Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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)
I shall be asking the House to agree with Lords amendment 51. I am pleased and proud to be standing here supporting and speaking to amendments relating to the introduction of new criminal offences for stalking. Some years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate in the House about the tragic case of Rana Faruqui, the daughter of my constituent Carol Faruqui. Rana was stalked for some time. Sadly, the police did not pay attention to the instances of stalking that she reported to them and, as a result, Rana was ferociously murdered by the individual who had been stalking her. Since that case came to my attention, I have personally believed that we need to do more to take the issue of stalking seriously, so I am glad that we are debating this issue.
It is fair to say that when the then Government introduced the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they believed that it would cover stalking and be adequate but we have seen over the years that it has not been taken as seriously as Members across the House would wish. Stalking is an appalling crime, both in itself and in the distress that it can cause an individual. It can also lead to physical violence and has, sadly, led to the death of the individual being stalked in cases such as that of Rana Faruqui. When I have spoken to stalking victims, they have said that some police officers are very sensitive to the issue of stalking and handle it very well and appropriately—dealing with it properly—but, sadly, others do not see the seriousness of the offence in the way that we would wish them to.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Home Secretary will have heard my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). In the Home Secretary’s discussions with the police, have they begun to understand the sensitivity of stalking and that it is very difficult for someone to report it? It is at that interface at the police station that things can all go terribly wrong or well depending on the training and sensitivity of the officers concerned. Is the Association of Chief Police Officers aware of that and has she been able to discuss the matter with ACPO?
Mrs May
I have had some opportunity to discuss this issue with ACPO and those representing victims of stalking. Their comments are similar to what victims of domestic violence say to me. If an officer has been trained specifically in the identification of stalking and dealing with a stalking victim, then they, like an officer who has been specifically trained to deal with a domestic violence victim, understand the context and the issues that the victim is facing. Officers who have not had that separate training might not understand these issues. There are certainly matters that need to be addressed in terms of how the police look at stalking. I hope that the creation of stalking offences will be part of the process of ensuring that all officers recognise the importance of the issue.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I welcome the amendment, but does the Secretary of State agree that the public’s severe lack of confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to deal with stalking is a major problem, and that legislation, while welcome, is not the whole solution? We also need training for officers; that is the only way that we will improve officers’ reactions when victims of stalking come forward, increase public confidence, and increase earlier reporting of stalking.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I hope that the creation of the legislation and the offences will, in itself, send out a message, but of course that has to be backed up by training. I also hope that we can ensure that the public generally recognise the importance and significance of stalking as an offence, and the distress and problems that it causes to an individual who is being stalked. I remember holding a discussion on the subject with a number of people, and a victim of stalking made the point to me that when she first came forward to say that she was a victim, someone she knew said to her, “Oh, aren’t you lucky?” Nothing could be further from the truth, and we need to change that attitude.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
That is an important point. We have seen how long it has taken the police to treat domestic violence as seriously as it should be treated. The Home Secretary’s comments show that victims are sometimes told that it is nice to receive that sort of attention. There is also the issue of the police not treating stalking seriously; it is only in very serious cases, where death may result, that we address stalking as the important issue that it is.
Mrs May
Of course, what we want is for the issue to be addressed properly earlier; we want victims to have the confidence to come forward, knowing that what they say will be taken seriously, so that the matter can be dealt with properly before it gets to the point of physical violence, or indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, before the death of the individual who is being stalked.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
How does the Home Secretary think that the public can ensure that the issue is on the agenda for the police and crime commissioners, who are to be elected in November?
Mrs May
From time to time, my right hon. Friend and others raise issues relating to ensuring that matters are on the police and crime commissioners’ agendas. Bodies representing victims of stalking will, I am sure, do all that they can to ensure that candidates for the post of police and crime commissioner are well aware of the issue and therefore take it into account when looking at policing in their force area.
This is, of course, the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the issue in the context of the Bill, so I want to take a moment to set out the background to the Lords amendments. Last year, the Government consulted on whether the law needed changing to introduce a new offence of stalking. The consultation closed in February, and the majority of respondents said that a new specific offence was needed. Separately from the Government’s consultation, an independent inquiry, chaired by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), also concluded that the law needed strengthening better to respond to the concerns of victims of stalking. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his inquiry team for all that they have done to raise the importance of the issue; he has done that regularly in the House, too. I also commend the hard work done by the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking, who have, entirely rightly, been championing victims’ rights for some years. I hope that they have seen that the Government have responded to that.
