Control Powers (11 March - 10 June)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 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

On 23 May 2011, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. A copy of the Bill can be found on Parliament’s website. The home page for the Bill is:

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

The Bill makes provision for the abolition of control orders and their replacement with a new, less intrusive and more focused regime. The control order system will continue to operate until its replacement is in force.

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, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders in force at the time. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.

During the period 11 March 2011 to 10 June 2011, one new non-derogating control order was made, with the permission of the court, and served. One non-derogating control order which was made, with the permission of the court, during a previous quarter was served during this quarter. A control order already in force at the beginning of this reporting period was revoked on the direction of the court and a new order made and served in its place. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period.

In total, as of 10 June, there were 12 control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Three individuals subject to a control order were living in the metropolitan police district; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas.

One set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order was concluded during this reporting period following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest in the light of the revocation of the control order to which they were related.

During this reporting period, 60 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-five 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. Three 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 two appeals were lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.

On 5 April 2011 a judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA CIV 366, in relation to the appeal brought by BM against the decision of the High Court to uphold his control order. The Court of Appeal allowed BM’s appeal. It found that the High Court did not consider the correct legal test at the initial review of the control order because it only considered whether the control order was necessary at the date of the hearing and not at the date it was made. It further found that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the control order was flawed from the outset. The Court of Appeal made clear that it only considered the open evidence against BM in reaching this decision. The judgment recognised that the Secretary of State argued that the control order was justified on the totality of the evidence, including closed evidence that was not before them, but found that they should consider only the open evidence that was before them so as to avoid delaying the outcome of this case. The Court of Appeal directed that the control order should be revoked 48 hours after hand-down with retrospective effect from the date on which it was made.

On 20 May 2011 a judgment was handed down by the High Court in CD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]EWHC 1273(admin) in relation to the appeal brought by CD under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against the decision to refuse to remove an obligation that would require him to relocate away from his previous area of residence. The judge dismissed the appeal, concluding that the relocation obligation was a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist related attack. The judge also found that the Secretary of State should contribute to the travel costs of CD’s family. He made clear that the finding in this case does not mean that a contribution to travel costs should be made in every case of relocation.

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

Justice and Home Affairs (Post-Council Statement)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 9 and 10 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary of Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom, the following issues were discussed at the Council:

(The Council began in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The presidency reported that preparations for the VIS go-live date of October 2011 were on track. The Commission underlined the importance of member states notifying their preparedness by the end of July to allow time for the necessary legal and technical preparations.

The update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) confirmed that implementation was still on track.

The Council agreed the draft regulation on creating an IT agency. This will now be considered by the European Parliament to establish whether it can be the basis for a first reading deal.

In advance of the June European Council, Ministers held a wide-ranging debate on borders, asylum and migration, adopting conclusions reacting to three Commission communications on immigration issued last month. The UK highlighted that a stable, secure and prosperous future for the region required effective management of migration, mobility and security. Migration should be considered in assessing reform in the European neighbourhood. The global approach to migration provided the tools and principles for partnerships on migration and member state involvement was vital. Dialogue had to be balanced and transparent. On asylum, the UK raised concerns about the emphasis on legislative solutions: the problem was not a lack of rules, but implementation of the existing ones. While agreeing to the draft conclusions, the UK stated that they did not believe that the common European asylum system was in the UK’s national interest and any further opt-in decision would be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking account of national interests. The UK opposed suspension of the Dublin arrangements for the return of asylum seekers to their first port of entry into the EU and relocation or burden-sharing options but supported practical co-operation. Finally, the UK said a comprehensive approach to migration had to address the issue of free movement. Public support could not be undermined by fraud and abuse of residence rights and associated benefits. The UK and Frontex figures showed sham marriage was on the rise, with evidence of links to organised crime. The balance between safeguarding rights and protecting citizens was vital. The UK said that this issue should be discussed at a future meeting to meet the Stockholm programme commitments in this area.

