued for so long undetected was that the chain of communication from Ministers to senior managers to front-line staff at UKBA had become convoluted and fragmented. Today we hear that the Vine report finds that Border Force senior managers felt themselves unaccountable to Ministers. What does the Home Secretary intend to do to put an end to that culture once and for all?
Mrs May
That is one of the issues with how the UKBA was originally set up—it was one of those so-called arm’s length agencies. Separating the Border Force from UKBA and making it part of the Home Office—the director general will be within the Home Office—means that it will be directly accountable to Ministers.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
When the scandal broke last year, it was reported that checks were suspended at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Prestwick airports. In her previous statement, the Home Secretary said she would be happy to speak to Scottish Ministers about that. What discussions has she had with Scottish Ministers and what discussions did John Vine have with the authorities in Scotland? More importantly, what will the impact of a new Border Force, with its own operational command, be for border and port security in Scotland?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the impact on Scotland. We will discuss the impact of the report with Scottish Government Ministers and my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will write to them today about the implications. We will obviously take up more detailed discussions on the precise operations at official level—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) to calm himself. Perhaps he should take up yoga. It is only Monday, and I know that he will want to hang on every word of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I do not know what he is chuntering about with such good nature from a sedentary position, but it cannot be as interesting as what the Home Secretary has to say.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Having heard the bluster from the shadow Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary confirm to the House one thing: that the Vine report entirely vindicates what she and the Immigration Minister said last November, and that all the suspended checks that she told the House about in November occurred without ministerial authorisation?
Mrs May
The report makes it clear that the suspension of checks outside the limited pilot that had been approved took place without ministerial authorisation. The shadow Home Secretary raised an issue in her opening remarks about my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister. He and I have made it clear that his comments on the proposed pilot early last year were provisional; that, crucially, no new operating instructions were issued to staff as a result; that there was no change to policy as a result; that secure ID checks were suspended before January last year until May; and that, sadly, despite my explicit instruction that the checks should not be suspended after May, they continued to be suspended.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Does the Vine report include any criticism of, or comment on, the behaviour of Ministers?
Mrs May
The Vine report goes through the facts of what happened over a period in relation to the potential suspension of checks. It makes it clear that, sadly, the UK Border Force was undertaking checks without ministerial authorisation, and that it withheld information from Ministers and gave inaccurate information to them.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that because the previous Labour Government were so uninterested in protecting our borders, they allowed the bizarre culture of ignoring ministerial direction to embed itself at the head of the UKBA? Will she assure the House that that culture will not be allowed to continue following this Government’s measures and the Vine report?
Mrs May
The precise reason for separating the UK Border Force from UKBA is to give the UK Border Force a much clearer focus on its key job of maintaining security and conducting controls at our borders. However, I am bound to comment to my hon. Friend that, as he knows well, this Government have a proper immigration policy and are doing our best to control it.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Home Secretary understand one of the points made by the Home Affairs Committee, which is that the Border Agency, of which the Border Force is a part, is not a separate agency but an integral part of the Home Office, for which she is responsible? Does she accept that communications within the Home Office, including that agency, were poor and sometimes shambolic, which is why officials frequently thought that Ministers knew what Ministers should have known? Will she now publish, alongside the Vine report, the document on which she relied in giving evidence but which she has denied so far to the Home Affairs Committee? Can we have it all out in the open?
Mrs May
I am interested in the comments that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the relationship between Ministers and the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force. I return to the point I have made previously that of course what we saw was decisions being taken within UK Border Force that were contrary to ministerial authorisation, not just under this Government but under the previous Government as well.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the suspension of border checks had nothing to do with budget cuts and began under the previous Government when budgets were rising and our immigration system was in a shambles?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The suspension of checks did start under the previous Government. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), this Government have a proper immigration policy and intend to control immigration. We also need to ensure that UK Border Force is the law enforcement agency with control at our borders that we all want it to be.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When the Home Secretary made her statement to the House on 7 November, there was some initial confusion about whether Manchester airport was included in the pilot. Can she now confirm how many passengers passed through Manchester airport without biometric or fingerprint checks during the period of the pilot that was authorised by Ministers?
Mrs May
I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that Manchester airport was indeed part of the pilot scheme, but one of the problems—as shown in the report by the chief inspector—is that some of the record-keeping at ports was not complete in relation to the operation of the pilot and the suspension of checks, and that records were kept on a different basis between different ports. While the chief inspector has put the figures into his report as far as he is able, it is not possible to get the complete picture of the operation of the pilot precisely because the records are incomplete.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As part of the culture change to which she refers, will she ask the management of the successor bodies whether they will use English of a type that is understandable to the rest of the English-speaking world?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
On occasions such as this, when Opposition Back Benchers have not seen the report that is the subject of the statement, we depend on a comprehensive and non-partisan presentation of the report by the Minister responsible. The Home Secretary has given us the impression that the report is in no way critical of Ministers, but we have heard suggestions that the report does contain criticism of a lack of clarity in the language used by Ministers in their instructions to the Border Agency. Is there criticism in the report, and if so will she apologise for her Department’s failings?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
The failure of the previous Government to manage our borders and even know how many immigrants had come into the country was rightly punished by the electorate at the election. Does the Home Secretary agree that, unlike Labour, this Government will not tolerate failure by the Border Agency?
Mrs May
Indeed, that is why we are responding fully to the recommendations of the Vine report. Furthermore, as I have made clear to the House, we are changing the structure of the UKBA and the UK Border Force so that we can focus more on the need for the Border Force to secure our borders. That is what people want it to do, and it is what we want it to do.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given the Home Secretary’s decision to split the Border Force from the UKBA, can we expect a corresponding reduction in the salary of the UKBA’s chief executive to reflect his reduced responsibilities, or will this end up costing us more and adding to the complexity of a situation that Ministers are already struggling to control?
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Apart from the political posturing and point-scoring attempted by the shadow Home Secretary last November, will my right hon. Friend remind me when the Opposition Front-Bench team last took the slightest interest in immigration and border control?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the Government’s first acts was to abolish plans to put fingerprints in British passports. We now hear that the Immigration Minister gave the impression to officials that it was okay to implement the suspension of secure identity checks. Does he have the Home Secretary’s full confidence?
Mrs May
Absolutely, and I have already answered the points about the Immigration Minister’s comments. The hon. Lady needs to recognise that secure identity checks were suspended before January/February 2011, that they were suspended until May, and sadly, despite the fact that I explicitly said that they should not be suspended in May, they remained suspended. That was without ministerial authorisation. It is high time that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends recognised what was happening without ministerial authorisation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The establishment of a new operational command for the UK Border Force and the appointment of its interim head sound like positive and constructive steps forward, but they come just five months before the London Olympics. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the interim head has all the resources he needs to cope with the increased number of visitors that this country can expect?
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK Border Force has already undertaken a great deal of work within the UKBA, and will continue to undertake it, to ensure that we can accommodate people coming to London and other parts of the country for the Olympics and Paralympics. We are doing a great deal of work, including, crucially, with the airport operators.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
A couple of months ago, I toured the border controls at Dover. I would like to make the Home Secretary and the excellent Immigration Minister aware of the following: first, the problems at Calais are the result not of budget cuts but of coaches queuing back on to the motorway, causing the police to put pressure on the UKBA to hurry people through; secondly, the previous Government also did nothing about eye scanners that did not work properly; and, thirdly the previous Government supplied laptops that did not work properly and took too long to load up. While she is addressing the problems of the past, will she take an interest in those things too?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend, given his constituency, takes a particular interest in border matters. He is assiduous in dealing with these issues, in liaising with those at Dover port responsible for such matters and in taking up any issues with Ministers. He raised several matters. I am happy to say that despite this weekend being the busiest weekend for returning school coach parties—the thoughts of the House must be with those affected by the terrible school coach accident in France—the UKBA, by working with the French authorities and putting in place mitigating measures, achieved a greater throughput than was achieved previously. There were also fewer problems with coaches on the motorway.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of the separation of the UK Border Force as a separate entity, but it is clear that the organisation urgently requires a period of stability. In order to provide it, will she say when she envisages a permanent head being appointed?