Following the Government’s consultation and the independent inquiry, we amended the Bill in the other place to provide for two new free-standing offences—stalking, and stalking involving fear of violence—which will sit alongside the existing harassment offences in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The new offence of stalking in proposed new section 2A of the 1997 Act will be tried in the magistrates court, with a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000, or both. The new offence of stalking involving fear of violence in proposed new section 4A will be triable either way—in the magistrates court or the Crown court. If tried in the Crown court, it will have a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
The changes that we have introduced also give the police a new power of entry for the new section 2A offence of stalking. The more serious either-way offence of stalking involving fear of violence automatically attracts a power of entry. It was clear from our consultation discussions that the police want the power to search for equipment used by stalkers so that they can gather the evidence necessary to secure convictions and prevent stalking behaviour from escalating. We have listened and responded.
There has been widespread support for these changes. Last week I received a letter from a victim of stalking, who said:
“The action your government has taken will change the lives of thousands of people for the better—and save many. Thank you for treating this crime with the seriousness it deserves.”
Our amendments mean that for the first time, we will have specific offences of stalking. However, I know there have been suggestions that we should also recognise the emotional suffering that victims of stalking experience. That is why we tabled Government amendments (g) to (k) to Lords amendment 51 and Government amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 133. Those amendments will widen the section 4A offence to incorporate behaviour that causes the victim serious alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on his or her day-to-day life.
This change will mean that when a stalker causes their victim, for example, to take alternative routes to and from work, when the victim is afraid to leave the house or when they have to ask their friends or family to pick up their children from school because they are afraid of running into their stalker, this could count as behaviour that attracts the more serious section 4A offence and therefore, on conviction on indictment, a maximum five-year sentence. The message could not be clearer—anyone who ruins someone’s life with their stalking should expect to be severely punished. I know that NAPO and Protection Against Stalking have been involved in the development of these changes and I am grateful to them for their contribution.
Let me take some time to deal with the amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which are virtually identical to the ones that were tabled in another place. Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51 relates to new section 2A(3) of the 1997 Act which sets out a list of examples of stalking behaviours. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who introduced the debate, that “examples” is the key word here. That is what they are intended to be—examples of stalking behaviours.
Amendment (b) seeks to add a catch-all to this indicative list of behaviours and would allow the Secretary of State to add behaviours to the list of examples. As I said, the list is intended to be illustrative only; it is not intended to set out all the types of stalking behaviour that might be exhibited. We want to ensure that it is wide enough to capture any behaviour, including stalking conduct, that has not yet been developed. The hon. Lady is right. It may well be that there are means of stalking that we cannot yet think of which will develop over time. It is right that we have within the legislation the ability to take account of those, should they develop.
The reason I think it is important not to create a catch-all provision or take a power to expand the list, but to set it as a list of examples, is that we have deliberately made it non-exhaustive. As soon as one tries to set everything down in the legislation, one risks the opportunity for individuals to find ways round the definition that has been set down in the legislation. What is important here is that the Bill says, “These are the sorts of behaviour that come into the category of stalking,” but if we try to be too rigid in setting it out, I fear that that could have a negative rather than a positive effect.
Stella Creasy
Given our shared concern about the inventiveness of perpetrators, will the Home Secretary undertake to review annually the range of behaviours that will be identified through this process so that we can understand whether it is being used as a list of examples or solely as a list of what constitutes stalking?
Mrs May
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we will indeed keep the legislation under review. The last thing we want to do is to find that the legislation is being misinterpreted. The reason it is set out in the terms, “The following are examples,” is precisely to send a message to people that that is all they are. There will be other activities that come under the definition of stalking for the purposes of this criminal offence, but we are not putting that exhaustive list in the Bill.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that well-trained police officers will be able to identify exactly what stalking is. From their experience and training, they will be able to say, “That is an example of stalking and we should do something about it,” and I hope the legislation will allow that to happen.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for supporting our approach. It is important that a degree of discretion is available to police officers so that they can identify behaviour that is not listed but would come under the definition of stalking.
A number of the comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow related to the creation of two offences—the lower level and higher level offences—and I think that there is a need to differentiate between the two. The practice of having two such offences is followed in a number of other areas in the criminal justice system, which I think is important, but we will be developing training—a number of hon. Members have mentioned this—for agencies in the criminal justice system in the coming months to ensure that they are aware of the nature of the legislation being introduced, such as the point about the list being one of examples only.