The Commission presented proposals to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 which lists third country nationals who must possess visas to cross the external borders of the Schengen area and those exempt from this requirement. The Commission’s amendments also include the introduction of a suspension mechanism to allow for the temporary reintroduction of visa requirements in an emergency situation. It would apply to all current and future countries granted Schengen visa waiver (not just the western Balkans). The Commission stressed that it would be applied only in very exceptional cases and as a last resort. The UK does not participate.

Next the Council discussed elements of amending the Frontex regulation. The Commission underlined the importance of reaching agreement with the European Parliament by the June European Council. Frontex agreed on the need for urgency; the agency was at a critical point and could not continue without a revised regulation. There was general agreement on balancing member state responsibilities for border control with the obligation of others to provide resources to support them. The Commission stated that the respect of fundamental rights was of the highest political importance to both the European Parliament and the Commission; the Council would have to agree to the independent monitoring of return operations. Member states disagreed on another name for the proposed “European Border Guard System”. Discussions on the regulation will continue at COREPER ahead of a further trialogue with the European Parliament next week.

The presidency presented Council conclusions confirming that Bulgaria and Romania had successfully completed the Schengen evaluation process; the Council will discuss accession in September.

Finally the Commission presented the main findings from the first six months of monitoring the impact of granting visa liberalisation to the western Balkans. Even though the large majority of travellers are bona fide, there had been a high number of unfounded asylum applications in certain member states relating to minority populations (especially Roma). The Commission underlined that the western Balkan countries were starting to address these problems. A number of follow-up measures would now be necessary, including targeted information campaigns, increased use of border controls and entry bans, and targeted assistance to minority populations.

Following Mixed Committee, Interior Ministers held a lunchtime discussion on asylum where the Commission presented revised proposals to amend the procedures and reception conditions directives. The upcoming Polish presidency said all their efforts would be focused on agreeing at least a core of a common system by 2012. The UK reiterated that a common asylum system would not be in the UK’s national interest.

After lunch, the Council resumed with the Commission giving a short update on three legal migration directives: seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and the single permit for residence and work on which they hoped the electronic storage of data would allow a way forward. The UK is not participating in these measures.

Next the Council agreed conclusions on establishing priorities in the fight against organised crime over the next two years.

The Commission presented its air cargo security progress report on the implementation of the EU action plan of 30 November 2011. Commissioner Malmström regretted the negative vote at the Regulatory Committee (the preceding day) due to “difficulty” between transport and security officials in member states and called for greater co-operation. The UK expressed “extreme disappointment” at the outcome in Regulatory Committee, emphasised the threat remained significant and that the proposals voted on would significantly improve standards and called for Transport Ministers to reconsider this.

The presidency adopted the Council conclusions aligning internal and external counter-terrorism. The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (EU CTC) presented his discussion paper, highlighting the Arab spring, EU engagement in Pakistan and disappointment at the Regulatory Committee vote. The UK welcomed the EU CTC’s paper, specifically the importance of communication; the link between CT and drugs, the rule of law and organised crime; nuclear security, aviation security; political dialogue with the Arab world and progress on EU PNR. The UK agreed the threat remained strong and said that the EU must target efforts on areas of greatest risk (while complementing member states’ actions) and welcomed the EU Pakistan strategy. The UK asserted the importance of EU passenger name records, committed to supporting the communicators’ network, thanked the Presidency for the conclusions on aligning internal and external CT and highlighted the launch of the UK’s new Prevent strategy.

Under AOB there was a presentation of the project “Police Equal Performance" which is designed to enhance law enforcement capacity in cross-border activities in the western Balkans; a finalised proposal should be completed by the autumn. The upcoming Polish presidency gave a presentation on their priorities which included the common package for asylum; action to tackle synthetic drugs; the Eastern partnership, civil protection; and management of the external border.