Mrs May
We will, of course, be holding an open competition for people to apply for that post. I hesitate to give my hon. Friend a date, because we have to be cognisant of the fact that, with the Olympics and Paralympics coming up, we need to ensure minimum disruption to the Border Force. It is with that in mind that an appointment will be made, at an appropriate time.
Firearms
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today I am launching a consultation on whether we need to change existing legislation or sentencing powers in relation to importation and supply of illegal firearms. The consultation will run until 8 May 2012 and a consultation paper is available on the Home Office website. A copy of the consultation document will also be placed in the House Library.
The United Kingdom has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, sending a clear message that society will not tolerate gun crime. However while gun crime represents only a small proportion of all recorded crime, it has a serious impact on the communities affected by it. We believe that individuals who, while not using the firearms themselves, are responsible for making them available to other criminals should face tough and appropriate sentences.
That is why in our “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report, the Government committed to undertaking further work to assess whether it is necessary and proportionate to introduce new offences for the supply and importation of firearms. The Government want to ensure that appropriate offences and sentences are in place to address gun crime and support practitioners in their work. Before committing to any action we want to ensure we have correctly identified whether the existing legal framework is sufficient.
We are therefore seeking views on whether current laws are robust enough to ensure that those who import, or supply firearms to criminals face tough and appropriate sentences for their crime.
Abu Qatada
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to update the House on the decision to release Abu Qatada on bail.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Since December 2001, successive British Governments have sought to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan, his home country, because he poses a serious risk to our national security. Qatada has a long-standing association with al-Qaeda. British courts have found:
“His reach and the depth of his influence…is formidable…He provides a religious justification for…acts of violence and terror”.
In Jordan, he has been tried and found guilty in absentia of terrorism offences including conspiracy to cause explosions at western and Israeli targets and involvement in the bombings of the American school and the Jerusalem hotel in Amman in 1998.
The House of Lords agreed with the Government that Qatada can be deported to Jordan to face a retrial because of the diplomatic assurances negotiated by Britain and the Jordanian Government. That agreement ensures that individuals deported to Jordan will not be tortured upon their return. Despite the House of Lords agreement that Qatada should be deported, and despite accepting that he would not face mistreatment in Jordan, the European Court of Human Rights ruled last month against his deportation. It did so on the grounds that deportation would violate article 6 of the convention, the right to a fair trial, due to the risk that evidence obtained from the torture of others would be used against him. Hon. Members should be aware that that argument had already been considered by a British court and rejected.
I hardly need tell the House that the Government disagree vehemently with Strasbourg’s ruling. We believe that Abu Qatada should be deported. We are considering all the legal options available, including whether to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. As we do so, we will continue to negotiate with the Jordanians to see what assurances they can give us about the evidence used against Qatada in their courts. Following the Strasbourg ruling, Qatada’s lawyers appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission for bail. We opposed that appeal vigorously, but yesterday it was granted, and bail will start within a week.
The bail conditions are among the most stringent imposed on anybody facing deportation from the UK, and reflect the conditions set out when Qatada was bailed in 2008. He will be under a 22-hour curfew. He will not be allowed to access the internet or any electronic communication devices. He will not be allowed to travel outside an approved boundary. Visitors will need to be approved, under very strict conditions. He will be subject to a specific condition preventing him from attending mosques and leading group prayer. If any of those conditions are breached, he will be re-arrested and we will seek his immediate re-detention. But however strict the bail conditions, I continue to believe that Qatada should remain behind bars.
It is simply not acceptable that after the Jordanians have guaranteed his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous and after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport such a dangerous foreign national. We continue to consider the case for a British Bill of Rights, and the Prime Minister is leading the Government’s attempts to reform the European Court of Human Rights.
The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell, far away from Britain. That is why we will do everything that we can within the existing legal regime to deport Qatada, and we are doing everything that we can to reform that regime to avoid such cases in future.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her answer. She will understand, of course, that there is considerable concern throughout the House about yesterday’s decision. I appreciate, as do we all, that it places her in a difficult situation, but the public will want reassurance that the Government are doing everything possible to protect their safety.
First, can she offer any explanation why Mr Justice Mitting decided to bail Abu Qatada now, while an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is still possible, rather than give notice that that would happen at some point in future if Ministers were ultimately unable to deport him? Will she say more about the discussions with the authorities in Jordan? Does she expect to receive assurances on the use of evidence, and if so, when? Given the urgency of the situation, will Ministers be directly involved in those discussions? Does she intend to make further representations to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission? Has Mr Justice Mitting indicated that he would be prepared to reconsider the three-month deadline for removing bail conditions if the Government received the necessary assurances and appealed against the ECHR ruling?
The public will be reassured by the fact that Home Office lawyers were successful in pressing SIAC to impose a 22-hour curfew on Abu Qatada. What arguments were advanced for that level of control, and how do they compare with the much-reduced arrangements that would be available if Abu Qatada were made subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure? Will the Home Secretary confirm that, under a TPIM, Abu Qatada would be entitled to a mobile phone and have access to the internet, that an overnight residence requirement would not exceed 16 hours, and that she would be unable to relocate him to another part of the country?
What additional costs will fall to the police and the Security Service as a result of the decision to grant Abu Qatada bail? Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress made since the Prime Minister’s recent speech in Strasbourg on the need to reshape the relationship between the ECHR and the UK’s own judicial system? Does she agree that it should be only in truly exceptional cases that a Supreme Court judgment can be challenged in the ECHR? Finally, does she agree that it is a good thing that indefinite detention without trial was ruled to be unlawful, but that the answer in Abu Qatada’s case is deportation, with assurances, to Jordan, not release into the community in Britain?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has raised several issues in his supplementary questions, some of which relate to the approach that Justice Mitting might take in certain circumstances, but obviously it is not for me to indicate what approach the judge would take. However, were assurances received from the Jordanian Government—we are working hard on that—obviously that would change the scenario and, by introducing a new factor, would enable the Government to take action that would, I think, change SIAC’s approach. If any case were to go before it again, though, it would be for it to determine.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the work being done on the ECHR. As he will be aware, because of our chairmanship of the Council of Europe, we are in a position for six months to take action on this matter, and we are working actively with other countries with a similar interest in ensuring that the European Court acts as originally intended, which is as a Court considering the most serious issues and key points of human rights law, rather than as a body to which people automatically appeal once they have gone through national courts. That work is being actively led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister has been to Strasbourg, spoken on these matters and explained our position.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned TPIMs and bail, but of course they are two separate matters—one should not conflate the two. The Home Office made vigorous representations to SIAC arguing that Abu Qatada should not be released on bail, but that were it to happen, the most stringent conditions should be applied. As I said, these are among the most stringent conditions applied to anybody we are currently unable to deport from the UK.
As the right hon. Gentleman said at the end, it is absolutely right that in this country we do not have indefinite detention without trial. However, everyone on both sides of the House wants to ensure that we can deport those who represent a danger to the United Kingdom and whom we believe should be deported. That is why we are considering our options within the legal process, and why we are negotiating with Jordanians on further assurances in order to deport Abu Qatada. However, it is also why we are working to make the changes in the European Court to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and looking at the whole issue of assurances with other countries, to ensure that we strengthen our ability to deport people who are a danger to us.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Home Secretary has made a robust statement; the Prime Minister has made robust statements. Unfortunately, the declaration that she made some months ago—that we would repeal the Human Rights Act—is the remedy. I would like to know, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary would say, whether she intends to carry through our commitment—her own statement that she would repeal the Human Rights Act—return the remedy to this House and pass the legislation necessary to get this right; otherwise it will be all talk and no action.