Stella Creasy
In which case, will the Home Secretary set out clearly and explicitly what she considers to be a stalking offence that would come under section 2A, rather than section 4A, because I think that there is genuine concern that having two offences but not defining the difference between them will cause problems for the police at a local level?
Mrs May
It is normal practice when introducing offences to have a lower level and a higher level offence, and training for the criminal justice system agencies will look at identifying the sort of behaviour that might come under one or the other. Again, in these circumstances it is always difficult, and I think inappropriate, to try to state absolutely what behaviour would come under one offence and what behaviour would come under another, because the context of behaviour might be significant; behaviour that might be considered lower level in one context might be considered higher level in another. It is important that we do not try to set out absolute definitions and that discretion is available to the police in interpreting the offences and looking at the context in which they are committed. I know that the hon. Lady’s view is different from mine, but the point is similar to the previous one: the more we try to define the offence in legislation or on the Floor of the House, the less we can offer the discretion and flexibility that might be necessary to an individual officer or the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with such cases. I fear that we might end up in a situation that is not so good if the terminology we use is too rigid.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow also tabled amendment (c) to Lords amendment 51, which would make the lower-level section 2A offence triable either way. It is currently a summary-only offence, reflecting the fact that it is a lower level offence and should be properly tried in the magistrates court. More serious behaviour should be captured by the higher level section 4A offence of stalking involving fear of violence. Amendments (d) to (f) seek to capture the emotional distress suffered by victims of stalking. I have already set out how we intend to address this point, and our approach is supported by NAPO and Protection Against Stalking. She referred to the need for clarity in the criminal justice system, yet her proposals attempt to blur the distinction between the two offences and, I think, would lead to less clarity rather than more.
The Opposition’s other amendment in this group, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52, would remove the requirement to obtain a warrant before searching a potential stalker’s property or possessions under the new section 2A offence. As the offence is a summary-only offence, which is by definition a lower level offence, I think that requiring a warrant for a search represents an appropriate balance between protecting the vulnerable in society from stalkers and respecting the rights of those who are innocent until proven guilty. The higher level offence, as I said earlier, automatically allows the power of entry, which is appropriate, given that it is a more serious offence. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Opposition’s amendments.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her clear exposition of the position. May I seek some clarification on the position regarding persistent offenders, who quite properly should be dealt with in the Crown court? Will guidelines be issued to prosecutors to deal with the particular issue of persistent offenders—in essence to ensure that they are dealt with by the either-way mechanism and can then be sent to the Crown court either for trial or for sentencing?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The persistency of an offence is a factor that should be taken into account when looking at the seriousness of it. Perhaps I can attempt to give the hon. Member for Walthamstow some indication on these matters. My hon. Friend raises the issue of someone persistently undertaking the offence of stalking, and we hope to reach a situation in which early examples, or early behaviour, of stalking can be identified, captured and therefore dealt with through the lower level offence before it moves on to stalking behaviour—the more serious offence that is set out in proposed section 4A.
We do take stalking very seriously, however, and we are determined to do all we can to stamp it out. We have created the two new offences, explicitly putting stalking on the statute book for the first time; we are giving the police the powers of entry that they need to disrupt stalkers at an early stage; and we have responded to the concerns of victims and of victims’ organisations by making it clear that behaviour which ruins lives will be properly punished. I think that those changes will make a real difference to the lives of victims, and I commend the Lords amendments and the Government’s amendments to those amendments to the House.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in what is a very interesting debate.
Some 10 months ago I set up an all-party committee covering both Houses, including Members from all parties and none, by which I mean it included Cross Benchers from the other place as well. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) played a very active part in the committee’s deliberations and is to be commended on the hard work that he put in.
We looked at the whole issue of a stand-alone offence of stalking, something that I have long believed to be a necessary tool in the criminal justice armoury. We were helped immensely by Laura Richards of Protection Against Stalking and by Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers, to whom we as a committee are very grateful. The researcher Delyth Jewell also did a sterling piece of work in clerking the committee.
We took evidence from July last year, and we are indebted to those who came and gave of their time to provide evidence to us. I think in particular of the victims and the victims’ families. It took a great deal of bravery to relate some of their accounts. Many were harrowing, almost beyond belief and ended, as the Home Secretary said of her constituent, in death. They were awful situations, so we are indebted to those individuals, because they came before the committee and their evidence has convinced us all that this is an urgent matter that needs to be put right.