The justice day commenced with the Council reaching a general approach on the directive on combating attacks against information systems. The UK welcomed the text, although noted reservations about the developing trend of providing in all such instruments for extra-territorial jurisdiction based on jurisdiction; this should not become the default approach.

Next, the Commission introduced its package of proposals on corruption, including a Commission decision on an anti-corruption reporting mechanism and a paper on EU accession to GRECO (the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption). The Commission thought Europe had to take this in hand and that corruption had a significant cross-border element, hence the importance of EU involvement in improving the patchy implementation of existing international standards. The Commission was mindful of avoiding additional burdens through the reporting mechanism.

The presidency secured a partial general approach on articles 1 to 18 and Y of the draft directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO), although acknowledged that aspects of the text might need to be revisited at a later stage. Many member states congratulated the presidency on the progress made over the last few months, although it was clear that substantial concessions had been made across the Council, with the grounds for refusing to execute an EIO being the most controversial issue. The UK could not support the current text, maintaining its parliamentary scrutiny reservation. The UK disagreed with the current exceptions to the dual criminality check which executing states could undertake in respect of the most sensitive and serious investigative measures. The drafting of the provision on ne bis in idem might also need to be revisited at a later stage. The incoming Polish presidency intends to continue the negotiations.

Next the Council adopted conclusions on the memory of crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe. Several member states intervened to recall the importance of action in this area and said they would prefer a legally binding instrument in this field.

The Council then agreed the proposed resolution establishing a road map for future action on protection of victims’ rights. The road map is a statement of political intent, and sets out the basis for future legislative measures. The UK agreed the road map.

The Commission also presented the recently published victims package, including a draft directive on rights in criminal proceedings, a regulation on protection measures in civil matters and a communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU. The UK noted the presentation and has yet to make its decision on the opt-in for the directive and regulation.

The presidency also introduced its political guidelines which aimed to set the direction for fundamental issues in the matter of the proposed regulation on succession and wills. The compromise was welcomed by the majority of member states. The UK was grateful for explicit commitment to revisit some issues at a later point to facilitate its possible participation.

Over lunch, Ministers discussed a presidency paper on the future of EU criminal policy.

After lunch the Council noted the proposal for a regulation on electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, which would give proper recognition and legal certainty to the electronic version. As some member states (including the UK) could not lift their parliamentary scrutiny reservations, the text could not be forwarded to the European Parliament for consent, but agreement would enable quick progress to be made should reservations be lifted.

The Council agreed the revised road map on implementation of the European e-justice action plan and endorsed the report of the working party on e-law, without discussion.

The presidency gave an update on the state of play on negotiations on the accession agreement of the European Union to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission expressed the view that considerable progress has been made in the timeframe and they looked forward to continuing work with the Council of Europe.

Then the Commission introduced the recently published communication on protection of the financial interest of the Union through criminal law and administrative investigations.

The Commission presented its communication on protecting EU funds against fraud and other criminal conduct. Commissioner Reding highlighted the proposed reform of the internal structure of Eurojust, in order to provide OLAF (the EU’s anti-fraud office) with a judicial partner, and the importance that a European public prosecutor (EPP) could play in protecting public money across EU. The Government have made it clear that they will not participate in an EPP.

There was a presentation on the missing children Europe conference that took place on 25 and 26 May 2011. The presidency and the Commission recalled the successful conference to raise awareness of the 116000 hotline for missing children, although were disappointed that a substantial number of member states had not yet fully implemented the helpline, the deadline for which had now passed. The UK has implemented the hotline and it is fully operational.

Slovenia also updated delegations on the Brdo conference of the western Balkans, held on 15 April at Brdo pro Kranju, which focused on improving judicial co-operation in criminal matters, in particular in relation to organised crime and asset recovery.

Germany also informed the Council of its impending accession to the network for legislative co-operation, which would take place on 17 June at the next meeting of the network, in Budapest.