Mrs May
I have been used, over time in my political life, to words that I have said being taken slightly out of context. I said that it was my personal view that the Human Rights Act should be repealed, not that I was about to repeal it—which my hon. Friend sort of implied in his question. I would simply remind him that even if we were to repeal the Human Rights Act, we would of course still be subject to the European convention and the European Court.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has given a serious account of the risk from Abu Qatada. She will know that we agree that he should be deported, on the grounds of being a risk to national security. However, she has not said much about what she is doing now in response to the judgment. She is right to look at the legal options for appealing against the European Court judgment, but what more is she doing to get further assurances from Jordan so that he can be deported now? She will know that an agreement was reached by the British Government before the election, so it is possible to make diplomatic progress. We understand that the British ambassador has been in some discussions, but what actions have Ministers taken? Has the Home Secretary taken this up herself with the Jordanian Government? If she has not done so, will she do so now? If so, will she go back to SIAC to ask for a stay of the bail until those high-level discussions with the Jordanian Government have been completed, given the urgency and seriousness of this case?
On the second issue—protecting public safety in the meantime—it is unclear whether the Home Secretary is looking for more evidence to take to SIAC to overturn the bail decision. However, what will happen if the negotiations with Jordan fail and if the courts conclude that bail cannot be extended in three months’ time? Those are the circumstances that control orders were introduced to address, but her decision has been to weaken those counter-terror laws, and that will make it harder. Under the current system, if TPIMs have to be introduced after three months if bail is stopped, she will not be able to ask the courts for a curfew—only an overnight residence requirement—and she will have to provide access to the internet and telephones. She will not be able to ask the courts to relocate Abu Qatada outside London, should that be appropriate—during the Olympics, for example—nor will she be able to extend those restrictions for more than two years. The restrictions that the Home Secretary will have available to her in three months’ time are a far cry from the restrictions that she and the courts understandably believe are necessary now to protect the public, which include the 22-hour curfew, no access to the internet and no access to phones.
The Home Secretary cannot blame the European Court for her decision to weaken British counter-terror powers. The courts, the security experts and the Home Secretary have all made it clear that Abu Qatada is a continued threat to public safety and national security. We support her in her actions to protect the public and get the deportation in place, but she should be straining every sinew, on behalf of the public, to get him deported. If she cannot, she should make sure that we have the legislation and the safeguards in place to protect the public now.
Mrs May
I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary that she appears to have prepared her statement before listening to my answer, because I made it clear that I continue to believe that Qatada should face trial in Jordan and that the Government have begun discussions with the Jordanians to see what assurances we can secure about the quality of evidence used in their courts. We will be pursuing those discussions at every level that is appropriate to ensure that we work towards the aim that we share across the House: getting the assurances that will enable us to deport Abu Qatada. As I said, we will also consider the legal options that are available, including whether we should refer the case to the Grand Chamber, but we need to consider the consequences of those actions before we take a decision.
I referred, obviously, to the bail conditions that have been placed on Qatada, as the right hon. Lady did. I continue to believe that he should be behind bars. The bail conditions are among the most stringent on anybody facing deportation from Britain. She referred to the difference between TPIMs and control orders. I remind her that the bail conditions are stronger than would be possible under TPIMs or control orders. I also refer her to the wider point that I have made about TPIMs in the Chamber in the past, which is that the police and the Security Service are content with the package that was negotiated in relation to TPIMs and with the extra funding that has been made available to the Security Service and the police.
We should be able to deport Abu Qatada; that is the view across the whole House. He should be behind bars. Home Office Ministers and previous Home Secretaries under the previous Government have tried to do everything possible to get him to Jordan, and that is what this Government are trying to do. The case has been ongoing since 2001. In 2008, there was a brief period during which he was released on bail. We should send a clear message from across the House that we believe he should be deported, and this Government are doing what we can to ensure that we achieve that. That is what is right for the security of our citizens.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What specific points does the Home Secretary believe still need to be negotiated with the Jordanians in order to allow Abu Qatada to be returned to Jordan?
Mrs May
The specific reason for the European Court finding against deportation was the question of whether the evidence that would be used against Abu Qatada in his retrial—he had been tried in absentia—had been obtained as a result of torture. That is the issue that was raised by the European Court, and that is the issue that we are addressing.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
In 2002, when Abu Qatada was eventually apprehended, he was in a flat about 400 yards away from MI5 headquarters, using what was then the most sophisticated electronic equipment to communicate his message. Given that the Home Secretary has said time and again this afternoon that the bail conditions are tough and would restrict him from being able to do that again, how can she possibly justify allowing a situation to arise at the end of April, with the Olympic games and the Queen’s jubilee taking place, in which terrorism prevention and investigation measures would come into effect that would do away with all the restrictions that she has set out in the bail conditions?
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in our unwritten constitution, there is a distinction between the rule of law and the tyranny of lawyers? Does she also accept that the interaction between the European Court of Human Rights and the ruling by Justice Mitting on the question of bail has created a dangerous situation in which millions of people in this country are starting to lose confidence in our legal system?
Mrs May
I do not believe that millions of people are losing confidence in our legal system. I believe that they are concerned about the ability of the European Court to come to decisions that we do not believe to be in the best interests of the United Kingdom. This decision on Abu Qatada is clearly a case in point. That is why it is important for the Government to pursue the work that we are doing, not only in looking into the possibility of a British Bill of Rights but in trying to make changes to the way in which the European Court operates, so that in future we will be able to deport people who present a danger to us.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady’s peremptory answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was simply not acceptable for a Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend asked her a very serious question, but she failed to give him any answer to it at all. All of us believe that Abu Qatada should be sent back to Jordan. Many of us, myself included, personally sought to negotiate with the Jordanians—unsuccessfully—to achieve that. If that cannot happen, however, and if the bail conditions lapse at the end of three months, will she accept that, on any analysis, the powers that she has put on to the statute book—these so-called TPIMs—are much weaker than the powers of the control orders that were in place and that worked satisfactorily in the past?
Mrs May
I will repeat the point I made in response to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett)—that our work now is to try to get the assurances necessary to ensure that we could deport Abu Qatada, but also to look at the other available legal options, such as whether or not to refer the case to the Grand Chamber.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have raised in the House on a number of occasions the issue of the conditions relating to TPIMs and I have every confidence that they will be raised again in future. I repeat the comments I made in response to the shadow Home Secretary, which I have made previously, that we have put together, from TPIMs and additional funding available to the Security Service and the police, the package that we believe is right and with which the police and the Security Service are content. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman as I did to the shadow Home Secretary that the bail conditions applied in this case are more stringent than control orders, so even if control orders were in place, it would not be possible to apply the same conditions as have been made available under these bail conditions.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Signatories to the European convention on human rights, such as Italy, have simply ignored in exceptional circumstances rulings from the Court. Have Her Majesty’s Government considered that course of action in the Qatada case?
Mrs May
As I made clear in my earlier responses, we are looking at every option available to us under the current legal regime in order to deal with this issue. We wish to be able to deport Abu Qatada; we do not believe he should be in the United Kingdom, but we are looking at all options under the existing legal regime.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said quite rightly that she wishes to be in a position to deport Abu Qatada, but I am afraid that, much as we all might wish that, if it does not happen in three months’ time, the Home Secretary will face a serious choice. The bail conditions might well be relaxed, so the only choice she will have under current legislation would be to impose a TPIM. Time and again, we have seen that TPIMs do not have the measures necessary to give the British people the degree of security that they need. In this year, with the Olympics and the diamond jubilee and with half a dozen people on control orders coming back to London and being relocated, there is layer upon layer of risk. What steps is the right hon. Lady going to take to make sure that we can be assured of our safety and security?