We took evidence from lawyers, who said that there was a lacuna in the current law. I was a Member in 1997 when the Protection from Harassment Act became law, and we thought it a fairly decent piece of legislation. Indeed, by and large it has been and has dealt with a great range of offences, but on the particular offence of stalking in large parts it has not fit the bill. The lawyers told us that they, too, thought we needed to consider a separate offence of stalking.
I agree with the Home Secretary that some police officers are very good at pursuing stalking through the provisions in the 1997 Act, but I am afraid—I say this as the brother and the son of police officers; I do not have any great beef with the police generally—that the vast majority cannot handle the problem, hence the fact that 72% to 75% of those surveyed reported that they were very dissatisfied with the police action taken. That is partly to do with complications in the provisions and partly to do with the new form of the offence, which often involves e-transmissions of some kind, and so on. It is also due to a lack of specific training, which is extremely urgent in this context.
We took evidence from psychologists who advised us that in many instances it is possible to address such offending behaviour. It is vital, in the case of individuals who would be subject to new section 4A and sent away for a period of incarceration, but also in the case of those subject to new section 2A, who would not be, that criminal psychologists get involved fairly soon in order to divert them from their behaviour, because, by its very nature and essence, stalking is an obsessive, often repeat, offence that goes on and on. We heard examples of individuals in prison who were planning the next stalking venture from their prison cell.
I am advised by Laura Richards, in particular, that about 20 to 25 practitioners in the UK are able to diagnose and, in large part, deal with stalking behaviour and divert offenders away from it. That is important, because otherwise all we will do is take them off the streets for a while and then they will be back. Whether they have committed a 2A or a 4A offence, it is vital that we make available the necessary specialist clinical services to deal with them. I am no psychologist and I am not medically qualified, but I know that they often have behavioural, as opposed to psychological, problems. People are trained to help them address that, and their expertise must be used to ensure that we have a proper, tough regime to deal with these awful offenders.
Mr Llwyd
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We took evidence from several police officers, among whom were several knowledgeable females, who had been training their respective forces. Given that we now have a large number of good senior and junior police officers who are women, it will hopefully be more straightforward to put this legislation into effect than the 1997 Act.
I had come here to argue that the inquiry wanted a single indictable, either-way gateway. However, I am persuaded by what the Home Secretary said. I do not disagree with her analysis of new sections 2A and 4A of the 1997 Act. Hopefully, there will be such discretion for the police. When a repeat offender under new section 2A comes up again, he will clearly be a customer for new section 4A. It is extremely important that that is understood. Searches without warrant will happen under new section 4A, but not under new section 2A. I still believe that that power would have been helpful under new section 2A as well, because the police tell us that the earlier we move in on such people, the better the outcome is likely to be.
Whatever legislation we enact, it is crucial that the police, prosecutors—particularly those within the Crown Prosecution Service—judges and magistrates are trained and instructed properly, through various courses, on the necessary approach to this awful offence.
I know that other Members wish to speak, so I will curtail my remarks, but I first wish to put various questions on the record. I do not realistically expect the Home Secretary, or indeed any Minister, to respond to them all this evening, but I hope she will agree to respond in writing in due course.
My first question is whether there will be a consultation with NAPO, Protection Against Stalking and other stakeholders on the interpretation by police and prosecutors of the list of stalking behaviour contained in new section 2A. I agree that “inter alia” is otiose in the circumstances. There will be a review of the behaviour covered, so the point is dealt with without our having to discuss amendment (a).
Will there be an ongoing discussion about the need for improved victim advocacy, which is vital? I can say without breaching any confidences that the Prime Minister also took the view that that was vital. Will there be a full consultation with PAS, NAPO and other stakeholders on the implementation of the new sections of the 1997 Act? The Home Secretary said that there would be an annual review, which seems to me to provide a vehicle for including those stakeholders.
Will the impact of the new sections on police practice and prosecutions be monitored once they become law later this year? Will there be a full consultation with PAS, NAPO and other stakeholders on the interpretation of the definitions of “fear of violence” and of psychological harm involving serious alarm and distress, and will those definitions be set out in guidelines or training?
Will it be possible to monitor the impact of evidence being seized because of the need for the police to obtain a warrant for a perpetrator’s arrest prior to their property being searched under new section 2A? I was going to ask whether there would be consultation on the guidelines for prosecutors, to ensure that persistent stalkers are charged under new sections 2A and 4A, but that has been dealt with, so I need not bother the Home Secretary with it.
