Hillsborough Disaster

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

May I first commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who movingly marked the memory of the 96 who lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster? He has brought to this House not just the voice of the families of those who were lost on that fateful day, but his personal experience, which I am sure will have an impact on the whole House.

Going to watch a football match is something that brings great joy to hundreds of thousands of British people every weekend, but on that fateful April day in 1989, it brought not joy, but tragedy. Parents and children and brothers and sisters who left their homes that day to watch a football match were never to return.

I have met some of the families of the 96 and heard directly from them about the impact of that terrible day. They have shown nothing but dignity; they have asked for nothing but the truth.

I also want to pay tribute to the support that the whole of the Merseyside community has given in the campaign for the truth. No words from the Government can ever even begin to make up for the loss of 96 cherished lives, but I want to send my deepest condolences to all those affected by the national tragedy of Hillsborough.

Let me say here and now, in this House and on the record, that as Home Secretary, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the families and the public get the truth. As a Government, we fully support the Hillsborough independent panel and the process that the panel is leading to disclose the documents telling the whole story. No Government papers will be withheld from the panel. No attempts to suppress publication will be made. No stone will be left unturned.

The previous Government were right to establish a disclosure process overseen and driven not by the Government, but by an independent panel chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool. I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for the work they did to secure the establishment of that panel.

Following my appointment as Home Secretary, I announced the coalition Government’s full support for the process. I met the Bishop of Liverpool soon after coming to office so that he could give me an update on progress and so that I could give him my assurance of our support. I have also met the bishop subsequently so that he could keep me informed about the panel’s work.

The Hillsborough independent panel has three principal tasks: to oversee the disclosure of the documents to the maximum possible degree, which will initially be to the families; to report on its work, outlining the ways in which the information disclosed adds to the public understanding of the tragedy; and to make recommendations as to a permanent Hillsborough archive.

The principle underlying the process is that of maximum possible disclosure, and of disclosure to the families first and then to the wider public. This is difficult, sensitive and lengthy work, and it cannot be rushed. However, the aims of the process are, I believe, aims we can all agree on, and we should continue to uphold them.

As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, the dignity of the families should be matched by the dignity of this process. The families deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in the way they receive the information, which brings me on to the reason for this debate.

The reason for this debate and for the motion behind it concerns the Cabinet Office’s decision not to disclose papers relating to the disaster in response to a freedom of information request from a BBC reporter. I want to state very clearly that the Government’s position has absolutely nothing to do with attempting to suppress the release of those papers or somehow to hide the truth. I am sorry that the way the Government responded to the FOI request caused anxiety among the families and concern on Merseyside and beyond.

The Government firmly believe that the right way to release the papers is through the Hillsborough independent panel—to the families first and then to the public. The families should have the papers, and they should not have them filtered through politicians or the media. We therefore support the Hillsborough independent panel and today’s motion. We want full disclosure to the panel of all documents relating to Hillsborough, including Cabinet minutes. Those documents should be uncensored and unredacted. Indeed, the full unredacted Cabinet Office papers on Hillsborough have already been made available to the panel. That includes minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet immediately following the disaster.

As the Prime Minister said in the letter that he sent to the right hon. Member for Leigh:

“Please let me reassure you that the Government is wholly committed to full disclosure of the Hillsborough information that it holds…As you will be aware, Cabinet papers, along with other relevant government papers, have been released to the Hillsborough independent panel. I am keen to ensure that the panel and indeed the families were treated with the utmost respect in this process. We have therefore proposed that the panel will ensure that disclosure takes place initially to the Hillsborough families, prior to wider publication.”

The Government are not seeking to avoid the publication of Cabinet minutes or any other Hillsborough papers. The Cabinet papers on Hillsborough can be published, and the Government will do nothing to prevent the panel from publishing them or indeed whatever it so decides. The panel will release the full picture of what happened at Hillsborough, but in a way that is respectful of the families.

The panel’s terms of reference envisage minimal redaction to avoid junior officials’ names and addresses being published; to avoid signatures being available for copying; and to ensure that the Data Protection Act is not breached. It might also be necessary to redact sensitive private and personal information specific to the victims. However, it will be the role of the panel to ensure that any redactions are kept to a minimum.

The principle is clear: full publication and minimal redaction, and the panel seeing all of the papers, uncensored and unredacted—as the families have rightly demanded: the whole loaf, not snippets. I stand ready to do anything I can to aid the independent panel in completing its task.

Hillsborough was a terrible tragedy—a tragedy that must never be repeated. As the Bishop of Liverpool has said, the disaster and its aftermath inflicted a deep wound in the body of the Merseyside community which remains to this day. The families of the 96 deserve the truth. That is why we fully support the Hillsborough independent panel; why all Government papers, including Cabinet minutes, have been made available to the panel with no restrictions on access; and why the Government support this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

Indeed—it was.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on the role they have played in bringing about the release of all these documents, and I welcome, I think, the statement that the Home Secretary made today. As I understand it, she has said that all documents, including Cabinet minutes, will be made available and that nothing will be withheld from the glare of public scrutiny. If that is what she was saying, I very much welcome that. I followed her comments carefully and that appears to be what she said.

I want to make a slight qualification about the process of redaction. The Home Secretary will be aware that, wearing another hat, I sit on the Intelligence and Security Committee. When we produce annual reports or any other kind of report we use the process of redaction, which is necessary because issues of national security are sometimes involved. However, I am aware that redaction causes suspicion. What is left out gives the media vent to speculate about what might have been in there. In this particular case, the families who want to know everything, and rightly so, might feel that something has been excluded. The point I want to make to the Home Secretary is that more thought needs to be given to how that process is to be conducted, who is to be involved in it and who will have the final veto. The default position should be to have no use of redaction unless there are issues of personal medical evidence or of data protection to consider. Data protection should not be used to protect those who may have been culpable of failing in their duties, but other issues of data protection, including in relation to the families themselves, might be relevant. There should be redaction only in those circumstances, and even then each decision should be open to question by the families and the independent panel.

[Mrs May]

It might be helpful if I clarify these issues and respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. As far as Government papers are concerned, there will be no redaction by Government. Those papers will be available to the independent panel and it will be up to the panel to decide whether there should be any redaction. Having spoken to the panel I know that its view is that redaction should be minimal, but it will wish to discuss with the families the possible redaction of some personal information relating to the victims. I hope that everybody making papers available to the panel will follow the Government’s lead in ensuring that there is no redaction in those papers.

[Mr Howarth]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification, but I still make the point on redaction that there needs to be some thought about how those three different groups, including the Government, will handle that process. I welcome the fact that she said, I think, that the default position should be to publish rather than redact and I hope that that process prevails.

I shall conclude now because I know that many others want to speak. The most important thing for those who have lost loved ones is that light should be shone into all the dark corners that so far have not been revealed, and I hope that the process will do that. I know that nothing can bring comfort in bereavement, particularly given that so many of those who died were so young, but I hope that families will at least feel vindicated in having defended the reputation of their family members and of those who were, collectively, so badly smeared at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

May I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and commend the families of the 96 for their dignified fight for justice and truth? The families that I have spoken to simply want to know the truth behind what happened that day. I want to tell the story of one family in their own words and raise some of the questions that need to be answered.

My constituent Barry Devonside was at the match. His son Chris was 18 and he died that day. I shall continue in Barry’s own words:

“Having left the ground at around 3.45 I made my way to the Halifax road and hopefully on to the point where we had arranged to meet following the game. I was halfway up the Halifax road when I met up with Chris’s friend and two others who had travelled with us, asking where Chris was. Jason, Chris’s friend, told me I should expect the worst. He said Chris had been killed. I turned around and made my way towards the ground. As I passed a telephone box, there were about 100 people wanting to use the phone. I suppose they were wanting to ring home to let their family know that they were safe or to give bad news.

I spoke with a female constable and said to her that I had just been told that our son had been killed in the ground, and she said I should go to the gym which was being used as a temporary mortuary. I made my way there in total fear that what Jason had said to me was true. Arriving at the gym, I asked a lady where is the temporary mortuary. She pointed me in the direction, which was a few yards away. I knocked on the door and it seemed a lifetime for someone to answer.

It was a policeman who answered. He must have been the biggest policeman that I have ever seen. I realised why he was there: the police must have been expecting trouble. I gave him my name and that of our son Christopher and our address. He said, ‘Stand there.’ He went in. He must have been away 10 or 12 minutes. On his return he told me that there was nobody of Christopher’s description, which I could not understand as Jason had told me that he had gone into the temporary mortuary and given Chris’s full details to the police, his name, address and the name of his father, and stated that I was at the game.