Finally, Poland presented its priorities for the presidency, which begins on 1 July 2011, and confirmed that they would focus on protection of citizens’ rights. They hoped to make progress on the regulation on succession and wills and the Brussels I regulation and prioritise the Commission’s package of proposals on victims. Poland also indicated that it would hold discussions on EU contract law at the informal JHA Council on 18 and 19 July.

Women (Government Policies)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

Yet again, we have heard a speech from the Opposition Benches that included no recognition of the economic mess that the last Government left us, no constructive suggestions and no positive policy proposals for the future of this country. That is not constructive opposition, it is shameless opportunism.

Let me remind the Opposition once more why we are having to take action to restore sanity to our public finances. They left us with the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, and they left us spending £120 million every single day just on paying the interest on the debt that they racked up. That is more than we spend each day on policing, schools or child benefit. They left us with a deficit higher than that of Portugal or Greece, which have had to go cap in hand to the EU for a bail out. The experience of those countries shows that the risks of not dealing with Labour’s deficit are not imaginary but very real.

[Yvette Cooper]

Does the right hon. Lady think that the Labour Government should have cut public spending in the middle of a recession, and not allowed additional support for those who were unemployed and for businesses? If so, does she think the economy would have been growing at the time of the election if that had been done?

[Mrs May]

The Labour party, and the right hon. Lady as a former Treasury Minister, knows full well the risks of failing to deal with the deficit today. That is shown not just by what we are doing, but by what the Labour party itself said it would do if it was in government. I am talking about the position that we are in today, which was left us by the Labour Government, and the actions that we are having to take to deal with it. She must recognise that if the Labour party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 that the current Government are cutting.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Opposition understand that the deficit must be dealt with and we want to get growth moving, but does the right hon. Lady think that that will happen if women are forced out of their jobs because they cannot pay their child care costs?

[Mrs May]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s claim that the Opposition understand dealing with the deficit rings false when we hear what they say the Government should do about the deficit. On the one hand, the Labour party tries to argue that what the Government are doing to address the deficit is wrong, and on the other hand Labour Members remain silent about the fact that a Labour Government would cut £7 of every £8 that this Government are cutting this year. We hear nothing from the Opposition about where those cuts would fall.

[Kate Green]

The issue for the Opposition is exactly where the cuts fall. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, not only is the bulk of the Government’s deficit reduction programme hitting women, but women’s unemployment is increasing disproportionately compared with men’s unemployment.

[Mrs May]

In the last three months, the increase in employment for women was greater than the increase in employment for men. Opposition Members, including the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), have said today that what the Government are doing is wrong. We hear that in debate after debate. Opposition Members stand up and tell us that the cuts in virtually every area of public sector expenditure are wrong. If they were in government, they would be making cuts. In that case, the question for them is where they would make those cuts.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the deficit was the price we paid to avoid depression? The choice for the Government is whether to make deep and savage cuts that will stop growth, and to increase VAT, which will stoke inflation, or to focus on growth and make more balanced savings over time, and, obviously, to make the bankers pay their fair share. In the case of the police, the Opposition would cut 12% rather than 20%. That is a more balanced approach that would not undermine growth or increase the deficit in the process.

[Mrs May]

The premise on which the hon. Gentleman began his intervention was incorrect, because he failed to recognise that we are dealing with a structural deficit. This is not about the world recession, but about the structural deficit that was built up by the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must remember that this is a debate about women. We do not want to go too far talking about the deficit. I know that the two tie in, but we are in danger of having a deficit debate rather than ensuring that the women’s debate is heard.

[Mrs May]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall move off the —[Interruption.]

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again to give me an idea of where the Labour party would make cuts if it were in government, he is free to do so.