Mrs May
I can assure the right hon. Lady that this Government place the security of this country and its people as their priority. That is why we have put in place a series of measures that we believe will satisfy that requirement. Right now, the Government’s intention is to work to try to achieve what the right hon. Lady has recognised that all of us want across the House when it comes to dealing with Abu Qatada.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
The European Court of Human Rights has yet again placed the Home Secretary and this Government in an extremely difficult position. In the short term at least, we are stuck with it, but can the right hon. Lady assure us that she will renegotiate not just with Jordan but with other countries that are subject to memorandums of understanding so that we can head these sorts of problem off—before they happen, not once they have happened?
Mrs May
Negotiations take place with a number of countries about the memorandums of understanding required to enable us to deport people so that we do not find ourselves unable to do so because of legal requirements. One important aspect of the Strasbourg Court’s decision in this case was that it supported the memorandum of understanding in respect of what would happen to Abu Qatada himself, were he to be returned to Jordan. In that sense, the memorandum of understanding was found to be workable by the Strasbourg court; access to a fair trial was the issue that it raised, but we will continue to be in negotiations with a number of countries where we feel it would be helpful to have such memorandums of understanding in place.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s robust approach on this case mirrors that of previous Home Secretaries who have spoken today, but is there not a case for fast-tracking cases of national security through the European Court? The main complaint is that it took three years to pass from the House of Lords to the European Court. In cases like this, urgent action needs to be taken. Will the right hon. Lady confirm whether Sheikh Raed Saleh is still in the country?
Mrs May
The issue with the European Court is not so much one of whether certain cases should be fast-tracked; rather, the question we need to ask is which cases should be going through to the European Court. One issue we need to look at is the fact that when cases have gone through every single level of judicial consideration through national courts, appeal to the European Court is too often seen as a natural thing to happen at the end of the process. That contrasts with the original intention, which was about defining some very key points of law relating to human rights. That is the issue on which we need to focus.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Yet again, it seems that the rights of terrorists trump the universal right of people in this country to feel that they have safety on their side. This must be costing some police force an enormous amount of resources. Would it not be better to allocate one police officer to go with Mr Qatada and hold his hand throughout the time he is in Jordan than to allocate someone to hold his hand here when he will potentially walk out of the door three months later?
Mrs May
As I said in answer to an earlier question, the European Court has upheld the memorandum of understanding on the basis of assurances in relation to the treatment of Abu Qatada himself were he to be returned to Jordan. The issue it has raised is that of a fair trial, and concerns the evidence that has been obtained from others and whether that evidence was obtained with or without torture.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that this case reflects a wider problem? Courts, whether in Europe or here, often weigh the integrity of their own proceedings against national security. Is it not now necessary for us to make absolutely clear how important national security is, and that it should be given priority? Should we not also make that absolutely clear in legislative terms?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the balance between judicial proceedings and the consideration of those proceedings, and the interests of national security. If I may say so, I think it possible that those who have been in the Home Office are often more acutely sensitive than others to the fact that the balance sometimes goes in a direction that we do not feel gives sufficient weight to issues of national security. However, as we try to bring 46 other countries along with us in our attempt to introduce some reform to the European Court, we shall need to examine exactly what sort of cases should be going there.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The Qatada case highlights wider chinks in our security strategy. It is a fact that the number of terrorism convictions has plummeted by 100% in the last four years. Will my right hon. Friend consider lifting the ban on intercept evidence so that we can prosecute more of these terrorists? Will she also consider amending the UK Borders Act 2007 to strengthen our capacity to deport, which we can do without touching the Human Rights Act? Above all, does not the Qatada ruling show that it is time for Britain to say no to Strasbourg?
Mrs May
Of course we are always in the business of considering what measures we can take to ensure that we can strengthen our ability to deal with potential terrorists. As for the issue of intercept evidence, we are still pursuing it, the advisory council of Privy Counsellors is considering it again, and it has been considered by successive Governments. It is a complex issue, but that work continues while we try to establish whether there is a way in which it would be possible to introduce intercept as evidence.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
This person is clearly motivated by murderous hatred—there is no doubt about that—but can the Home Secretary answer this question? He has been here for some 16 or 17 years. If there is evidence that he was inciting murder, why was he not charged? Would that not have been the most appropriate way of dealing with this fanatic?
Mrs May
In all cases relating to terrorists, potential terrorists or those who are inciting others, our preference is always to be able to prosecute, and for those people to be behind bars. That is why all cases are looked at very carefully, and, obviously, the appropriate judgments are made.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary not accept that the British Government are now in a rather pathetic, humiliating situation? A proud, sovereign country cannot deport foreign terrorists. It is no good the Home Secretary simply huffing and puffing about the decision. What the British public want to know is this: if we cannot secure the reforms that we need from the European Court of Human Rights, will we withdraw from the European convention? In the absence of that commitment, the Home Secretary will simply be spitting in the wind.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
What message does the Home Secretary think the Court’s decision sends to other terrorists who pose a threat to the safety and security of the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
One of the important messages comes from part of the Court’s decision, which is that where we have memorandums of understanding in relation to the treatment of individuals, that was upheld by the European Court. That is an important part of the judgment. Obviously, as I have said we vehemently disagree with the other part of the Court’s judgment in relation to the issue of a fair trial, which is why we continue to do what all hon. Members have said they want, which is to see if there are ways we can move to Abu Qatada’s deportation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend referred to the current legal framework. Will she confirm that it is open to Parliament to change this legal framework, and would it therefore be possible to repeal any rights of the European Court to interfere in our affairs and to return this matter to British courts—and could a Bill to achieve this be introduced tomorrow?
Mrs May
We are signatories to the European convention on human rights, and we remain signatories to that convention. That has been the policy across Governments in this country. As I have said in response to a number of questions, we are doing what we can at this time, with our chairmanship of the Council of Europe, to bring change to the way the European Court operates.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Is it true, as some press reports suggest, that, despite the stringent bail conditions, this individual will enjoy the privilege of a daily school run? If that is the case, what steps are in place to offer protection and reassurance to innocent parents and their children who may inadvertently find themselves forced into contact with this man?
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have now reached the point where the vast majority of people right across the country are saying, “Enough is enough”? While we understand the difficulties the Home Secretary faces with the European convention on human rights, the Human Rights Act and so forth, will she reassure the House that the Government will use its presidency of the Council of Europe to seek to reform the European Court of Human Rights?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who in a nice way points out that I referred to our chairmanship of the Council of Europe when I should have referred to our presidency. I can absolutely assure her that we are putting considerable effort into the possibility of reform of the European Court and the way it operates. As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister went to Strasbourg and gave a speech to assure people of the reasons why we feel that is necessary. We are, of course, working to bring the other 46 countries along with us in achieving what I am sure all Members want: appropriate reform of the Court.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I compare this case to that of my constituent, Michael Turner, who under a European arrest warrant spent four months in jail in Hungary, without charge, for alleged fraud? Does the Qatada case show that there is one rule for fanatical terrorists and quite another for British citizens?
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
For people watching the news bulletins tonight, it will be both depressing and alarming that once again the European Court of Human Rights is undermining British justice and British national security. Is it not time that the United Kingdom temporarily suspended its membership of the European convention and European Court pending the reforms my right hon. Friend has set out today, and then once those reforms are in place go back into the convention and the Court? Will she set out a timetable for those reforms?
Mrs May
We have the opportunity, particularly with the six-month presidency of the Council of Europe, to bring other countries around the table to discuss the possibility of reform and we hope to achieve agreement on reforms that might be possible. We should be putting our energies into looking at how the European Court operates and at reasonable reform of how it operates.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that entrenching the convention by the Human Rights Act was a catastrophic error on the part of the previous Labour Government? Will she set out a process that she will follow to take us towards a British Bill of Rights?