I also gave the police officer a description of Chris. He was wearing a Welsh international rugby shirt but I was told no, he was not there. I wanted to call my wife but I could not remember our telephone number. A police sergeant offered to help. He spoke on my behalf but was told that we were ex-directory.”

Mr Devonside said that his number had never been ex-directory, but he was refused the opportunity to be put through to his wife. He went on:

“It was at this point that a lady a resident of Sheffield, Betty Thorp, kindly offered me help. She offered to drive me around a number of hospitals, looking in hope that Jason was wrong and Chris might be in one of the hospitals. I think we visited three hospitals, including a mortuary where we saw a number of police officers sitting on the floor looking shocked, and in the middle of the floor was a pile of clothes about 3 ft high.

Having been looking for Chris for about 5 or more hours, I was told to go a police station where they may have some information. This I did and waited for my brother and brother-in-law to arrive. Following this, around 11pm, we were told to go to the temporary mortuary, where Chris was all the time. Having identified Chris, the police wanted certain information from me. Apart from the relevant information, the only interest they had was about alcohol and had we consumed any. I can only think the police needed time to get their story right, though why they would need that time to keep a father away from his dead son I don’t know.

On leaving the gym with Betty Thorp and leaving the ground to look for Chris, there were a large number of press. They were shouting over to me, ‘Do you have any comment to make about Liverpool supporters urinating on the dead and stealing from the dead?’”

Those are Barry’s own words.

Let us hope that tonight we are a step closer to the full disclosure of the documents that the families need. I have been asked to raise some questions. The families need to be satisfied that they have all the information, otherwise many will wonder whether they know the truth or not. Why did certain things happen? Who took the decisions? What was discussed by police officers? Why were changes made to the notes of junior officers? What discussions took place between politicians? What influence did the culture of the time have? Why were the ambulances not allowed on the pitch? Why were fans pushed back into the enclosure as they tried to escape?

Some of these questions were answered in Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry, but other answers are still needed, and the truth may be different from what was said at the time, and the truth may be different from what is in the Cabinet papers. Did police officers agree a line? Why did the press say that Liverpool fans stole from the dead and urinated on the bodies? Why did The Sun vilify the dead and show them and their families such disrespect?

Why was the most experienced senior police officer in South Yorkshire removed from his duties, yet not replaced with someone who understood how to balance safety with control? That person who knew in 1987 to delay the start of the same game was not there in 1989. I attended that game in 1987 and I remember how dangerous it could have been on that occasion. The same thing could have happened that year, but the police preparation was different.

The culture at football matches in the 1970s and 1980s was a disgrace. There was no balance between dealing with football-related violence and antisocial behaviour on the one hand, and public safety on the other. Anyone who watched football at that time experienced the ill-treatment of fans. The vast majority of us who watched football went to watch football, not to engage in violence, but the culture was such that safety was of no interest to those in charge of policing football, so people were pushed back into the central pen as they tried to escape, ambulances were prevented from coming on to the pitch, and the worst of the media lied about the dead and their grieving families.

The families of the 96 need the truth. They need to believe that they have all the facts. If the Government release their papers, they need to release all the papers once and for all. I heard the explanation from the Home Secretary about why the Government will withhold some personal details, but I caution her. The families and the wider community have faced countless obstacles, insults and setbacks—

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and enabling me to clarify the point. The Government will not withhold any details. Any decision about redaction—and it should be minimal redaction—will be taken by the panel. The hon. Gentleman referred to personal details. It will be for the panel to discuss with the families whether personal details should be redacted, and that decision will be taken jointly. The Government will not redact anything in the papers that they release.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that clarification. She has made that point three times now, and it is extremely important that she is firm about it. It is the families’ perception that matters. They need to have total confidence. That is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). The families need to have every confidence that the information released is all the information. That is what I am trying to achieve by pushing that point with the Home Secretary.

The families have faced countless obstacles, insults and setbacks as they have pursued their campaign for justice and for the truth, so we need to be very sure that all the information is released and nothing is hidden. Full disclosure must mean full disclosure.

Licensing Hours (Queen's Diamond Jubilee)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing a consultation on proposals to make an order to relax licensing hours to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations for the period Saturday 2 June to Tuesday 5 June 2012. The proposed order will extend licensed opening hours on Friday 1 June to l am on Saturday 2 June 2012, and on Saturday 2 June to l am on Sunday 3 June 2012, for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of regulated entertainment and late night refreshment by licensed premises in England and Wales.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of “exceptional international, national or local significance”. A “licensing hours order” overrides existing opening hours in licensed premises, that is, any premises with a premises licence or club premises certificate, and can apply to a period of up to four days. An order may apply to all licensed premises in England and Wales, or be restricted to premises in one or more specified areas. It is also possible to impose different opening hours on different days during the relaxation period and to allow different licensing hours for different licensable activities.

The Government consider that, as the Queen’s diamond jubilee is an occasion for national celebration, licensing hours should be relaxed in all licensed premises in England and Wales. However, we are mindful that late night drinking can lead to crime and disorder and public nuisance. On this basis, we are proposing a modest relaxation of licensing hours until l am on each of two days and intend to restrict the order to the sale of alcohol in pubs, clubs and anywhere else where alcohol is consumed on the premises and to regulated entertainment such as live and recorded music, dancing, plays and films. We are also limiting the order to the nights of Friday 1 June and Saturday 2 June 2012, as these are the days when people are most likely to want to celebrate.

The consultation will be published today (Wednesday 12 October) on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/consultations. A copy has also been placed in the House Library.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the British public safe and free. That means protecting them from crime, terrorism and other threats, but it also means defending our democratic institutions, our liberties and our way of life. This Government are determined to cut crime and reduce the risk of terrorism, at the same time as we restore the freedoms and liberties that define British society.

[Mr Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give way?

[Mrs May]

I can never resist my hon. Friend, although I give way always with a certain degree of trepidation and a suspicion that one word will always come into his question.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary—and may I congratulate her on her staunch statement at the party conference on the repeal of the Human Rights Act? As she has not yet an opportunity to do so, would she like to reaffirm on the Floor of the House that she would like to see it repealed?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. At the general election, Conservative Members, of course, stood on a manifesto that promised to do just that. As I have said, we will also bring forward some changes to the immigration rules to ensure what we consider to be the correct balance in the operation of article 8 of the human rights convention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was trying to tempt me to go down a road that I know I should not go down any further on Third Reading of this Bill. Let me return to the point I was making about the balance between keeping the public safe and defending our liberties.

For 13 years the previous Administration chipped away at those freedoms and liberties, and in doing so, they did not protect the public. They chipped away at the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Not only did they fail to take the DNA profiles of all of those guilty of a crime; they also provided for the indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of more than 1 million innocent people. They treated more than a quarter of the whole work force—some 11 million people—as potential abusers of children and vulnerable adults, by requiring them to be monitored as part of an overbearing vetting and barring system.

The previous Government chipped away at the right to liberty by seeking to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 and even 90 days—until forced by the will of this Parliament to settle for 28 days. They then made 28 days the norm rather than the exception. They chipped away at the historic right of trial by jury; they chipped away at the notion that people should be able to live in safety and security in their own homes by creating hundreds of new powers of entry; and they chipped away at our right to privacy by creating a number of enormous Government databases—the national identity register and ContactPoint being but the worst examples.

The Bill continues the work of this Government in repairing the damage done to our traditional freedoms and historic civil liberties, while at the same time taking a careful and proportionate approach to protecting the public. In adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the national DNA database, it strikes the right balance between protecting our communities and protecting the rights of the innocent. When people are convicted or cautioned for a recordable offence, their DNA and fingerprints will be retained indefinitely, exactly as happens now. In all cases in which DNA and fingerprints are taken on arrest, they will be subject to a speculative search so that past offenders cannot evade justice, exactly as happens now. Under this Government, criminals who leave their DNA at a crime scene will not be able to escape justice if they are arrested again.

Moreover, we are now taking the DNA of all convicted prisoners, including hundreds who were convicted for the most serious offences such as murder and rape. That is something that the last Government failed to do. In June last year, we started a programme to identify individuals in the community who have previously been convicted of either a sexual offence or homicide, and whom the last Government failed to place on the DNA database. That process has so far identified more than 13,000 people whose identities have been passed to local police forces, and we are now working with the police to find the individuals and obtain samples. When someone is not convicted of an offence, however, there will be strict limits on the period during which that person’s DNA and fingerprints can be retained. That is exactly as it should be: justice is not served, and our communities are not made safer, by the stockpiling of the DNA and fingerprints of hundreds of thousands of innocent people for year after year.