[Geraint Davies]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that something like a third of the deficit was excess investment—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Answer came there none to my challenge to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government’s action is taking Britain out of the danger zone, but we are also taking action to deal with Labour’s record deficit in a way that protects the most vulnerable, whether they are men, women or children. We have therefore had to take some difficult decisions on public spending, but in a way that has allowed us to protect the public service on which women most rely—we are increasing spending on the NHS in real terms every year. The Opposition cannot say that they would do that, because they would cut spending on the NHS.

Yes, we have had to implement a public sector pay freeze, but that has allowed us to protect against more public sector job losses. Even as we implement the pay freeze, we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers, almost two thirds of whom are women. Again, the Opposition cannot say that they would do that.

Yes, the Government have had to make tax changes, but as we have done so we are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether, the majority of whom are women. That was opposed by the Labour party, which is surprising given that it claims to be committed to redistribution.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs May]

I shall make some progress.

Yes, the Government have taken the difficult decision to remove tax credits from higher earning families, but that has meant that we can increase child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against increases in child poverty. In fact, that decision has meant that we can increase child tax credits by £180 and then £110 a year over and above the level promised by Labour. Those policies are not just about helping women, but about protecting the most vulnerable.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady said that the increase in tax allowances helps women. In fact, the figures produced by the House of Commons Library show that the increase in the tax allowance benefited 13,500 women and 16,800 men. Even what she did to benefit households benefited more men than women. In addition, her cuts—in child tax credits, child benefit and so on—all came from women. That is the point. She is taking far more from women, but when she gives some back, she gives more back to men.

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely clear that the majority of the lowest-paid workers are women, as are the majority of workers who were taken out of tax. The right hon. Lady refers again to the House of Commons Library figures—she keeps quoting them—but they were produced on a remit that she gave to the Library. Interestingly, she earlier spoke of the distribution and sharing of incomes within households. However, the assumptions on benefits made in the figures that she quotes go against what she was saying about what happens within families.

For the first time, people will have the information to judge for themselves whether they think the Government’s decisions are fair. We have been making some difficult decisions, but for the first time the Government published an overview of the impact of the spending review on groups that are protected by equalities legislation, including women. The analysis demonstrated that our decisions mean that services used by women are protected. With our Budgets in 2010 and this year, and with the spending review, we published unprecedented distributional analysis of our proposals, as the IFS has acknowledged. Such analyses were never published by the previous Government. Perhaps if they had thought to publish such information, they would have avoided policies that hit some of the poorest the hardest, such as scrapping the 10p tax rate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned.

I reject the Opposition notion that we can judge the value of a policy simply by looking at the number of men or women who are affected by it. We should not reduce the amount that we invest in tackling youth unemployment just because more young men than young women are unemployed, but that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. They say that spending on tackling youth unemployment would be unfair on women.

We should not stop investment in policies that will return Britain to growth, such as cutting corporation tax, because more men run companies than women. However, again that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. I reject that argument. We need to ensure that more women can start businesses as we invest in getting Britain’s economy going. In fact, one symptom of the inequality between men and women is that more women than men rely on state spending.

We need to continue to support all women who need it, which is why we have ensured that we have protected child benefit and tax credits for women on low incomes, and why we will increase the value of the state pension, and protect benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for older women. However, if the previous Government taught us one thing, it is that more state spending might help to deal with the symptoms of inequality, but it does not address the causes. This Government are determined to get to grips with the causes of inequality between men and women, from job opportunities to the number of women in top, senior positions, to tackling the shameful levels of violence against women, and working to reverse the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will know that some of the key causes of inequality come into play during the very earliest years of a child’s life. Can she explain why her Government are cutting £5 million from the early intervention grant in Leicester, which covers children’s centres and Sure Start, which are crucial to giving all children the very best start in life?

[Mrs May]

We agree that early intervention is very important and, as the hon. Lady will know, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) produced a very significant report for the Government on the whole issue of early intervention. The Government are ensuring that, within the early intervention budget, there is sufficient funding to provide for a network of Sure Start centres. We are also ensuring—as we are in other areas, as I have mentioned in terms of focusing what the Government spend on the most vulnerable and those most in need—that Sure Start is returned to the early focus it was intended to have by the last Labour Government, which was helping those who are most in need, those on the lowest incomes and those who most need access to the sort of provision that Sure Start and children’s centres can provide.