I ask the Government to facilitate the treatment of offenders in such a way that as many as practicable can be diverted away from their offending behaviour. Appropriate courses need to be put in place for police, Crown prosecutors, judges, magistrates and probation officers, to ensure that they are thoroughly trained up. I mention Crown prosecutors because the Crown Prosecution Service has now put together a package to deal with the new legislation. Unfortunately, it will deal only with e-crime, not with crimes in general. I believe that that mistake needs to be put right.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has asked a number of detailed questions, and I will be happy to get back to him in writing. We have had very good consultation and a very good relationship with NAPO and Protection Against Stalking in developing the Bill, and I expect to continue to have good consultations and discussions with them as we take the matter forward.
On the issue of perpetrators, the aim of reducing reoffending lies behind the rehabilitation work that the Ministry of Justice is doing, and I will certainly bring the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Justice.
Mr Llwyd
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that assurance, which I take to be an invitation to write to her. I had another seven or eight questions, but I shall not labour the House with them this evening.
Before I sit down and allow others to take the matter further, may I once more express my sincere gratitude to all the parliamentarians who took part in the research work? I think this may be the only time when a cross-party group that is not a Committee of the House has succeeded in bringing forward a change in the law. I do not know how often that will happen, but it is certainly a precedent that I favour—I would say that, wouldn’t I?
I wish again to say how grateful we are to Laura Richards of PAS and Harry Fletcher of NAPO, and to all the victims who assisted us by giving evidence. I am also very grateful to the Home Secretary, because I know she has been on the side of the angels on this issue for some time. I am sure she shares my pleasure in the fact that something positive is now being done.
The Bill’s provisions on stalking show that the Government have carried out a listening exercise, and we will now have firm laws. They will prevent lives from being ruined and, crucially, from being lost. They represent an important change in the law, and I have been privileged to play a part in achieving it. The inquiry has been the most enriching and worthwhile experience of my political life, and I am delighted to see the result.
Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Renumeration and Conditions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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)
Tom Winsor has today published the final report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.
The review began its work on 1 October 2010. The terms of reference asked it to make recommendations on how to:
use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to frontline 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.
The review was asked to report in two stages. The first report, on short-term improvements, was published on 8 March 2011. I announced on 30 January that I had decided to accept the recommendations made by the police arbitration tribunal and Police Negotiating Board on its proposals. This final report is on longer-term reform.
Tom Winsor has conducted the review with the support of former chief constable Sir Edward Crew and labour market economist Professor Richard Disney. I am very grateful for all their work on both parts of the review and for this report. I will now consider it very carefully.
The final report has been laid before Parliament today and copies are available from the Vote Office. It is also available electronically to the service and the public on the review’s website at: http://review.police.uk/.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 8 March in Brussels. I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.
The Council began in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The presidency opened a debate on illegal immigration by outlining some of the pressures facing member states. The presidency reported that it was working on a roadmap for the April Council grouping current and future measures into a single strategy. The Commission (Malmström) supported the presidency and saw the response as being threefold: member states needed to make full use of existing legislation; the EU Agencies (Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office) needed to work more closely together; and there needed to be further co-operation with countries of origin and transit, with Turkey a priority. Frontex’s update showed that despite a decrease in the flows from Libya and Tunisia, the situation overall was not improving. Ministers were supportive of the presidency roadmap and all agreed that the Greece-Turkey border was a priority. The UK supported the presidency’s work and noted concerns over visa liberalisation. In addition the EU needed to begin to take action to tackle fraud and abuse of free movement rights where third country nationals were using these rights to facilitate their travel across the EU and to circumvent immigration controls. The UK also supported work upstream with partner countries, and suggested that a more concerted EU dialogue with Turkey needed to be initiated.
There followed presentations by the Commission, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Frontex on the situation in Greece in relation to Schengen. The Commission noted there was evidence of progress but it was still uneven, particularly in the area of asylum management. EASO provided an overview of the training support currently underway. Whilst the backlog in asylum decisions was still too big, EASO welcomed the announcement that Greece’s new asylum service would be operational from this September. Frontex reported seeing real progress on border management and once again appealed to member states to increase their deployment of expertise. The presidency suggested developing returns strategies to help the Greek authorities increase their capacity to return failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants, and invited the agencies and Commission to report again in April.