Mrs May
I have made my views on the Human Rights Act clear, but I also point out that even before that Act we were signatories to the European convention and subject to the European Court of Human Rights. On the process of reforms towards a possible Bill of Rights, a commission is examining a possible UK Bill of Rights. It was set up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe that it is due to report before the end of this year.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
How are the bail conditions going to be enforced? How much will their enforcement, and any benefits that this individual will be entitled to, cost the British taxpayer?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
This individual supports terrorists who want to kill our children. Regardless of what somebody says in Strasbourg, we must protect the human rights of the good people of this country, so I ask the Home Secretary to take the lead and put this man on a plane to Jordan.
Mrs May
I believe the feeling of the whole House is the same as that of my hon. Friend, in that we all want to be able to deport Abu Qatada. That is why the Government are making every effort to negotiate with the Jordanians to see whether it is possible to put in place the assurances that would enable that to happen.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Surely this international law is an ass. It is clear that this man is a terrorist and he laughs at our weakness. He considers that he is at war with us—that is what he thinks. In wartime conditions, our Government can take extraordinary actions, so surely he should not come out of prison. If we cannot send him to Jordan now, he should stay in prison until we can send him there.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
James Adams, a decent, gentle, law-abiding constituent of mine, was murdered by Islamist terrorists on 7/7, and my constituents will be appalled and disgusted by this judgment of the Court. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), is it possible that the Home Secretary could consider the efficacy of doing what Sweden did and suspending our membership of the European convention on human rights?
Mrs May
Of course everybody in this country—everybody who wants to ensure that we can deport those who are a danger to us here in the United Kingdom—will be appalled by the decision that was taken by the Strasbourg Court. As I have said, we are doing everything we can to examine the legal options available to us. I continue to say that I believe it is right that we should be working to reform the European Court of Human Rights, and to do that we need to get the support of all of the other 46 countries involved.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
We cannot currently repeal the Human Rights Act because the Liberal Democrats will not let us. However, so many Labour Members are running in the police elections that, come November—if they all win—it is possible that we may have a Conservative-Democratic Unionist party majority. Will we use it?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is well aware of the position set out in our manifestos at the last election, but he is also well aware that the coalition Government have agreed that we will look at a British Bill of Rights. That work is being done by the commission and, as I said in response to an earlier question from another hon. Friend, I expect it to report by the end of the year.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Is not the absurdity of the European Court of Human Rights such that Abu Qatada could even challenge his stringent bail conditions, and does that not mean that we really should be moving towards a British Bill of Rights?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I joined many Members in this Chamber last year in voting to continue the ban on prisoners getting the vote. Could my right hon. Friend confirm to all my constituents, many of whom have been getting in touch with me today, what the sanctions would be if we just ignored the European Court and put national security first? If it were to be a fine, I personally would put £50 in the pot to help pay it off.
Mrs May
I have noted my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he could come forward with a sum of money of the sort he has described. It is right that the Government look at operating within the legal framework open to us and that we look at the legal options available, which include whether we should refer to the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court. Also, on the other side, it is right that we continue the negotiations with the Jordanians. His constituents, mine and others across the country wish to see Abu Qatada deported and the Government will do what they can to see whether we can get to a position where that is possible.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that article 17 of the European convention says explicitly that human rights law should never be used to defend those aiming
“at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms…in the Convention”
such as the activities of Abu Qatada? Article 16 makes it clear that Governments can restrict the political activity of foreign nationals in self-defence, and the Jordanian hate-preacher Abu Qatada is a clear case of that. Does she agree that it was never the intention of the framers of the European convention, which was founded to avoid a repeat of the horrors of Nazi Germany, to let the poison of Islamist terrorists go free?
Mrs May
I agree with my hon. Friend that the way in which the European Court operates is not how it was originally intended to operate. That is precisely why we are looking at possible reform and, as I have said, discussing with the other countries involved whether that reform would be possible in a way that enables us to be in a better position in future to deport those who are a danger to us.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We have a vicious, nasty terrorist, we have the Supreme Court, which says, “Send him home,” and we have a friendly Government. We also have a gutsy Home Secretary, who has listened to what Parliament has said today. She could become a national hero if, when she left the Chamber she picked up the phone and ordered that he be sent back to Jordan tonight.
Mrs May
I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s contributions to these debates but as I have said, the right course for the Government to take at this time is to pursue negotiations with the Jordanians to see whether we can receive the assurances that would enable us to deport Abu Qatada, at the same time as looking at our legal options.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
5. When she last reviewed the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
After a thorough review of drugs policy, the coalition Government launched their new drug strategy in December 2010. The Misuse of Drugs Act provides a strong legislative framework, but we have further strengthened it through the introduction of temporary orders to allow us quickly to ban so-called “legal highs” as soon as they are developed and become dangerous. We continually consider evidence and advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the control of emerging drugs.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s personal interest in this issue. Many people outside Parliament, and from all parts of Parliament, still believe that our drugs laws are not working nearly as well as they should. Will she consider the view taken by my party’s conference last year, which was that an independent panel should be tasked with reviewing the Misuse of Drugs Act and reporting back to her, and there should be a subsequent debate in Parliament?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. colleague for his interest in this issue. As he knows, we have already, as a coalition Government, put a considerable amount of work into our new drug strategy, and I suggest to him that we need to see how that strategy, once it is fully rolled out, is having an impact. Other measures that the Government are taking will also have an impact, such as the introduction of the National Crime Agency, which will strengthen our ability to deal with the organised criminal gangs that bring in the drugs that end up causing so much damage to people on our streets.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Home Office has undertaken a study into the use of khat, and into whether to make it illegal or to retain its current status. Will the Secretary of State say what progress has been made on the consultations within the community, and if and when there are to be any proposals from her Department?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. The question of khat has caused concern to a number of people for some considerable time. I have asked the ACMD to consider the use of khat. It will conduct a study and expects to be able to report back to me and the Home Office later this year.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
6. What assessment she has made of the level of crime since May 2010.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
9. What assessment she has made of the level of crime since May 2010.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Crime remains too high. That is why we are reforming the police, so that they are free from paperwork and free to fight crime. We have also set up the national crime mapping website, police.uk, which now provides the public with street-level information about crime and antisocial behaviour on a monthly basis, allowing them to access crime and policing information in a way that is helpful to them.
Julie Hilling
With a 10% increase in robbery with knives, is this the right time to cut 16,000 police officers?
Mrs May
There is no simple link between the number of police officers and the level of crime. We can see that evidenced in the UK and elsewhere, with both police officer numbers and crime falling in a number of areas. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she might talk to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, her right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who last year said exactly this:
“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”
Simon Danczuk
Crime in Rochdale is now higher than the national average on nearly every indicator. Will the Home Secretary explain to my constituents how cutting 16,000 police officers will help to reduce that difference?
Mrs May
I have just responded to the point about the relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency comes under the Greater Manchester police force, and that force has made some transformations in how it copes with the budget cuts it has to deal with, with the result that 348 police officers have been released from support areas so that those individuals can be out in front-line roles. That is what it is about. It is about the deployment of officers, not the numbers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In the town of Kettering, from 2010 to 2011 overall crime has fallen by 4%, robbery by 11%, theft from motor vehicles by 20% and residential burglaries by 40%. Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming those figures?
Mrs May
I do indeed welcome those figures, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing them to the attention of the House. I also commend the local police and other local agencies that have been involved in ensuring that such a fall in crime can take place in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that in Harlow crime has also fallen since 2010, with 87 fewer burglaries and 63 fewer cases of criminal damage, among many other figures? Does that not show that community-led policing with limited resources makes a difference? Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to Essex police?