The Bill includes sensible measures to help to maintain public confidence in the use of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition systems. CCTV is a valuable crime-fighting tool, which also helps to reduce the fear of crime—we saw that most recently after the summer’s riots—but it will not be able to continue to deliver such benefits if cameras are perceived to be spying on communities, or if they simply do not work as they should. We saw that most recently in the west midlands, where the installation of CCTV systems without the support of the local community meant that public confidence was lost and the cause of community safety was set back. By providing for a code of practice overseen by a new surveillance camera commissioner, the Bill will help to ensure that CCTV retains public support and therefore continues to be an effective tool in fighting crime.

The Bill also applies much-needed common sense to the criminal records regime and the vetting and barring scheme. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: the protection of children and vulnerable adults is of paramount importance to this Government, and robust systems for employment vetting play a vital part in ensuring that it is provided, but tying up employers and voluntary organisations in red tape and bureaucracy does no one any good. I do not think it is sensible to force some 11 million people to register with a Government agency, and I do not really think—and I doubt that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) really thinks—that 11 million people should be continually monitored.

There was a real danger that the very scale of the vetting and barring scheme designed by the previous Administration would create a culture of irresponsibility in which employers felt that it was not up to them to protect children or vulnerable adults in their care. Employers must take their responsibilities seriously, and when innocent people are treated like suspects, it is society that suffers.

The Bill has been much improved by the process of scrutiny undertaken by this House. I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their detailed and forensic examination of it, and I thank all Members who contributed to the debates on Report.

[Andrew Miller]

Unfortunately we did not manage to complete our scrutiny, because of the timetabling of the Bill. One issue that was brought to my attention by Universities UK was the potential for application of the Freedom of Information Act to impede international collaboration in research. That was dealt with in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, and I tried to insert a parallel provision in this Bill. Will the right hon. Lady instruct the appropriate Minister to meet representatives of Universities UK to discuss the issue as a matter of urgency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I understand that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been very helpful.

[Mrs May]

I think the hon. Gentleman, and I take a different view on the issue he raises about scientific research and the application of freedom of information provisions. However, although we disagree, I am happy to ensure that an appropriate Minister will be available to meet Universities UK and discuss this matter with it.

I have already paid tribute to the members of the Committee and to all Members who have contributed to our various debates on the Bill. I wish to pay particular tribute to the tireless and sterling work done by the Department’s Under-Secretaries, my hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). They have steered the Bill through its parliamentary stages with great skill—and, I must say, significant patience in dealing with all the issues that have been raised. I also thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill.

As a result of Members’ scrutiny, the Committee and subsequently the House have agreed a number of important changes to the Bill. We have clarified the circumstances in which DNA may be retained for a period where someone has been arrested for, but not charged with, a serious offence. We have further clarified the extent of regulated activity, including bringing those working with 16 and 17-year-olds within scope and making provision for statutory guidance to be issued to regulated activity providers. We have also provided for the establishment of the new disclosure and barring service to give a more efficient end-to-end service to employers and voluntary organisations. Further, we have strengthened the protection for motorists in private car parks at the same time as we have provided further help for landowners to combat unauthorised parking.

We are fortunate that in this country, it has not taken bloody wars and violent revolutions to weave into the very fabric of our society and parliamentary democracy the freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear. We take them for granted at our peril. Once lost, they are not easily regained. They need to be nurtured and protected. It is in this spirit that I wholeheartedly commend the Protection of Freedoms Bill to the House, and look forward to its safe and speedy passage through the other place.

Control Order Powers

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Written Statements

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

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.

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

The future of the control order regime

The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Bill, which makes provision for the abolition of control orders and their replacement with a new, less intrusive and more focused regime, is continuing its parliamentary passage. A copy of the Bill can be found on Parliament’s web site. The home page for the Bill is:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/terrorismpreventionandinvestigationmeasures.html.

The control order system will continue to operate until its replacement is in force.

The Government’s counter-terrorism and security powers review concluded that there may be exceptional circumstances where more stringent measures may be required to protect the public than those available under the TPIM Bill. Such circumstances would be a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means. The Government committed to preparing draft emergency legislation for introduction should such circumstances arise. The draft enhanced TPIM Bill was published on 1 September so that it can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter

As explained in previous quarterly statements, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During the reporting period, one CORG was held in relation to some of the orders in force at the time. CORGs in relation to the remaining cases were held just before this reporting period. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.

During the period 11 June 2011 to 10 September 2011, no non-derogating control orders were made or served. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period. One control order was revoked during this reporting period as it was no longer considered necessary. One control order, made in a previous quarter but never served, expired during this reporting period.

In total, as of 10 September, there were 11 control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. One individual subject to a control order was living in the Metropolitan police district; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas.

Three individuals were charged with breaching their control order obligations during this period.

During this reporting period, 76 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-two requests to modify control order obligations were refused.

Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Two appeals have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period no appeals were lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.

Seven judgments have been handed down in relation to control order cases during this reporting period; five by the High Court and two by the Court of Appeal.

On 13 June 2011 a judgment was handed down by the High Court in relation to the appeal brought by BG under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. In BG v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1478 (Admin), the High Court upheld the Secretary of State’s decision.

On 18 July 2011 the High Court handed down a judgment following the Court review of the imposition of a control order under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BF [2011] EWHC 1878 (Admin), the High Court upheld the decision to make the control order.

On 22 July 2011, the High Court handed down a judgment in relation to an appeal by a controlled individual under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In BM v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1969 (Admin), the High Court upheld the Secretary of State’s decision.

The High Court handed down a further judgment on 25 July 2011 in relation to two individuals who were each subject to control orders for only a short period of time. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. CB and BP [2011] EWHC 1990 (Admin), the Court ruled that it was appropriate for it to exercise its case management powers to, in effect, terminate the court review of the imposition of their control orders. The Court also ordered the discharge of the anonymity orders made in these cases. Abid NASEER (CB) and Faraz KHAN (BP) have been granted permission by the High Court to appeal the decision to terminate the Court proceedings.

On 29 July 2011 the High Court handed down a judgment following the Court review of the imposition of a control order under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. CD [2011] EWHC 2087 (Admin), the High Court upheld the decision to make the control order.

The first judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in this reporting period relates to the appeal brought by AM against the decision of the High Court to uphold his control order. In AM v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 710, handed down on 21 June 2011, the Court of Appeal dismissed AM’s appeal.

The Court of Appeal also handed down judgment in this reporting period in the context of the appeal brought by AH, an individual formerly subject to a control order. In AH v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 787, handed down on 6 July 2011, the Court of Appeal dismissed AH’s appeal.

Most full judgments are available at http://www.bailii.org/.

Report on Phone Hacking (Government Response)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the 13th report of the Home Affairs Committee into the “Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications”.

The Committee’s report highlights a number of issues arising from the activities of journalists at News International and their associates, as well as the failings of the police investigations into those activities.

The Committee is to be commended for producing such a thorough report and for producing it so quickly after the final evidence sessions, so that it could inform the parliamentary debate in July and also sit usefully alongside other work that the Government have commissioned in this area, including:

the inquiry being led by Lord Justice Leveson, commissioned by the Prime Minister;

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s report considering instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties, which I have commissioned; and

the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s report into their experience of investigating police corruption and any lessons that can be learned for the police service, which I have also commissioned.

Many of the issues highlighted by the report are for the police service and the Government believe that the report is a valuable contribution to the debate around changes needed to police culture.

Alongside the Government’s response to the Home Affairs Committee’s report, we are also publishing the first report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission on their experience of police corruption. Both documents will be available on the Home Office website and copies will be available from the Vote Office.

Voluntary Gender Equality Reporting

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Written Statements

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

“Building a Fairer Britain” (December 2010) announced the Government’s intention to work with business and others to develop a voluntary approach to greater transparency on gender equality in the private and voluntary sectors.

The “Think, Act, Report” initiative being launched with business leaders today sets out a step-by-step approach to improving transparency. It encourages employers to undertake their own analysis of gender equality in their organisation, take action where appropriate to address issues identified, and in time report publicly. To support participating employers, the Government have produced a framework containing the measures which would be most useful for employers to monitor and report on, and ACAS is publishing new guidance.

The Government will review annually the number of companies releasing information, and its quality, to assess whether this approach is successful. A copy of the baseline report on voluntary gender equality reporting will be placed in the Library of the House. This sets out the aims of the “Think, Act, Report” initiative, looks at the existing evidence on how many employers currently engage in monitoring and reporting on gender equality, and explains how we will measure progress.