I want the Government to take a new, more mature approach to engaging with women. I want to see women’s voices in government strengthened. That is why we launched a consultation on how the Government listen to and engage with women, which has already received nearly 900 responses. In today’s world, we need to make full use of communications technology, social media and other techniques to allow us to talk to women directly.

The Government are focused on giving opportunities to women. We need to move beyond just protection from discrimination and help women to get on in modern businesses and modern workplaces. Many women have benefited from the introduction of the right to request flexible working for parents and carers, but by restricting flexible working to certain groups, the idea was perpetuated that this is some sort of special treatment. We will therefore extend the right to request flexible working to all employees. This will not only shift attitudes, but will help to shift behaviour away from the traditional 9-to-5 model of work that can act as a barrier to many women and that also does not make sense for many modern businesses.

Another stereotype we need to shift is the idea that women should do the caring and men should earn the money when a couple decide to start a family. Our policy to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will make a real difference to working women who want to have children. For the first time, it will allow both parents to choose what is right for them and what is right for their family. If fathers want to take more of a role, they can. If mothers want to return to work earlier, they can. If parents want some time at home together after the birth of their child, they can have it. What matters is that they will have a choice.

[Helen Goodman]

I agree with the Home Secretary that we want to maximise people’s choices, but she must be aware that most non-resident parents are men and most parents with care are women, and that the latter have lower incomes. How can she justify putting a charge on those parents with care when the non-resident parent is not paying up on child maintenance?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a consultation on how we deal with the child maintenance issue. I hope that she would agree that despite the efforts of both Conservative and Labour persuasions over several years, we have not got the child maintenance system right in this country. There are too many people who do not see the absent parent paying child maintenance and we need to do everything we can to get a system that will work. As she will know, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), is looking at this issue and the alternatives available under the child maintenance proposals.

As well as giving all women better opportunities in the workplace, we need to do more to help those who aspire to the very top. Last year, only 12.5 % of all FTSE 100 board members were women. That is simply not good enough, and that is why the Government commissioned Lord Davies to look at how we can increase the number of women on company boards. We have made good progress in implementing Lord Davies’ recommendations. In May, the Financial Reporting Council launched a consultation on changes to the UK corporate governance code in order to help to achieve more diverse and more effective boards. The head-hunting industry has agreed a voluntary code on diversity, and we are building a strong sense of ownership and action in FTSE 100 companies. We have agreed with them a plan for how company aspirational targets should be published by September.

The latest figures suggest there has already been an improvement in FTSE 100 companies, just by our shining a light on this area. Some 31% of new board members appointed since Lord Davies’ report have been women, up from just 13% last year, and the number of male-only boards has dropped from 21 in October to 14.

We are also helping women to break through the glass ceiling by providing an all-age careers service. The new service will be fully operational by next April, and will provide high quality, professional careers guidance that will be open to all young people and adults. That will help women to make the right choices for themselves and for their careers. For the lowest paid, we will raise the minimum wage to £6.08—two thirds of those on the minimum wage are women.

In other areas we are also making the right decisions to help the most vulnerable. On pensions, again we have had to make some difficult decisions. Yes, we have proposed accelerating the rate at which the state pension age for women becomes the same as the state pension age for men. With life expectancy rising—and one in nine women pensioners is now expected to live to more than 100—and with the overwhelming need to reduce the deficit, this was a decision we could not duck. But it means that at the same time we have been able to commit to a triple guarantee, which will increase the basic state pension by earnings, prices or by 2.5%, whichever is highest.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford claimed that the earnings link had been restored by the Turner report. Of course the Turner review referred to the earnings link, but the last Government did not restore it. This Government have restored the earnings link and gone further with the triple guarantee.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Do I take it from what the Home Secretary says that the reason for the acceleration of the state pension age to 66 by 2020 is that the Government can pay for the triple lock on today’s pensions? It cannot be about deficit reduction because it comes after the deficit is supposed to have been abolished.