Mrs May
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Essex police, and to their work in his constituency and others covered by that force. We do indeed see the value of community-led policing, and that is why chief constables up and down the country are making every effort to ensure that they can get police officers out from back-office posts and on to the front line, where people want to see them.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The latest crime figures show that personal crimes of robbery, burglary and theft have gone up by 11% in the past year—the largest increase in more than a decade. Contrary to what the Home Secretary has just said, the independent inspectorate of policing has said that a 10% cut in police numbers will lead to a 3% increase in property crime. Quite frankly, the Home Secretary should be cutting crime, not police officers. Will she urgently revisit plans to cut 16,000 police from our streets?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just explain that the deal for an Opposition Front Bencher of the hon. Gentleman’s important but middling rank is one question a month—not one question and multiple heckles? I know he is trying to reinvent the deal but the deal is as I have just described it.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to say to the shadow Immigration Minister that he does, indeed, get excited very often about things that he need not get excited about. There is no simple and direct link between the number of officers and the level of crime. We see that in the UK and across the world. What Opposition Front Benchers need to focus on is the deployment of officers. They need to ask themselves why under the previous Labour Government so many officers were stuck in back-office posts in areas such as human resources instead of being out on the front line fighting crime.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment she has made of the level of police morale.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
13. What progress she has made in tackling metal theft.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government take the growing problem of metal theft very seriously. Last week I announced legislative measures to the House that will significantly raise the penalties for rogue dealers and ban cash payments for scrap metal. These measures are part of a coherent package to tackle metal theft. We are strengthening the law, cracking down on rogue dealers and targeting the criminals who supply them, including through the funding of a £5 million national metal theft taskforce.
Jason McCartney
Last month I visited Schofield scrap metal merchants in Linthwaite in my constituency and heard that it, too, has been the victim of metal theft. What can my right hon. Friend say to reassure reputable scrap metal merchants that it will be the criminals who are punished, not the hard-working family businesses that play a key role in our economy?
Mrs May
Indeed, reputable scrap metal dealers play a role in our economy, and everything we are doing is intended to bear down on the rogue scrap metal dealers who receive stolen goods rather than on reputable dealers. We are working with the British Metals Recycling Association and other industry representatives to ensure that the interests of the law-abiding businesses are reflected in the work we are doing.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary believe that the police should be allowed into scrap metal dealers in order to gain a comprehensive view of what is happening in them?
Mrs May
We are looking at the whole issue of strengthening police enforcement, and one of the things we are doing is undertaking a number of exercises—an example has been seen in the north-east in recent weeks—where the police have strengthened their enforcement and gone into scrap metal dealers where they believe rogue dealing is taking place.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
14. What plans she has to reduce administrative burdens on police forces.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today marks the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen’s accession to the throne. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in sending Her Majesty our best wishes and congratulations. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The diamond jubilee celebrations in June will be part of what promises to be an exciting year. They will be followed closely by the Olympic and Paralympic games. With less than six months to go until the Olympics, the Government remain committed to delivering a safe and secure games so that the whole country can celebrate and enjoy all these events.
Kevin Brennan
As the son of someone who would have regarded himself as an Irish republican, may I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks about Her Majesty the Queen’s remarkable achievements and long reign?
Earlier, the Home Secretary spoke about metal theft and the action that the Government are taking. All Members across the House have had examples of such theft in their constituencies. Why will she not support an amendment tonight in the House of Lords that would give police the authority to search and investigate all premises owned and operated by scrap metal dealers suspected of dealing in stolen property, as well as the power to close them down when criminally obtained metals are discovered?
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have announced a number of measures that we will take that will have a significant impact on metal theft. We are looking at further measures that might be needed. The most immediate impact will come not only from the increased fines, but from the removal of the ability to make cash payments for scrap metal.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
T5. Will my hon. Friend tell me how much will be saved by freezing police pay and whether the Opposition support those savings?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I join the Home Secretary not only in congratulating, but in paying our tributes and respects to, Her Majesty the Queen on the 60th anniversary of her accession? The Home Secretary has talked a lot today about the deployment of police and about increasing the number of police officers on the front line. Will she tell the House what has happened to the number of police officers in front-line jobs since the general election?
Mrs May
The shadow Home Secretary will know full well that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is making it clear that the proportion of officers on the front line has increased and will continue to increase. The question that she has to ask herself, given that she and her colleagues are now supporting the spending cuts that the Government have been putting through, is why they will not be clear to police officers and members of the public about the impact it will have.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary has ducked the question. I do not know whether she knows the answer. She will know that we are clear that there should be a 12% reduction in the policing budget, which would protect the number of police officers, not her 20% cut, which will mean 16,000 police officers being lost.
The Home Secretary needs to answer the question about the front line. I asked her about the number, not the proportion. The same HMIC report that she has been given includes data showing that the number of police officers in front-line jobs was cut by 4,000 in one year alone, following the general election. So will she now admit that her claims that she is protecting the front line are rubbish, and will she give the public a straight answer about protecting the police?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady said that the Opposition supported a 12% cut in police budgets. They also support the pay freeze and the savings available through the outcome of the police arbitration tribunal. They said that we should accept the recommendations on those matters. The shadow policing Minister has also indicated that a significant sum of money should be taken out of overtime and shift patterns. That all adds up to a commitment by Her Majesty’s Opposition to a 20% cut in police funding—the same position as the Government. Now let us get on with talking about things like deployment rather than about the right hon. Lady’s failure to be clear with people about her position on supporting police cuts.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T6. The Minister for Immigration will be pleased to know that UK Border Agency enforcement officers were active in my constituency shortly before Christmas, removing an illegal worker from one of our city centre restaurants and sending a clear message to business owners across Hampshire.I warmly welcome the Minister’s speech last week, especially his continued determination to raise the tone of the immigration debate. What new enforcement measures is the UKBA taking to stop illegal working?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware that organisations using SmartWater have seen a huge reduction in the amount of metal theft? Does she agree that that kind of British forensic technology is essential not only to reduce the amount of metal theft, but to provide the police with the evidence they need to bring criminals to justice?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution—he makes an extremely important and valid point. We are working with industry and others to see whether we can find other ways in which technology can help us to reduce metal theft by identifying metal and making it harder for the criminals.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Today’s report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the roots of violent radicalisation highlights the twin threats from Islamist fundamentalism and the far right. Much of the most successful work has been done by the Hope Not Hate campaign, which empowers communities —the moderate majority—to isolate those extremists. Such community action is vital. Does the Home Secretary therefore share my concern at the delay in the publication of the integration strategy, for which we have been waiting for 11 months?
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In the light of previous answers, what exactly is the relationship between police numbers and the level of crime?
Mrs May
As we have made absolutely clear, there is no simple relationship between police numbers and the level of crime. The hon. Gentleman only has to look not only at UK examples, but across the world to see examples in which police numbers have gone up and crime has gone up, or police numbers have gone down and crime has gone down. There is no simple relationship.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Today is international day of zero tolerance against female genital mutilation. What assessment has the Home Secretary made of progress against this violent and dreadful crime?
Mrs May
Sadly, we see too many examples of this terrible crime continuing to take place. Most people would be shocked to know how many young girls in the UK are subjected to female genital mutilation. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we educate young girls about the prospect of being taken abroad and having this done to them, but we also need to ensure that we educate others so that they do not wish to do this terrible act.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Government are making good progress in reforming the immigration system. Perhaps that is evidenced by the fact that today the Opposition spokesperson on immigration has had something to say on absolutely everything except immigration. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary keep under review the case for reforming intra-company transfers, given the level of graduate and youth unemployment?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the attitude that is being taken by the Opposition. It is difficult to hear the shadow Minister say anything about immigration. My hon. Friend will also know that we are looking at all aspects of our immigration policy and keep them under review as we continue to move towards our commitment to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Last week, North Yorkshire police announced a future Harrogate town centre co-location with Harrogate borough council to save costs. Is the Minister pleased to see such partnership initiatives and such cross-party support for saving money?