The Council adopted conclusions on strengthening Schengen governance. Ministers from EU and associated states would meet twice a year in mixed committee to discuss the functioning of the Schengen area, including any serious shortcomings highlighted by reports under the Schengen evaluation mechanism. Member states welcomed the Commission’s intention to present regular reports, starting in May, which would cover planned and existing visa liberalisation and its consequences, co-operation with key countries of origin and transit, and the implementation of the Schengen acquis, including at the internal borders.
The presidency introduced its paper on co-operation with third countries in the area of border management and on strengthening internal security during major sporting events. There was little discussion. Updating Ministers on preparations for the Olympics, the Home Secretary underlined that the safety and security of the games were of paramount importance. The UK Government had been planning for years and had recently conducted live exercises, including a simulation of a terrorist attack and a test of the inter-operability of emergency services and other responders. The Home Secretary thanked Schengen states and the Commission for their assurances that requests from games’ family members for transit visas would be expedited and said the UK would disseminate information to participants informing them that they needed to meet any visa requirements of transit countries. Lastly, the Government were working with a number of member states to tackle the few instances of illegal ticket touting.
The presidency reported on the recent conference on innovation border management. Participants had acknowledged the benefits of a biometric EU entry-exit system and registered traveller programme, and agreed on the need to balance data protection considerations with the benefits of access to data for law enforcement agencies.
The presidency emphasised the importance of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) in enabling the Schengen area to remain secure without internal borders. Commissioner Malmström noted they had completed all activities on schedule to date, but issues with the national testing tool could cause the timetable to slip.
Moving into the main Council meeting, the adoption of the A points (the list of items agreed without discussion) confirmed Rob Wainwright’s directorship of Europol for another four years.
Before inviting Ministers to approve the Council conclusions on solidarity, the presidency underlined the importance of having a ‘toolbox’ at member states’ disposal to counter the challenges presented in the field of asylum and managing mixed migration flows. The conclusions provided the framework for increasing mutual trust. The Commission stood ready to undertake their commitments and thought the conclusions should maintain the momentum required to complete the Common European Asylum System negotiations by the end of 2012. EASO presented its own view of the early warning mechanism to be agreed within the Dublin regulation, with EASO analysing member state data to identify trends and push and pull factors; a Commission lead on preparedness with EASO support; and emergency support which was already being provided to Greece. The UK was pleased with the balance of solidarity measures and member state responsibilities and the fact that the conclusions recognised the value of practical co-operation. However, the UK called for caution in striking the right balance between the roles of the institutions in the early warning mechanism. For the UK, EASO should have the leading role, but in close partnership with member states. The UK also supported the view that internal relocation would simply move the problem around Europe, creating pull factors, but noted that the reference in the conclusions was on a voluntary basis.
In the last session of the Council, the presidency gave a brief overview of progress on the asylum package and signalled its intention to move with commitment and energy to complete as much as possible, in view of the 2012 deadline. The Commission was pleased with the progress made, and urged the presidency to maintain momentum.
Transit Visa Requirements (Syrian, Libyan and Egyptian Nationals)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I will inform the Governments of Syria, Libya and Egypt that we will be introducing a change to the transit visa regime for the citizens of Syria, Libya and Egypt travelling to the United Kingdom. We see this as a necessary measure to protect the security of our borders.
Britain is a major hub for transit passengers travelling on long haul flights. The volume of traffic passing through the UK is increasing and poses new challenges. Since 2003 certain nationalities have been required to obtain a visa before they travel, including if they are in transit to another destination and are arriving at and leaving from the same airport. This is known as a Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV). Since the introduction of the DATV regime a number of countries have been added to the list of those required to obtain a transit visa before transiting the UK. This has been done as a direct response to emerging security and immigration threats to the UK, and we will continue to monitor risks and threats.
The implementation of the DATV regime allows us to run comprehensive checks on those transiting the UK, and prevents high harm individuals from travelling here. Since the original introduction of the DATV there has been a noticeable fall in transit passengers destroying their travel documents before claiming asylum. The visa process means that we are able to collect pre-travel information as part of the application process which makes identification and checks more robust.
The situation in Syria continues to pose a serious concern to us and the wider international community. Libya and Egypt are emerging from a period of instability. We therefore assess that requiring nationals of these countries to obtain a visa for transit through the UK is both a sensible and proportionate response to the threat posed to the UK’s national and border security.
Violence Against Women and Girls
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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, on international women’s day, we are publishing an updated violence against women and girls action plan. A copy will be placed in the House Library.