[Mrs May]

In fact, by the end of the comprehensive spending review period we will still have a debt of £1.4 trillion, which is three times the debt in 2006-07, so we will still need to look carefully at our public sector finances. It is this Government who have introduced that triple lock on pensions that will benefit today’s pensioners. For too long under the previous Government, older women had to rely on means-tested benefits, with many not claiming their entitlements at all. Our triple guarantee will help to improve the value of the state pension, giving real security and a decent income for all women pensioners. Although women will experience the rise in the state pension age more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the state pension for an average of 23 years.

[Dame Anne Begg]

To be clear, is the Home Secretary agreeing that the triple lock will be paid for by the 500,000 women who will have to wait longer for their state pension in order to reduce Government debt? That returns us to the essence of this debate—why should women bear a higher proportion of reducing the deficit than men?

[Mrs May]

It is not the case that there is a simple link between the acceleration of women’s pension age and the expenditure on the triple lock. What is happening with pensions is more complex. Two things are happening in relation to the state pension age. The first is the overall acceleration for men and women, raising the age of state pension entitlement. That will bring in significant sums of money and is a reflection not only of Government finance issues but of increased longevity. When the state pension was first introduced, people lived for a very short period, comparatively speaking—a matter of two to five years—beyond their retirement. Today, people live for a significant length of time beyond their retirement. The Government therefore need to raise the state pension age, as has been recognised by previous Governments—the initial decisions to accelerate the rise and raise the state pension age were taken by previous Governments. We have had to take these difficult decisions. As I said, however, although women will experience the rise more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the pension for an average of 23 years.

[Claire Perry]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of this point, but in the proposals for 2016 and thereafter will we not be addressing the long-standing problem of women who have taken career breaks being ineligible for a state pension, which is a travesty that we should have sorted out before? Under the proposals we will bring forward, there will be much more parity in that area.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that I was about to deal with. In the longer term, we want to take reforms even further. The state pension Green Paper proposed a single-tier state pension combining the state pension and the state second pension to provide an estimated £140 per week, which would be of particular benefit to women who have had to take time out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities. The coalition Government are not just talking about this—we have actually made proposals to help women in this regard.

On health, we are pursuing policies that give real help to women. We have stuck to our promise to increase health spending in real terms; we are sticking to our coalition agreement commitment to increase the number of health visitors by 4,200 by 2015; and we are making available £400 million over the next four years to support breaks for all those hard-working carers, many of whom are women.

I have made it absolutely clear, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, that tackling violence against women and girls is one of my top priorities, which is why in March we published an action plan to tackle the problem; it is why we have provided more than £28 million of stable Home Office funding until 2015 for local specialist services; it is why we have provided £900,000 until 2015 to support national helplines; and it is why for the first time we have put funding for rape crisis centres on a stable footing. We will provide more than £10 million over three years to support their work, and we will open new centres where there are gaps in provision. This should not be a party political issue. It is about helping the 1 million women who suffer domestic abuse each year; the 300,000 women who are sexually assaulted; and the 60,000 women who are raped. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, and that will often be accompanied by years of psychological abuse. That is why the Government take violence against women and girls so seriously.

We will only change damaging behaviour, however, after we have changed the underlying attitudes that cause that behaviour. Those attitudes are fundamentally affected by the culture and society in which children grow up. We share the concern of many parents that children are now being exposed to sexualised images and an increasingly sexualised culture from an early age, which is why we commissioned Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union, to lead an independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. He has listened to parents’ concerns about explicit music videos, outdoor adverts and the increasing amount of sexual content in family programming on television.