Home Department

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

T4. The Equality and Human Rights Commission posted qualified accounts in 2009-10 and the auditors found poor financial management, poor record keeping and poor leadership. What specific actions will the Minister take to rectify this problem and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted by that organisation?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue. The qualifications, of course, represent spend for periods under the previous Government and we have been absolutely clear with the EHRC from the start that any problems with its accounts under this Government are likely to result in financial consequences for it. In March, we set out our plans to change the EHRC. Our consultation closed in June and we will be responding shortly, but we have already announced that we will reduce its budget by more than half from £55 million in 2010-11 to £28.8 million in 2014-15.

[Official Report, 12 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 751-52.]

Letter of correction from Mrs Theresa May:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 12 September 2011. The correct answer should have been:

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue. The qualifications, of course, represent spend for periods under the previous Government and we have been absolutely clear with the EHRC from the start that any problems with its accounts under this Government are likely to result in financial consequences for it. In March, we set out our plans to change the EHRC. Our consultation closed in June and we will be responding shortly, but we have already announced that we will reduce its budget by more than half from £55 million in 2010-11 to £26.8 million in 2014-15.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

13. What her policy is on the future size of the police officer work force.

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

With permission, may I briefly update the House in relation to the appointment of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner? The Mayor of London and I conducted interviews with the candidates this morning, and I expect to make a recommendation to the palace later today.

We have set a challenging but manageable funding settlement for the police service. It is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers that are deployed within the available resource.

[Nick Smith]

May I thank the Secretary of State for her response? Will she congratulate Gwent police authority, which was recently assessed by inspectors as performing well? Can she explain why more than £100 million will be spent on elected police commissioners, given that there is no guarantee that such performance will be sustained, let alone improved, with them? Would not the money be better spent on keeping more police on our streets?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask questions like that, he really should get his figures right, because of course, the figure to be spent on police and crime commissioners is not £100 million. I am happy to join him in congratulating Gwent police. I had a very good meeting the other day with the chief constable of Gwent police, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on matters relating to domestic violence. He talked about some of the excellent work that Gwent police had done on that.

[Rachel Reeves]

With savage cuts to West Yorkshire police, including 750 fewer police officers and up to 1,500 fewer support staff, how does the Home Secretary think that tackling burglary in Leeds will be improved over the next few years?

[Mrs May]

In relation to policing, we are ensuring not only that police have the tools and powers that they need to deal with issues out on the street, but that they are freed up from a lot of the bureaucracy that was introduced by the previous Government, which kept too many police officers behind desks and not out on the streets.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will not be seduced by the argument that, inevitably, more police officers means more visibility? The fact remains that there are more police on patrol on Monday morning than on Friday night, and that only 12% of officers are available at any one time to be visible to the British public. Will she tell the House what she will do to ensure that we get visibility from existing police numbers?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and he is absolutely right. He has put particular focus on this issue over the years and has looked into it in some detail. It is not just a question of numbers, as it is often portrayed by Opposition Members; it is about how police officers are deployed. It is about getting them out on the streets at the time that they are most needed. As my hon. Friend has seen in the past, a lot of that is about reducing the bureaucracy that police officers deal with, reducing the targets, and letting them get out there on the streets.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that, in Northamptonshire, the chief constable is transferring police officers from the back office to the front line, that the visibility of police on patrol will go up, and that crime is falling?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I had a very good visit to Northampton recently and saw some of the excellent work being done by the police there. I heard directly from the chief constable what he is doing to ensure, as my hon. Friend says, that he cuts back-office work for police officers and gets them out on the streets, which results in the impact that the public want—they want to see people out on their streets.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London have agreed on their choices for the name of the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

When the CSR was agreed, there were no disorders in London, but the acting commissioner has said that the thin blue line was very thin during the recent disorders. If a case is made for additional resources as a result of the various inquiries that are being conducted, will the Home Secretary revisit those figures?

[Mrs May]

If I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, I expect to be having a further conversation with the Mayor after Home Office questions, but I hope to be sending a recommendation to the palace, and I firmly expect to do so, later today.

In relation to the funding figures for the Metropolitan police, the right hon. Gentleman will know full well that we are providing support to it, and indeed to other forces, as a result of the riots that took place recently. However, I am pleased to say that the previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner was able to increase visibility with police on the streets within the resources he had, by the simple and effective method of moving from police patrolling in pairs to single-patrol policing.

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

It is intriguing to discover that the Home Secretary and the Mayor have not yet agreed on the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

The previous question was about the comprehensive spending review. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary estimated that 16,000 officers would be cut as a result of the CSR. Since then, the police have faced substantial additional costs of £125 million from policing the August riots. The Home Secretary has said that she is supporting the Met police and other forces, but the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his letter that this will be only

“where forces are not in a position to cover the costs of recent events themselves”.

That leaves the police with no clarity at a time when their budgets are already being cut. Will she therefore now guarantee that no police force will have to cut any officers or services to pay for policing the riots, and will she stand by the Prime Minister’s commitment to pay this extra money to the police?

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely clear—and has been made clear to police forces affected by the riots—that police forces should put in claims to the Home Office and that we will look at them. We will be looking at claims for operational costs and riot damage costs. On the right hon. Lady’s first statement, however, I do not think that she should try to transpose on to this Government the sort of disputes that took place within the previous Government. As I understand, from reading the recent book by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), she even disputed the extent of the deficit—as she and other Labour Members appear still to do.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am afraid that the Home Secretary did not answer the question. She said that the Home Office is “looking” at the claims. That provides no certainty for the police or clarity for police budgets. Police officers are having to make decisions right now about making people redundant. The truth is that she is happy to find extra resources for elected police chiefs, but she will not find the extra money for the police. She is spending more than £100 million on elected police chiefs that no one wants when she could spend the same money on the costs of policing the riots or on 3,000 extra constables in Olympics year. Does she think that the public would prefer the money to be spent on elected police chiefs or on constables who will cut crime?

[Mrs May]

I think that the public want a Government who actually look after taxpayers’ money, which is exactly what we will do. The police forces know that there is a process by which they can put in claims to the Home Office. Those claims will be properly considered, and as we have made clear, the Home Office will be making funds available in relation to the matters that the right hon. Lady has raised.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

2. Whether she has considered bringing forward amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to ensure that proposed police panels are representative of the geographical area they will serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

3. What recent progress she has made in tackling bogus colleges.

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

Since May 2010, the UK Border Agency has revoked the sponsor licence of 69 institutions. Our recent reforms of the student route include the introduction of new oversight provisions and a requirement for all sponsors to become highly trusted.

[David Morris]

In addition to the Government’s new reforms of the student route, what enforcement action have the Government taken to tackle abuse in the student visa system?

[Mrs May]

The UK Border Agency has been active in relation to the new rules that have been introduced and is looking at a number of colleges. In addition to the licences of 69 colleges and education providers being revoked, the total number whose licences have been suspended—of which that 69 forms part—is 145. We take very seriously the need to monitor the obligations that we have set out.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Has net migration increased or decreased over the last 12 months?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the Home Secretary that her answer should be pertinent in the context of tackling bogus colleges.

[Mrs May]

The most up-to-date figures do not cover the last 12 months. What we saw as a result of the last Labour Government’s policies was net migration going up. Dealing with bogus colleges and education providers is part of our way of bringing it down.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government must, of course, tackle bogus colleges, but also minimise the impact of their plans on private organisations such as the Organisation for Tourism and Hospitality Management, which is based in my constituency. It cannot now provide work experience to students—often they are from the US—even though it has a good record of students returning at the end of their studies.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising a specific case, which we will look at. We are very careful in the rules that we introduce. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and I spend a lot of time listening to individual colleges and to representative bodies of colleges and education providers to ensure that we get it right. We want to ensure that people get a proper education when they are here. That is what our rules are focused on, but I would be happy to look at the case that my right hon. Friend has raised.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the potential effects on English language teaching centres of changes to the Tier 4 (General) Student visa accreditation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As I said in the House last month, the recent civil unrest was a dark time for everybody who cares about their community and their country, and I realise that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency was affected. As part of the work of the inter-ministerial group on gangs, I have commissioned an assessment of the role played by gangs in the recent disorder, and I will report our findings to the House in October.

[Mr Umunna]

I thank the Home Secretary for her response, and should declare an interest as the chair of the London gangs forum.