Each year, over 1 million women suffer domestic abuse, over 300,000 women are sexually assaulted and 60,000 women are raped. This is wholly unacceptable in modern-day Britain.
Soon after coming to office we set out a new strategy to end violence against women and girls, placing prevention at the heart of our approach. This document updates the actions underpinning that strategy, and details the progress made. Our key themes of prevention, provision of good quality services, improved partnership working, better justice outcomes and risk reduction remain so this revised document builds on the previous plan and makes it clear what we expect from local areas and local partners.
The previous action plan set out 88 specific actions. More than half of them have been completed, including the provision of almost £40 million of earmarked funding for specialist support services over the spending review period; the implementation of new laws to make all local areas hold a domestic homicide review after every domestic violence death; and the piloting of domestic violence protection orders. We are making good progress on almost all of the remaining actions.
This updated plan includes new actions to help keep women safe. For the first time, we will pilot a process for the police to give women access to information about the past actions of a new partner where that may help keep them safe. We will also create two new specific criminal offences of stalking and we are today tabling amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill so that these new offences can be enacted as soon as possible. And we will work to reduce the harm suffered by the vulnerable women working in prostitution.
We are proud of the progress this Government have made in protecting the lives of women and girls and remain committed to ending the violence and abuse which continues to blight the lives of too many of them.
Police and Crime Commissioners (Pay)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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)
On 3 November 2011, I placed a copy of the Senior Salary’s Review Body (SSRB) report and recommendations on police and crime commissioners pay in the House Library. On that day, I undertook to give the report and the recommendations thorough consideration and report my final decision in good time to allow potential PCC candidates to be clear on what they can expect their salary to be.
I would like to thank the SSRB for its work. I believe that the report sets out clearly the justification for its proposals and I intend to accept all but one of the recommendations made by the SSRB.
Recommendation 1 on PCC pay structure has taken into account the issues I consider to be important and, overall, I believe a sensible and appropriate approach has been taken. With regard to the salary range which is the subject of recommendation 2, the report has made the case for a proposed PCC salary range of £65,000—£100,000. While salary itself should not be a key motivational factor for these important new roles, the SSRB has agreed that these are important new posts. I believe their salary range ensures the right balance in terms of attracting suitable candidates while at the same time addressing the fact that public funding is constrained.
Recommendation 3 relates to the issue of performance-related pay and I agree with the SSRB’s recommendation that it would not be appropriate for PCCs to receive performance-related pay. The performance of PCCs should be judged solely by the electorate.
Recommendation 4 considers the need to reduce the salary of a PCC pro-rata for any PCCs that do not carry out the role on a full-time basis. Having reflected on the advice put forward by the SSRB, I do not propose to accept this recommendation.
We understand the intention behind it, but we believe that the best way forward is for PCCs to be clear with their electorate about what outside interests they have and for the electorate to judge them accordingly. Last year, I laid before Parliament a specified information order 2011 which sets out what information we expect PCCs to publish in order to ensure that they are sufficiently transparent on critical issues. I intend to ensure that a PCC declares any paid and/or unpaid interests that may conflict with their role or affect the amount of time that they will be devoting to it.
I also intend to accept the SSRB’s last two recommendations. Recommendation 5 relates to carrying out an independent annual review of PCC salaries and Recommendation 6 relates to completing a full review of PCC roles and their remuneration in the third year of office in order to make pay recommendations to take effect from the second round of elections in 2016.
By settling the pay structure as early as possible, I hope to ensure that potential candidates have plenty of time to consider their respective positions when deciding whether they should stand.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 8 March in Brussels. I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). There will be presentations by the Commission and Frontex on illegal immigration, continuing the Council discussions on this issue under the previous presidency. The UK supports increased efforts to combat illegal flows across the external border and within the EU, and welcomes proposals for a presidency “roadmap” for a more coherent response to these flows. In particular, the UK believes it is vital that the EU response includes action to tackle fraud and abuse of free movement rights, as well as consolidation of efforts at the Greek-Turkish border, closer partnership working with Turkey, and work further “upstream” in countries of origin and transit using the tools of the EU’s global approach to migration.
The presidency will present its Council conclusions which aim to strengthen political governance over Schengen co-operation through regular political and strategic discussions at ministerial level in mixed committee format. The use of mixed committee format will allow the UK to participate in discussions which affect the control of illegal immigration flows that impact on the UK. The UK supports this proposal and the list of suggested topics for inclusion in the Commission’s periodic reports. The UK will use these debates to call for stronger practical co-operation on measures to protect the external border and prevent illegal immigration.