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give an update on recent progress she has made in reforming the Criminal Records Bureau status checks regime?
Mrs May
I am happy to give an update. We are, of course, completely changing the way in which the Criminal Records Bureau, and the previous Independent Safeguarding Agency, operate. We are creating a new bureau that will ensure that those who need to be checked will be checked and, unlike under the previous Government, many people who are volunteers helping in their community will not have their records checked.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that the Government, the police and the Opposition have all accepted the police arbitration panel’s recommendations on the first Winsor report. My right hon. Friend knows how important it is for the morale of police in forces such as the Gloucester constabulary to see agreement reached on the second Winsor report. Does she see this as an encouraging precedent?
Mrs May
We have yet to receive Tom Winsor’s second report on police pay, terms and conditions, but I would say that the process that we followed on the first report, which showed the importance of giving all parties the opportunity to make their contribution on the decision that was finally made, is one that we would expect to follow in future.
Undercover Policing
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (HMIC) has today published its review into undercover policing entitled “A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest”.
The review was initiated by HMIC following revelations about the activities of Mark Kennedy, a police officer working undercover for the then National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), that led to the collapse of the trial of six people accused of planning to shut down a large power station in Nottinghamshire.
The report acknowledges that intelligence provided by undercover officers of the NPOIU enabled the police to prevent acts of the most serious violent nature.
The report examines the systems used by NPOIU to authorise and control the development of intelligence and the oversight of the activities of individual undercover officers. The report found that NPOIU undercover operations were not as well controlled as those of other units that deploy undercover officers such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Security Service and the FBI. This was especially so in the case of Mark Kennedy.
The report makes four recommendations to improve the controls and effectiveness of undercover policing of criminality associated with protest. The recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation 1
The arrangements for authorising those police undercover operations that present the most significant risks of intrusion within domestic extremism and public order policing should be improved as follows:
(a) ACPO should give serious consideration to establishing a system of prior approval for pre-planned, long-term intelligence development operations subject to the agreement of the OSC.
(b) The level of authorisation for long-term deployments of undercover police officers should be aligned with other highly intrusive tactics such as Property Interference, as defined by section 93 of the Police Act 1997, (subject to the legal requirements and the agreement of the OSC).
In the interim:
(c) Either a collaborative agreement should be entered into between police forces and MPS that allows one authorising officer within NDEU to own undercover operations from start to finish, or these operations should be managed in police forces by authorising officers that are:
a. Properly trained and accredited. In particular this training should cover the concepts of necessity, intrusion, proportionality, disclosure and risk management.
b. Fully briefed with all the relevant information.
In making these changes, consideration will need to be given to ensuring the police have some flexibility to deploy covert resources at short notice where operationally necessary, and to minimising potential impacts on covert human intelligence (CHIS) work and police collaboration with partners.
HMIC makes a number of further recommendations to improve the NPOIU’s management of the risk associated with intrusion (see recommendations 3 and 4 below).
Recommendation 2
In the absence of a tighter definition, ACPO and the Home Office should agree a definition of domestic extremism that reflects the severity of crimes that might warrant this title, and that includes serious disruption to the life of the community arising from criminal activity. This definition should give sufficient clarity to inform judgments relating to the appropriate use of covert techniques, while continuing to enable intelligence development work by police even where there is no imminent prospect of a prosecution. This should be included in the updated ACPO 2003 guidance.
Recommendation 3
The positioning of both public order intelligence and domestic extremism intelligence within the NDEU needs to be reconsidered. There will need to be an incremental transfer to any newly created hub for public order intelligence.
Recommendation 4
In recognition that undercover operations aimed at developing intelligence around serious criminality associated with domestic extremism and public order are inherently more risky, additional controls should be implemented as follows:
(a) MPS and ACPO leads should adopt a practical framework for reviewing proposed operations or their continuation.
(b) Authorising officers should conduct a thorough review of all undercover operations that last longer than six months. This review will be in addition to an independent review by the Surveillance Commissioners.
(c) Subject to reconsideration of the public order component (see recommendation no.3), domestic extremism operations should continue to be managed within the existing regional counter-terrorism unit structure, and there should be oversight by an operational steering group representing a range of interests and agencies. External governance could be provided using arrangements similar to those employed by the counter-terrorism network.
(d) The rationale for recording public order intelligence material on NDEU’s database should to be sufficient to provide assurance that its continued retention is necessary and justified given the level of intrusion into people’s privacy.
(e) Exit plans should be an addendum to the risk assessment and should be reviewed by the authorising officer, and they should be considered by appropriately trained police cover officers and police-employed psychologists collectively, alongside risks to the operational strategy and welfare of undercover officers.
(f) In order for safeguards to operate effectively consideration should be given to undercover officers waiving their right to confidentiality allowing the psychologist to brief managers of any concerns.
(g) The 2003 ACPO guidance needs urgent revision taking account of the findings of this and other reviews.
With the police, the Government will consider carefully the recommendations to ensure enhanced control of these undercover police officers in the future. Indeed, steps have already been taken to address some of the concerns. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service runs the National Domestic Extremism Unit (which now carries out the functions of NPOIU) on behalf of the police forces in England and Wales. This new arrangement came into effect in early 2011 and simplifies the scrutiny of the NDEU as it will be subject to the Metropolitan Police Service governance and accountability arrangements.
I am grateful to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for his review. A copy of this report will be placed in Library of the House.
Justice and Home Affairs Post-Council Statement
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Attending on behalf of the United Kingdom were my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs Roseanna Cunningham MSP and myself. The following issues were discussed at the Council:
The first plenary session focused on solidarity in immigration and asylum, considering the need for Council conclusions on a common framework for solidarity; the trigger for solidarity measures; whether the agencies should have a strengthened role; whether there should be intra-EU relocation of refugees; and whether a framework should include Schengen and third-country co-operation. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) said that the starting point for all should be to meet existing obligations, alongside burden-sharing. Within the EU joint asylum processing and voluntary relocation would be welcome, while there was a need for external action to strengthen resettlement and develop regional protection pilots. There was also a need to ensure that improved management of migration at the borders was sensitive to the needs of refugees and asylum seekers.
The Commission said that assistance could be provided within the framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) but solidarity was also about keeping one’s own house in order. Commissioner Malmström supported a soft-law framework plus the early warning system, but any mechanism should be on the request of the member state with consideration by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the Commission. She noted that the EU agencies could only work within their competence and co-ordination could only be done by the Commission. She also urged support for the voluntary relocation scheme and noted there was a link between Schengen and solidarity, against which evaluation of the former needed to be strengthened. The chair of the European Parliament (EP) Civil Liberties Committee emphasised the need to keep international protection distinguished from migration. They had consistently made the case for internal relocation and wanted the European Parliament to be informed at the earliest stage of early warning systems.
Many member states intervened to emphasise that solidarity depended on trust and should not detract from responsibility, which included investing in appropriate systems to manage changes in migration flows. The UK agreed that the need to have a functioning domestic system was the basic building block, without which real solidarity was impossible. The UK also expressed caution over EASO’s role being further developed at this stage and would not support an extension of relocation beyond the Malta pilot project, at least before it was evaluated. The UK said that relocation simply moved the problem around Europe rather than addressing the underlying problems. The UK also welcomed the presence of Turkey at the Council, with whom it supported strengthened co-operation. The majority of member states’ interventions supported the creation of a framework for solidarity in the form of Council conclusions and supported the inclusion of co-operation with third countries and consideration of Schengen within the proposed framework.
The presidency concluded that solidarity was dependent on trust and that a framework would be useful as a supplement to an early warning system. There was support for including components related to Schengen and co-operation with third countries and there was a place for strengthening the agencies. They noted there was not support for relocation. They committed to preparing draft conclusions in March which they hoped would unlock negotiations on the Dublin regulation. The task would then be to turn them into results by June. They noted it was closely linked to better political management of Schengen which would go to the March JHA Council.