I have been told by my local police that gangs were not necessarily co-ordinating all the activity in our area, although gang culture is a big ongoing issue for us. How much of the £18 million that the Government have committed to tackling this issue—funding that will help police and local community groups—will directly benefit the London borough of Lambeth?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. If I may, I will write to him with the specific information he has requested about Lambeth. London as a whole is one of the three areas, along with Greater Manchester and the west midlands, that are particularly benefiting from the funding that has been made available, as they are areas where the gang problem is a particular issue. The hon. Gentleman is right that, notwithstanding whatever role gangs played in the riots and unrest of early August, we must deal with gang culture, because, sadly, it is a problem that blights too many of our communities.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Are the events of early August not a wake-up call to the fact that the problem of gang culture, which has been around for a long time, needs to be taken more seriously? Although tough enforcement action against known gang members is part of the solution, is it not clear that a much wider approach will be required to tackle the problem?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the inter-ministerial group on gangs is not only looking at the enforcement issue; we are looking at other matters, such as preventing young people from getting involved in gangs and diverting them from gangs when they become gang members. We are examining examples of good work from both outside the UK and within it—for example, in Strathclyde and Waltham Forest.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

16. What steps she is taking to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.

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

The new Prevent strategy was published on 7 June 2011. It outlines three key objectives: responding to the ideological challenge of terrorism; supporting individuals at risk of radicalisation; and working with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation.

[Henry Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, and indeed the country, that we will not see a repeat of the scandalous situation under the previous Labour Government where public money intended for counter-terrorism actually ended up funding some extremist activity?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As far as this Government are concerned, extremist organisations have no role in delivering the Prevent strategy, and if organisations do not support British values, we do not intend to fund them. Organisations funded by central Government must clearly demonstrate that they are working in the public interest. In this area, the transparency that has been adopted by this Government, both at central and local level, will be an important part of the process of enabling people to see where the money is being spent and to challenge that, if necessary.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

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

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

Yesterday was, of course, the 10th anniversary of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. None of us will ever forget the events of that day or those attacks on our own shores, including the 7/7 London bombings and the decades of terror campaigns waged in Northern Ireland. The Government remain as committed as ever to preventing future acts of terrorism and keeping the public safe. Following the death of bin Laden, al-Qaeda is weaker than at any time over the past decade. New threats will evolve, but so will our security measures to counter them. While we remember the victims, we must also remain vigilant. I commend those, particularly our front-line emergency workers, who continue to work against terrorism and risk their lives to protect ours.

[Stephen Phillips]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House about the meetings she has had with chief constables and colleagues following the recent rioting, which was of great concern to so many of my constituents, to ensure that there is no repetition and that those involved are speedily brought to justice?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that question. We have had a number of meetings with chief constables and others. As I said in an earlier answer, I am chairing an inter-ministerial group that works on tackling gangs—it is looking at that particular aspect of the riots—and we have already had a number of discussions about public order policing, in particular. I have, of course, asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the issue and advise on guidance for forces on matters such as tactics and the number of police that need to be trained in dealing with riots.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is now 15 months since the joint thematic review on the nature and culture of gangs reported in June 2010. The review was carried out by the chief inspector of prisons, the chief inspector of constabulary and the chief inspector of probation. They concluded that

“there was no integrated joint national strategy”

and so agencies had

“missed significant opportunities to work with young people involved or likely to get involved in gangs.”

Can she say when we are likely to get a response to that review from the Government?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of a review that was, of course, reporting on what had taken place under the Labour Government. We are undertaking a particular piece of work on gangs, bringing a number of Departments together to examine the issues and work out how we can best address the gang culture and prevent young people from getting involved in gangs. In doing that, we are doing what is absolutely right: we are looking at not only the evidence that has come before, but at practice on the ground today. We are finding out what is working today and looking at how to extend that good practice to other parts of the country.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T3. During the recent disturbances, children in Banbury as young as 14 sought to use Facebook to incite public disorder. Will my hon. Friend update the House on her discussions with providers of social networks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

T4. The Equality and Human Rights Commission posted qualified accounts in 2009-10 and the auditors found poor financial management, poor record keeping and poor leadership. What specific actions will the Minister take to rectify this problem and to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted by that organisation?[Official Report, 14 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 9-10MC.]

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue. The qualifications, of course, represent spend for periods under the previous Government and we have been absolutely clear with the EHRC from the start that any problems with its accounts under this Government are likely to result in financial consequences for it. In March, we set out our plans to change the EHRC. Our consultation closed in June and we will be responding shortly, but we have already announced that we will reduce its budget by more than half from £55 million in 2010-11 to £28.8 million in 2014-15.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. When it was announced that the Government would do away with the National Policing Improvement Agency, Ministers acknowledged that it was important for the functions undertaken by that agency to go to some other organisation and for there to be great clarity, but 14 months on we are still not clear. When will the Home Secretary tell us exactly which functions will go to which body as a result of the abolition of the NPIA?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have already identified a number of functions and where they will move to. For example, certain issues, such as non-IT procurement, have come back into the Home Office. We are working with the police forces to set up a police-owned company to deal with IT, which is a significant part of what has been undertaken previously by the NPIA. We will be making announcements about the exact destination for the other aspects of the NPIA’s work in the coming weeks.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

T5. I am sure the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will agree that police officers need the best and most professional training. Does he therefore welcome moves by colleges such as Loughborough college in my constituency to offer a police, law and community course, which is already being used by at least three of our police forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

T6. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Thames Valley police on halving crime at this year’s Reading festival compared with last year and, more generally, on demonstrating that it is possible to protect visible front-line policing while finding budget savings?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, to which I am very happy to respond, not least because I could hear Reading festival from my home even with the doors and windows shut. A significant number of people attended that event, which has had problems with crime in the past, so Thames Valley police are to be congratulated on the work they did this year to reduce crime. The Thames Valley force is a very good example of a force that is committed to ensuring that it retains front-line and response policing while also cutting costs by, for example, collaborating with other forces.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The chief constable of Greater Manchester says that he is closing police stations to make his force more like Argos. Does the Home Secretary agree with that crazy comparison? My experience of Argos is that the local branch never has what you want and you have to travel miles to find it.

[Mrs May]

The chief constable of Greater Manchester has been absolutely clear that it is possible to make cuts in budgets but that it is also necessary to make changes in and transform the way that policing is delivered. He is committed, as are other chief constables, to ensuring that he delivers a quality service to the people of Greater Manchester.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

T7. Given that so many people were left for years—sometimes for more than a decade—with uncertain immigration status, creating wrenching circumstances if their claims for status fail now, does the Minister consider that it was immoral of the previous Labour Government to lose control of the immigration system, and will he assure the House that he will not do likewise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the Home Secretary place in the Library a definition, with examples, of what constitutes police back-office and, as we have heard this afternoon, middle-office facilities? Does she accept that part of the front line is 24-hour policing with 24-hour police stations in our major urban centres?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that the work on the definition of the back, middle and front-line functions has been done by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, not by the Home Office. A report defining those functions is available from HMIC, and I am happy to make sure that it is available in the Library.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Crime levels in north Wales dropped by 45% over the 13 years that Labour was in power. Over the past year, crime levels have gone up. Do Ministers accept any responsibility for the increase in crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend condemn the antisocial behaviour and racism of the Islamist demonstration near the commemoration of 9/11 yesterday? Does she agree that that demonstration should not have been allowed to take place so close to the commemoration, and will she take steps to stop that happening again?

[Mrs May]

Anybody who engages in criminal activity should be dealt with appropriately. I am pleased to inform the House that I understand that nine arrests were made at the time yesterday, but further arrests have been made. The number up to date is 33, but that may change.

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

The recent disturbances in Salford had a large element of organised criminality. The Home Secretary is aware of Operation Gulf in Salford, led by Superintendent Kevin Mulligan, which has had significant success against organised criminals. With the cuts that are proposed in Greater Manchester, what support can she continue to ensure goes into successful operations to tackle serious and organised crime?

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady knows, chief constables will be making decisions about particular local operations that they wish to undertake, but the Government are giving much greater power to the police to deal with serious organised crime through the creation, in due course, of the national crime agency. We touch far too few organised crime groups in the UK. Organised crime costs this country £30 billion to £40 billion a year. The NCA will help to tackle that.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Following this weekend’s utterly despicable revelations of the way in which 24 of my constituents have been kept as slaves, some for 15 years, may I wholeheartedly commend the robust action of Bedfordshire police in bringing that to light and putting it right? Will the Government please pay particular attention to the issue of internal trafficking in the United Kingdom, given that 17 of those 24 slaves were British citizens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Youth workers up and down the country were asked to work on the streets during the recent disturbances, but many of those workers are being made redundant. Has the Minister examined the probable impact on crime and antisocial behaviour of these cuts to youth work?

[Mrs May]

In the work of the inter-ministerial group on gangs, we will of course look at effective ways of dealing with gang culture and with young people who get caught up in criminality, but I say to the hon. Lady and her hon. and right hon. Friends that the evidence indicates that the Government, in various forms, often spend a lot of money on individuals and their families, but sadly not all of that is spent effectively. Our task is to ensure that money is focused effectively to deal with the problems.