There will be an update from the presidency on attempts to secure agreement on the date for the removal of controls on Bulgaria and Romania’s sea and air borders with countries in the Schengen area. This issue will also be discussed at the preceding European Council. We do not expect a vote.
Next there will be an update on the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project. The Commission has committed to deliver the central element of SIS II in early 2013.
There will also be a presentation by the presidency on the EU conference on innovative border management, which the UK attended in Copenhagen on 2 and 3 February 2012.
There will be a discussion during lunch on combating organised crime through multi-disciplinary and administrative approaches.
The main Council will start with a “state of play” report by the presidency on the Common European Asylum System. This will set out the progress that has been made on the package to date: negotiations continue on the reception conditions directive and the Dublin III Regulation, with the development of a new article to enshrine the “early warning mechanism', which was the subject of discussions in JHA Councils at the end of last year.
The presidency will present draft Council conclusions which set out the outcome of discussions on solidarity and practical co-operation that took place at the informal Council meeting in January. They are intended to provide a framework or “tool box” for practical co-operation within the EU, focusing in large part on maximising the opportunities presented by existing arrangements. This is the first time the Council has been asked to consider the conclusions but there is a high degree of support for the direction they set out. The UK strongly supports the conclusions as currently drafted. They present the right balance on key issues including that the focus of “solidarity” should be practical co-operation between member states based on their individual responsibility to build migration management capacity; strong references to the “early warning mechanism” to be included in the new Dublin regulation in place of a suspension clause; and an explicit confirmation of the lack of support for any mandatory intra-EU relocation of beneficiaries of international protection.
Next there will be a presentation by the Commission, the European Asylum Support Office and Frontex on the Greek action plan (GAP) of August 2010. The GAP outlines Greece’s proposals to build its capability to manage migration, including through the creation of an improved asylum service which complies with EU legislation. Legislation has now been adopted in Greece to provide a new institutional framework by creating three new agencies (Asylum Service, Appeals Authority and Initial Reception Service). However, the implementation of these reforms has been significantly hindered by systemic deficiencies in the Greek Administration and constraints imposed by austerity measures. The UK supports the GAP and has a vested interest in its success, not least because a weak border with Turkey presents a security risk. Up to 80% of illegal migrants enter the EU through Greece, and many of these may travel on to the UK. Without significant improvements to the asylum system, use of the Dublin regulation to return asylum seekers to Greece will remain suspended. But the Government are concerned by the slow progress of reform and the limited evidence of the impact of EU support, including that provided through the European Asylum Support Office. Members of the Council are likely to discuss whether any further support would be appropriate and will push to secure further political will from Greece to bring about meaningful reform.
Under any other business the presidency will provide information on current legislative proposals.
Domestic Violence
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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)
Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse. The fact that two people are killed by their current or former partner each week in England and Wales shows just how urgent is the need for action. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police and other agencies have the tools necessary to tackle domestic violence to bring offenders to justice and ensure victims have the support they need to rebuild their lives.
Today, I am announcing that a one-year pilot will take place from the summer of 2012 to test out a domestic violence disclosure scheme in the police force areas of Greater Manchester, Gwent, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire. The pilot will test a process for enabling the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner where this may help protect them from further violent offending. The pilot will test two types of process for disclosing this information. The first would be triggered by a request by a member of the public (“right to ask”). The second would be triggered by the police where they make a proactive decision to disclose the information in order to protect a potential victim (“right to know”). Both processes can be implemented within existing legal powers.
The pilot follows the consultation I published in October 2011 where I sought views on whether the protection available to victims of domestic violence could be enhanced by establishing a national disclosure scheme with recognised and consistent processes for the police to disclose information to potential victims. While a clear majority of respondents favoured the introduction of a national disclosure scheme, the consultation raised important issues on the scope and proportionality of the information that should be disclosed to potential victims and the safeguards that will be needed against malicious applications. I believe that it is right that these issues are addressed and tested in a pilot to ensure that the disclosure scheme is compatible with all relevant law.
We will consider the outcomes from the pilot very carefully. I want to ensure that the public have confidence that a clear framework exists with recognised and consistent processes for disclosing information that supports their needs.
A copy of the summary of responses to the consultation will be placed in the Library of the House.
Border Force
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 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(13 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)
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.