In the light of the review of the family reunification directive, over lunch Ministers discussed the challenges facing them with respect to family reunification.
The next plenary session focused on the financing of passenger name records (PNR) under the proposed directive on the collection and sharing of PNR between member states. The presidency noted that, while the starting point for the implementation of EU policies was that member states took the cost of implementation, the EU could sometimes meet set-up costs. The Commission said they were willing to co-finance set-up costs in this case but could not finance running costs or all set-up costs. They had allocated €50 million (£41.76 million) for 2012 and fully intended to finance it in the future, via the new Internal Security Fund, currently under negotiation. The UK reiterated the importance of an EU PNR system for fighting terrorism and organised crime. Given its benefits the UK hoped the finance issue would be resolved and offered its own experience to assist others in helping to reduce their costs.
The majority of member states intervened to support funding from the EU financial instruments, with most supporting an explicit reference in the text of the new Internal Security Fund instrument. The European Parliament said that the issue for it was not cost, but noted that cost could affect them. The European Parliament believed that excluding EU internal flights from the scope of the directive would be cheaper. The presidency concluded there was general agreement to use the Internal Security Fund for funding for PNR, but member states needed reassurance that substantial financial support would be available. Discussions on the directive and Internal Security Fund will continue at expert level.
The Justice day commenced with a discussion on the Brussels I regulation, where the presidency invited delegations to discuss the proposed rules of jurisdiction in cases involving defendants in non-EU member states. The UK did not see any evidence of practical problems with the current arrangements, whereby national rules applied to such cases. Most other member states thought there was no need to extend the rules of jurisdiction in Brussels I to such cases. The presidency concluded that further work should be taken forward on basis of maintenance of the status quo.
This was followed by a discussion on criminal sanctions in the context of the current proposal for a directive on insider dealing and market manipulation. Ministers were asked to consider whether a provision for minimum levels of maximum penalties should be included in the proposed directive, and whether there should, as a rule, be provision for minimum-maximum levels of sanctions in future criminal law directives. The Commission stated that there must be respect for subsidiarity and proportionality and that there was no need for such a rule in the directive. The UK supported the Commission’s approach and felt that the first priority was for some criminal provision to be in place so that it was clear that the conduct would be treated as a serious offence. The UK also stressed the importance of enforcement and that having the options of both a criminal and civil approach would aid prosecutors, bearing in mind that criminal offences were harder to prove. The presidency concluded that the majority of states considered that having no specific minimum-maximum sanctions would be the right approach and that the question of sanctions in future instruments should be considered on a case by case basis.
During the ministerial lunch there was a discussion on the transfer of sentenced persons and social rehabilitation. Member states reviewed implementation so far of the framework decision on transfer of sentenced persons. Most states are in the process of implementation. There was widespread agreement that additional legislative measures to facilitate implementation were unnecessary, but that practical measures to activate the process must be addressed. The UK supports the framework decision so that foreign national offenders are able to serve their sentences in their own country to facilitate their eventual reintegration into the community in which they will live.
UK Border Agency (Report)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the Government will take.
Police Remuneration and Conditions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
This statement is about police pay and pensions. It provides the Government’s response to the Police Arbitration Tribunal’s findings on the recommendations in the part 1 report of Tom Winsor’s “Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions” and the consultation on the proposed increase in pension contributions for police officers. Both issues have the potential to affect police officer remuneration and so the Government have considered them in the round.
On 30 March 2011 I laid a statement to respond to Tom Winsor’s part 1 report of the review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff. I announced that I was directing the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales to consider proposals within their remits for police officers in England and Wales as a matter of urgency.
The Police Negotiating Board was not able to reach agreement on several important proposals, and these were referred to the Police Arbitration Tribunal. The tribunal has now provided its recommendation and reasons, which I received on 9 January. The tribunal considered 18 recommendations from the Winsor part 1 report. The tribunal accepted 10 recommendations, modified five and made no award on three. I have today placed a copy of the Police Arbitration Tribunal report in the House of Commons Library.
I am grateful to the tribunal for its comprehensive and balanced consideration of these important issues. I have now considered its report thoroughly. I have decided to accept its recommendation and am minded to implement the package of reforms it has put forward in full.
I have also decided to accept the recommendation of the Police Negotiating Board on those recommendations that it agreed in principle, which were not referred to the PAT.
These reforms represent an important first step in modernising police pay and conditions so that they are fair to officers and to taxpayers. They include redistributing pay to officers who work unsocial hours, abolishing ineffective post-related payments (SPPs), suspending some elements of time-served pay and improving managers’ ability to manage shift arrangements. However, as a Government we remain committed to further reform and to the principles set out in the Winsor part 1 report. The PAT recommended that a small number of recommendations should be deferred until part 2 has made longer-term recommendations on pay structures. We will consider these matters along with part 2, in light of the review’s principles. In particular, the link between pay and skills remains a key principle and will be an important part of our consideration.
We have the best police service in the world, and these reforms will support the police in maintaining and improving the service that they give the public. In particular, they will support the objectives I set out in the review’s terms of reference to:
use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles where their powers and skills are required;
provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to, and reasonable for, both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;
enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.
In reaching this decision, I have had regard to a number of vital considerations, including:
the review’s three key objectives as set out above;
the absolute necessity to reduce the fiscal deficit inherited from the previous Government and the part the police service must play in this and the role that changes to pay and conditions can play in protecting police jobs;
the need to maintain and improve the service provided to the public, taking account of a strong desire from the public to see more police officers and operational staff out on the front line of local policing and also recognising that there are less visible front-line roles that require policing powers and skills in order to protect the public;
the particular front-line role and nature of the Office of Constable, including the lack of a right to strike;
the Government’s wider objectives for police reform, including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction of police bureaucracy and collaboration between police forces and with other public services;
the Government’s wider policy of pay and pensions in the public sector;
the review’s analysis of the value of officers’ remuneration and conditions, as compared to other work forces;
parallel work by the police service to improve value for money, including collaboration with the private sector;
the impact of the recommendations on equality and diversity.
The service must be able to benefit from these reforms as soon as possible. I will therefore begin the necessary action to amend the Police Regulations 2003 and issue determinations under them shortly.
These reforms will make short-term improvements to police remuneration and conditions. Part 2 of the review will look at longer-term reform and is due to be published shortly.
Increases to police officer pension contributions
Turning now to police officer pensions, the Government want to ensure that public sector workers continue to have access to pension schemes that are among the very best available. However, reform is inevitable because people are living longer. Costs have risen by one third over the last 10 years to £32 billion. That is more than we spend on police, prison and the courts. These costs have generally fallen to the taxpayer. This is unfair and unaffordable, so it is also fair that we should ask public sector workers, including police officers, to contribute a bit more towards their pension.
That is why on 29 July 2011, I wrote to members of the Police Negotiating Board asking that they consider a proposal to increase police officer pension contribution rates. I am grateful to members of the Police Negotiating Board for considering the proposal and for the responses they provided.
Having considered the points raised alongside the recommendation from the recent Police Arbitration Tribunal, I have decided to implement the first year of increases in line with the proposal put to the Police Negotiating Board. This proposal meets the Government’s objectives of protecting lower earners, asking higher earners to pay more and, by reducing the burden on those in the first two years of their career, minimising the rate of opt out.
The Government are committed to securing in full the savings announced at spending review 2010 from increases in employee pension contributions for the unfunded schemes for 2013-14 and 2014-15. I will ask the Police Negotiating Board to consider the proposed increases for these years in line with other public service schemes.
Again, I will begin the necessary action to amend the relevant regulations in order that the changes take effect in April of this year.