Public Disorder

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Public Disorder.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that in view of the enormous interest in the debate I have imposed a limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. There is no limit on Front-Bench speeches and I leave it to the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to tailor contributions in the light of the level of interest.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The last five days have been a dark time for everybody who cares about their community and their country. Violence, arson and looting in several of our towns and cities, often openly in front of television cameras, have destroyed homes, ruined livelihoods and taken lives. As long as we wish to call ourselves a civilised society, such disorder has no place in Britain.

I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery of the policemen and women who have worked to restore order on our streets. In particular, I know that hon. Members will want to lend their support to the police officers who have suffered injuries in the course of their duties, and the whole House will want to send condolences to the families of the three men so senselessly killed in Birmingham on Tuesday night.

The violence of the last five days raises many searching questions, and the answers may be painful to hear and difficult to put right. Why is it that so many people are prepared to behave in this way? Why does a violent gang culture exist in so many of our towns and cities? Why did the police find it so hard to prevent or contain the violence? It will take time to answer those questions fully and adequately, but I will take each of them in turn.

First are the reasons behind that behaviour. We must never forget that the only cause of a crime is a criminal. Everybody, no matter what their background or circumstances, has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Those who make the wrong decision, who engage in criminality, must be identified, arrested and punished, and we will make sure that happens.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Lady not recognise what the Prime Minister said earlier? Every crime has a context. Is it not important, therefore, to have a full and proper inquiry, led by somebody of the level and competence of Lord Scarman, to look at the wider context of all these events? Of course, as the Home Secretary says, stating the blindingly obvious, the acts are the responsibility of those who committed them.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister exactly the same question, and he gave a very clear answer. The Home Affairs Committee will consider the policing of the violence that has taken place over the past five days, and I will bring a report on gang culture and the number of gangs in our society—I will make further reference to it—to the House in October.

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

I commend the points that my right hon. Friend has made in opening the debate. Does she share the concern relayed by a number of hon. Members about the soft sentences for such disorder passed in the cases that have already gone through the courts? Does she share my concern that, although we talk about riots, the number of people charged with riot is very small? As these were riots, whoever is charged with an offence during the nights of disorder should punished accordingly.

[Mrs May]

We have been clear in encouraging those who are making decisions about charging and, indeed, those who will make sentencing decisions in the courts to consider these crimes in the context of the circumstances. My hon. Friend refers to the fact that no one has been charged with the very specific offence of riot. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are making the right charging decisions, in the context of ensuring that they recognise the impact that people being on the streets can have.

No one doubts that the violence that we have seen over the past five days is a symptom of something very deeply wrong with our society. Children celebrated as they smashed their way into shops. Men in sports cars arrived at stores to steal goods. Women tried on trainers before they stole them. A teaching assistant was caught looting. Thugs pretended to help a injured young man but robbed him. They are shocking images, but they are in fact symbols of a deeper malaise in our society.

Almost 2 million children are brought up in households in which no one works. One in three children leaves primary school unable to read, write and add up properly. We have the highest level of drug abuse in Europe. Almost 100 knife crimes are committed every day and nearly 1 million violent crimes every year. Half of all prisoners reoffend within a year of their release from prison. Those are serious social problems, and we cannot go on ignoring them. No one is pretending that there are easy answers to such deep-rooted problems, but they are the reasons why the reform of welfare, schools and the criminal justice system cannot wait.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady lays out the context of the difficult role that faces our police. In that context, is it not bizarre that the Government should choose to make such swingeing cuts to the Home Office budget and particularly to the police budget, in comparison with other budgets that have survived relatively intact? Why does she not fight her corner and ensure that we have enough police on the streets to do the job?

[Mrs May]

I am clear that there will be enough police on the streets to do the job that we and the public want them to do, and that police officers want to do. I say to any other Opposition Member who wants to make a similar point that I listened to the previous statement and it is now absolutely clear that the Labour party has abandoned any pretence of having a credible policy to deal with the deficit.

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

The Prime Minister said this morning that, all of sudden, the Met could turn out 16,000 people in a day, rather than the previous 6,000 or whatever the figure was. That does not take into account all the other policemen and women from all the other forces. How many Met police were in fact turned out, and how many came from other forces?

[Mrs May]

A significant number did indeed come from other forces. I do not want to give the right hon. Gentleman figures that are incorrect, so I will get the precise figures for him. It is right that the 16,000 figure that the Prime Minister spoke about included mutual aid from other forces. I pay tribute to all the forces around the United Kingdom that have been willing to provide support and trained police support units.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Is it also the right hon. Lady’s understanding that if a police authority has had to dip into its contingency fund to pay any of the additional costs of high police visibility, which we all understand have to be met, it will be recompensed—that there is no question of police authorities having to expend the money themselves?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has been involved in home affairs long enough to know that a scheme is available under which police forces can make special requests to the Home Office in relation to specific expenses that they have had to incur. There are some rules on how the scheme operates but, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are committed to providing support to police authorities, and therefore police forces, in relation to the financial implications of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. As the House will be aware, those costs could be significant, given the events on our streets.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, then make a little progress.

[Barbara Keeley]

Apropos police budgets, will the right hon. Lady comment on what it has been reported she was told by Greater Manchester police about what happened on Tuesday:

“We really didn’t have the staff, protection or resources to deal with it. I find it really, really frustrating and really worrying that people could have got killed.”

So overstretched were our officers in Greater Manchester, particularly in Salford, that apparently they reported to the Home Secretary that they could have been killed. It is not only Labour Members who are saying this; it is police officers, as well.

[Mrs May]

I was pleased to visit Greater Manchester police yesterday and to sit down with some of the officers—the most highly trained riot officers—who had been on the front line in Salford on Tuesday night. One of the most striking comments made by an officer was that he had looked up into the sky and it was dark because it was raining bricks. They were under extreme pressure that night, facing violence of a ferocity that they had not seen before. There were times in Salford when the police did not have sufficient numbers to deal with what was happening on the street, and they had to retreat and regroup both for their personal protection and to make sure that they could do their proper job of protection on the streets.

I can inform the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who asked how many of the 16,000 officers in London were Metropolitan Police Service officers, that more than 90% were.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I said I wanted to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), whose constituency was affected, rose earlier. If he still wishes to intervene, I will take his intervention next.

[Andrew Miller]

Following the right hon. Lady’s reply to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who speaks for the Welsh nationalists, can she give similar figures for Manchester and Liverpool, which also drew on resources from surrounding forces? We heard earlier about injuries sustained by Cheshire officers, for example. I think the figures ought to published and made available to everyone.

[Mrs May]

I could provide a map of where officers went around the country, but it was not a matter of simple exchanges between one force and another. Officers from one force will have gone to support another, with subsequent backfilling by officers from a further force. The whole point of the ACPO PNICC—police national information co-ordination centre—arrangement is that such movements around the country can be worked so that when a force asks for numbers to be increased, officers are available. The key element is that the officers in question are mainly in police support units—officers who are specially trained in public order—thereby ensuring that the officers on the streets have the right level of training.

[Frank Dobson]

In response to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Home Secretary said that no one had been charged with riot because the particular circumstances of riot had not arisen, or the charge was inappropriate. Will she confirm that that fact will not be used by the Metropolitan police to weasel out of providing the compensation that should be provided under the Riot (Damages) Act?

[Mrs May]

I think I can provide that guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My constituency was badly affected on Monday. I wanted to ask about the police cuts. The Prime Minister told us earlier that the budget cuts could be managed with no reductions in visible policing. As the Home Secretary knows, in London a large number of police sergeants are being taken out the leadership of safer neighbourhoods teams in a very visible way. Are we to take it that the Government think there is a different way of managing cuts in London from the one that is being implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

No. We are leaving police forces, as is appropriate, together with their police authorities, to decide in relation to budget what will happen. We are leaving chief constables to make operational decisions about how they do that. What is absolutely clear in relation to the Metropolitan police is that under the leadership of the previous Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police increased the availability of police in terms of the number of hours that would be spent and the amount of ground that could be covered by moving to the single patrols. They said, “There is a different way of doing this.” That is a good example of how such an innovative approach can improve the presence on the ground.

I shall now move on to the question of gang culture in many of our towns and cities. Six per cent. of young people are thought to belong to a gang of one kind or another. Gangs are inherently criminal. On average, entrenched gang members have 11 criminal convictions, and the average age for the first conviction of a gang member is just 15. They are also inherently violent. Gangs across the country are involved in the use and supply of drugs, firearms and knives. From talking to chief constables who have dealt with the violence of the past few days, it is clear that many of the perpetrators, but by no means all of them, are known gang members. So we have to do more to tackle gang culture.

We have already announced plans to provide £4 million in funding to London, Greater Manchester and the west midlands over the course of this year and next to tackle their gang, guns and knives problem. We are providing a further £4 million over two years to community organisations working to stop young people becoming involved in gangs, help young people get out of gangs and support parents to help their children, and we are working with the Prince’s Trust to support young people who want to prevent gang violence, through the new Ben Kinsella fund.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is clear that many of the perpetrators of these appalling crimes have been very young children indeed, and we know the limitations of the criminal law in relation to detention for young offenders who are under 14. Does my right hon. Friend agree that efforts to use restorative justice principles with young offenders, making them face up to the victims of their crimes and making them play their part in restoring the damage that they have done would be a good way to divert those young children from further involvement in the gang culture and in the crimes that we have seen?

[Mrs May]

I have long been a supporter of restorative justice where it is going to work. That is one of the key issues that we need to look at when we consider what is an appropriate way of dealing with individuals. Restorative justice has a record of dealing particularly well with those who are young and first offenders. However, sadly, it may be the case that even at a very young age, some of the people we are looking at who have been involved in the violence are not simply first offenders. It is a sad comment on our society that there may be those who have been involved as gang members in criminal activity previously. But we need to do more.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am conscious of the strictures that Mr Speaker put on the length of the debate. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) asked earlier to intervene, so I will give way to him.

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

I am grateful. Does the Home Secretary accept that the evidence from the police and the community in urban communities such as mine is that there are 40 or 50 serial serious criminals who are regularly the causes of most of the trouble and most of the crime, and who were involved in the past week’s activities? Will chief police officers and local police commanders assure us that such criminals are a central target for activity, so that they cannot sweep in the youngsters referred to in the previous question and others, who become the followers, but are following only because there is someone seriously criminal who leads?

[Mrs May]

I assure my right hon. Friend that the police are very clear that they want to identify and arrest all those who have been involved over the past few days, and they are conscious that that means not just those who find themselves caught up in it but the core criminals, who are well known to them. As a number of chief constables have been saying to me, they know a number of the gang members who have been involved because they have had interaction with them before.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I hope that hon. Members will bear with me and allow me to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the time available for the debate.

We need to help communities more in sharing ideas and expertise on how we can tackle their gang problems, so working with ACPO we will establish an ending gang violence team of experts drawn from across the country, from the police service, local authorities and the voluntary sector, to provide an up-to-date map of the scale of the problem and practical, on-the-ground expert advice to areas wanting to get on top of their gang problems.

In January we launched gang injunctions, which give the police the power to impose tough sanctions on adult gang members, such as barring them from entering certain parts of town, appearing in public with dogs or wearing their gang colours or emblems. As the Prime Minister said in his statement earlier today, we will now go further and introduce gang injunctions for young people under the age of 18, not just in pilot form but throughout the country. As the Prime Minister also said in his statement, and as I said in answer to a question, I will present a report to Parliament in October on a cross-Government programme to combat gangs.

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

I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have had to say so far, and I have heard already that we want the police to be able to surge in numbers in immediate crisis situations. The Home Secretary has now given a reassurance that the police will focus on the most prolific and serious offenders in our communities and she is now going into detail about how the police will work with a range of community partners to end gangs. There has to be a limit to what the police can achieve, and in Greater Manchester we will have 1,500 fewer of them at the end of this period. Cuts do need to be made, but at the moment a 20% cut genuinely needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the incidents and the severity of the events we have seen.

[Mrs May]

I pay tribute to the way in which the right hon. Lady has entered into the debate generally. Her constituency was particularly badly affected and is a particular example of criminal gangs operating on the streets in order to test and press the police. I will give the same answer to her in relation to police budgets as I gave earlier and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a number of Members who raised the issue. At the end of the spending review period, the police will have the numbers to enable them to deploy in the way they have during the last few days. It is possible to make cuts in police budgets by taking money out of matters such as better procurement to ensure that we can achieve the cuts that we need to make while still leaving police able to do the job that we want them to do and that they want to do.

In January 2011, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Peter Fahy, told the Home Affairs Committee:

“we have large numbers of officers still in roles that do not require the skills, the powers and expertise of a police officer. It is through that route over the next four years where we will achieve quite a bit of savings.”

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the emphasis that she is putting on the gang culture, which the Prime Minister himself referred to when he said that it was a culture that glorifies violence and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities. Does she agree that the legal restraints that are placed upon, for example, the police, social services, teachers and parents, in imposing discipline in the home, in school or elsewhere, directly derive from a number of legal constraints that come from, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, which needs to be repealed? We cannot deal with the culture and with the question of rights and responsibilities unless we deal with one of the root causes, which is this idea that people can do anything and get away with it.

[Mrs May]

We are taking steps to deal with the culture, and one example is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is taking steps to ensure that we restore discipline in our schools. My hon. Friend refers to the Human Rights Act, which was referred to during questions to the Prime Minister, and my hon. Friend is well aware that we are looking at the issue both through the Bill of Rights commission that has been set up by the Ministry of Justice and my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and work that we are doing with the ECHR.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I ask hon. Members to bear with me, because I am very conscious of the fact that many will wish to speak in the debate.

I want to move on to the questions about the police reaction to the violence, because I know that hon. Members, like members of the public, are concerned about the speed and quality of the police response. That response has changed over the past five days and has differed across the country. We need to appraise it honestly and bluntly and learn lessons where things have gone wrong. As we know, the first disturbances in London began in Tottenham on Saturday night. The police operation began with the originally peaceful protest about the death of Mark Duggan. Officers were understandably cautious about how they policed the protest, but as the violence began they lost control and a fully fledged riot followed.

On Sunday night, with Tottenham calm, the police managed to nip in the bud trouble at Oxford Circus, but the violence spread to Enfield and Brixton. On Monday night, the number of officers deployed in London increased to 6,000, two or three times more than there are on a normal evening, but still that was not enough and, with the violence reaching Hackney, Peckham, Croydon, Ealing, Lewisham and Clapham, officers were overwhelmed. In Clapham, the mob ran amok for more than two hours before the police regained control. That is simply not acceptable.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister and I held a meeting with the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in which he set out his intention at least to double the deployment of officers. During the day, a number of offenders were identified, arrested and taken out of circulation. Officers took a tougher approach and intervened earlier to disperse groups before trouble began. Leave was cancelled, special constables were mobilised and mutual aid was stepped up, so up to 16,000 officers were deployed in total. As I said, officers took a more robust approach to tackling disorder and making arrests. There are tricky days and nights ahead, but thanks to the efforts of those thousands of officers order has in large part been restored.

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

—rose.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

—rose.

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, whose constituency was affected, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Ms Abbott]

The whole House admires the bravery and courage of the police officers, who were often up for three or four days without any time off, and we understand the need to police the disturbances in Tottenham carefully, but young people were seen looting Wood Green shopping centre and Tottenham Hale retail park for hours early on Sunday morning, which I think gave the green light to every little hooligan in London to come out on following days to loot and steal.

[Mrs May]

It is unacceptable that people were able to do that on our streets. There were not enough police on the streets on Saturday night. The number of police was increased further on Sunday and Monday, and it was then clear that that needed to go further. We had a conversation with the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who presented plans to more than double the number of police on the streets. I have been clear over the past few days that we need not only the police presence, but a tough policy on arrests to give a very clear message that these actions have consequences so that people do not think that they can get away with it in the way the hon. Lady suggests.

[Mr Umunna]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. The surge in officers that came after the decision taken at 9 am on Tuesday made a huge difference in my constituency and meant that we had a peaceful night. Did the commissioner explain why he did not increase the number of police to 16,000 sooner? The police in my constituency dealt with a really impossible situation and we are incredibly grateful to them, but why was that decision, which was announced by the Prime Minister at 9 am on Tuesday, not made sooner—for example, on Monday evening, because it was very clear in our area, given what had happened on Sunday night, that this would get far bigger?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. That is one of the issues that we need to look at in more detail. However, the answer that I would give him is that when the police were looking at their numbers and bringing in some mutual aid, which they did on Monday night, they were of the view that they would have the capacity to deal with what they believed was going to happen.

The police were dealing with a different situation from that which they had seen before. One comment that a number of chief constables and officers have made to me is that they were surprised by the speed with which gangs were able to mobilise through the use of social media, and I shall come on to the issue of social media. Very real questions have to be answered about how we take forward those policing matters, and that is why we need to make sure that we learn the lessons from that situation.

The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is right that the number of officers then put on the streets on Tuesday night was effective. That robust policing, coupled with a robust arrest policy, was effective; it has been continued, and other forces have followed it through.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

It is very easy for us as politicians to be armchair police officers, and it would have been wrong to comment on the night, but we need a cold analysis in order to know whether, for example, the lessons of the surge in London were taken on board in other parts of the country. That is not a matter that should divide the House; that is a matter of concern to my constituents, obviously, to those of other Greater Manchester Members and to those in other cities and conurbations throughout the country.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, and yesterday I had a conference call with chief officers from throughout the country to tell them that we wanted them to adopt exactly that approach. I shall refer to that in a few minutes.

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

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I am going to make a little more progress, because, although the number of officers on the streets on Tuesday night made a difference in London, we saw more disorder in other parts of the country. We saw it in towns and cities including Manchester, Salford, Nottingham, Wolverhampton and, for a second night, Birmingham, where there was further violence. In Greater Manchester and the west midlands, despite the best efforts of officers, we saw for a while that thugs, not the police, were in control of the streets.

In Winson Green in Birmingham, as we know, three young men were killed when they were hit, apparently deliberately, by a car, and I, like the whole House, want to pay tribute to Tariq Jahan, the father of one of the victims, for an extremely dignified call for calm, which undoubtedly did much to calm community relations.

As I have just said in answer to an intervention, yesterday I convened and chaired a conference call with chief officers from every force in the country. We agreed the mobilisation of all special constables, the cancellation of police leave throughout the country and the adoption of the tactics deployed by the Metropolitan police in London. Again, there are difficult days and nights ahead, and we are not complacent, but at this stage order has been resorted.

We said that we would do everything necessary to bring the disorder to an end, and we meant it. We made it clear to the police that there was nothing to stop them using baton rounds if they judged it necessary, and we put the water cannon stationed in Northern Ireland on standby, to be deployed within 24 hours. The police made it clear to me that they did not want to use them, and, as things stand, what is working to restore order is officers on the streets and robust policing with the help and support of local communities. We would jeopardise that if we rushed to use things such as rubber bullets.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

During the Prime Minister’s statement, we heard a lot about the stand-and-observe order that was apparently given to the police in particular circumstances. We all agree that that was terrible, but was not the policy determined mostly by police concern about over-reaction, given that they have been so criticised for how they dealt with the G20 riots, on which there is a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights? Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever police powers we end up agreeing with, in such circumstances we must provide consistent support when things go wrong?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that I will come to in my remarks.

The police are concerned to ensure that when we talk about robust policing, we definitely give them backing for what they want to do. Policing by consent is the British way, but the police retain the confidence of the wider community only if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that there simply were not enough officers on duty. The largest policing event in London is the Notting Hill carnival. There were about 6,000 officers on duty on Monday night, which is the number that the police usually deploy for the Notting Hill carnival. It was clear that in the circumstances that developed that was not enough officers on duty.

It is clear to me that the original police tactics were insufficient—exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) raised. After the criticism of previous public order operations for excessive force, some officers appeared reluctant to be sufficiently robust in breaking up groups. Many arrests were made, but in some situations officers contained suspects in a specified area where they were free to commit criminal damage and steal, instead of intervening and making arrests. I want to make it clear to the House that in making these points, I am not criticising the police. Too often, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Nowhere is that truer than in public order policing. I want to be clear that as long as officers act within reason and the law, this Home Secretary will never damn the police if they do.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Earlier, I raised with the Prime Minister the nervousness of the police in acting since the G20 disturbances and the sad death. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that officers who take robust action will not find themselves on the wrong end of the law?

[Mrs May]

As I have just said and as I have made clear to the police from when I first took on this role, I will always back officers who do the right thing and operate within the law. Appropriate action must be taken against officers who do the wrong thing, but we will back officers who do the right thing and I will back them as Home Secretary.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me for a few minutes because I want to talk about another way in which the police response could have been better, which is in the harnessing, sharing and analysis of intelligence.

Even in the best of economic times, we would not have the resources to keep up this level of deployment continuously, so public order planning and intelligence will need to be considerably better. This is not the first time that criminals with plans to disrupt life in our towns and cities have used technology to plot their crimes. Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook and messaging services such as BlackBerry Messenger have been used to co-ordinate criminality and stay one step ahead of the police. I will therefore convene a meeting with ACPO, the police and representatives from the social media industry to work out how we can improve the technological and related legal capabilities of the police.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Social networking has obviously been heavily involved in the organisation of the disruption. However, open social networks such as Twitter have also provided the police, including Kent police, with an opportunity to dispel rumours and myths about where future disturbances will happen. There is more of a problem with closed networks such as BlackBerry Messenger. Will the Home Secretary congratulate forces that have used social networking to their advantage and concentrate on the closed networking opportunities that have been used by others?

[Mrs May]

I certainly congratulate forces that have used social networking to their advantage. Kent police are one example and the Metropolitan police have also used social networking. That is why what should be done in relation to social networking is not an easy open-and-shut case. There are positive uses of social networking sites as well as negative uses. That is why it is important that I convene the various parties involved to sit down and talk this matter through in a sensible way. Among the issues we will discuss is whether and how we should stop people communicating via such websites and services when we know that they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

There is a limit on Back-Bench speeches and I have already spoken for more than half an hour, so if hon. Members will bear with me, I think that I should finish my speech and give Back Benchers the opportunity to speak.

A further difficulty, not just in the past week’s disorder, but in other recent operations, has been face covering by criminals. The police already have a power to require people to remove face coverings in certain limited circumstances. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows officers to force their removal only in a specific geographical location for a limited time, linked to a threat of violence. That does not leave discretion to individual constables or allow officers to nip trouble in the bud early. We will change the law to allow police officers to remove face coverings if they have a reasonable belief that they are related to criminal activity, under any circumstances. As the Prime Minister has said, we will also consider the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary.

We often say in the House that there can be no liberty without order and the events of the past five days have shown that more clearly than ever. The tide is turning, and order is returning to our streets. Since Saturday, more than 1,200 people have been arrested and more than 400 have been charged. Courts in London, the west midlands and Manchester have worked through the night and offenders are already starting to be prosecuted. I am clear that the perpetrators of the violence must pay for their actions, and the courts should hand down custodial sentences for any violent crimes.

The tide is turning because communities throughout the country have said that enough is enough. It is turning because the thugs are being arrested and locked up. It is turning because of the bravery and dedication of the men and women of our police forces. We ask police officers to put themselves in harm’s way on a routine basis. We ask them to go into dangerous situations that most of us hope we will never experience. We have the best police officers in the world and we owe them all a debt of gratitude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I think it was right to increase the number of police officers and to introduce police community support officers. PCSOs have done an excellent job across the country, working with police officers and communities, and have been an important part of addressing some of the tensions, concerns and difficulties that we have faced in the past few days.

Today, the Prime Minister again ruled out reopening the police budget. I implore him to think again. The newspapers report that Ministers now have doubts, and I urge him to listen to them.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is making much of a point about police cuts that was made by a number of her right hon. and hon. Friends during questions to the Prime Minister. Will she clarify for us the Opposition’s policy on police cuts? Do the Opposition still support police cuts of 12%, or do they want a review of or a moratorium on that? Will she guarantee police numbers, or will she not?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary will know, because we have had this debate in the House many times, that we believe it is important to give the police enough resources to sustain the number of police officers. We maintain that position now.

The HMIC gave its view that the police could sustain a reduction of about 12% in their budget over the course of the Parliament. The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), also said that his assessment when he was in office was that 12% could be sustained over the course of the Parliament and that that would allow the police to sustain the police numbers that we believe are so important. Instead, the Government are cutting by 20% and the steepest cuts are in the first two years. They are cutting more in the first few years than we would have done over the course of a Parliament. That is why the police, despite making immense efficiencies and taking immense actions to deliver savings, are finding that the number of police officers is being cut. That includes some of the most experienced police officers in the country, who are being forced to take early retirement against their wishes—officers whom we need and whose experience and contributions we need now.

London Bombings (Government Response to Coroner's Inquests)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Written Statements

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

In my written ministerial statement on 9 May, Official Report, columns 26-27WS, I undertook to inform the House of the Government’s response to Lady Justice Hallett’s report following her inquests into the 7 July attacks.

All responses have been published on the inquests website earlier today. The Government have not asked for any part of their response to be withheld.

The Government and the Security Service have carefully considered the coroner’s report and fully accept the three recommendations directed to it—namely recommendations 1, 2 and 9. The Government response sets out in full the next steps which have been or will be taken to address these three recommendations.

The Government response also provides full consideration on areas of concern that were raised by the coroner, but which were not attached to formal recommendations, and considers the broader UK implications of those recommendations addressed to London-based organisations.

Lady Justice Hallett has identified important areas where the Government and local partners, including the emergency services, can work to improve our ability to respond to emergencies. Through the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, and the wider Resilience Programme led by the Cabinet Office, we will work to implement swiftly the actions set out in the Government’s response.

A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Library of the House.