Reg Bailey’s recommendations call on businesses and broadcasters to play their part, and they include putting age restrictions on music videos, covering up explicit images on the front pages of magazines and newspapers and restricting outdoor adverts near schools, nurseries and playgrounds. He also recommends that retailers sign up to a code of practice that checks and challenges the design, display and marketing of clothes, products and services for children. There has been a great deal of goodwill from the broadcast, retail and advertising industries throughout this review. They know that family-friendly practices make good business sense, and the Government will now look to work with business to implement the review’s proposals.

As well as helping women in this country, we are doing more than ever before to help women overseas. We are putting women at the heart of our international development policies, because in development there are few better options than investing in women. In Ivory Coast, for example, an increase of just $10 in women’s income achieves the same nutritional and health outcomes for children as an increase of $110 in men’s income. On international women’s day, the Department for International Development published its new strategic vision for girls and women. It sets out that, by 2015, our international development work will have saved the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies; will have allowed at least 10 million women to access modern methods of family planning; will have supported more than 9 million children in primary education, of whom at least half will be girls, and 700,000 girls in secondary education; and will have helped 2.3 million women to access jobs and 18 million women to access financial services.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

The majority of part-time students studying for first degrees are women. Ten years ago I graduated as a mature part-time student—and I was pleased to note then that the majority of students were women. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s decision to extend loan support to part-time students, which will give women the opportunity to advance their careers through further education?

[Mrs May]

I commend my hon. Friend on his experience and how he got his qualification—I am choosing my words carefully, given what he said about the number of females on the course. However, it is important that we support part-time study, because it is an option that people are increasingly considering. The extra support that we have provided and the way we have dealt with the issue are important steps forward. As he said, such support will have a particularly significant impact on women, given that many part-time students are women.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

On students, women in my constituency often tell me about the need for good English language schools. The Home Secretary will know that the co-financing proposals for speakers of other languages will affect women disproportionately— 74% of those affected by the proposals will be women. What conversations has she had with the relevant Minister about that issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have had a number of conversations over time with the relevant Minister on the issue of English language schools and colleges.

I wish to finish the point about tackling violence against women and girls overseas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has also been appointed as our overseas champion for tackling violence against women and girls. We have a moral duty to act to support women around the world.

The Opposition’s record on women speaks for itself. They left government with 1 million women unemployed and 200,000 more women unemployed than when they came to power—and that is without even mentioning the deficit. We are sorting out their mess and protecting the most vulnerable, even as we deal with Labour’s deficit, and we are giving women the opportunities they need to be successful: flexible parental leave; more women on boards; careers advice for all; flexible working extended; NHS spending protected; resources for violence against women defended; international development spending centred on women; low-paid people taken out of income tax; pay rises for low-paid public sector workers; child tax credits higher than under Labour; a triple guarantee on pensions; and the minimum wage up. Which of these policies do the Opposition disagree with? Where is their plan to deal with the deficit, to sort out the public finances, and to get Britain back up off its knees? They have no policies that would benefit women, no positive ideas, nothing to say to protect the most vulnerable, and therefore no credibility. All they offer is empty opposition, and that is why their motion deserves to fail.

National Crime Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the new National Crime Agency. Last year’s national security strategy recognised that organised crime is one of the greatest threats to our national security. The social and economic costs are estimated at between £20 billion and £40 billion per year, and its impact is seen on our streets and felt in our communities every single day. The drug dealing on street corners; the burglary and muggings by addicts; the trafficking of vulnerable young women into prostitution; the card cloning and credit card fraud that robs so many—all are fundamentally driven by organised criminals.

Our law enforcement agencies assess that there are some 38,000 individuals engaged in organised crime, involving 6,000 criminal groups; and yet, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said last year that law enforcement is impacting in a meaningful way on only 11% of those 6,000 organised crime groups. We must do better.

For too long, central Government micro-managed and interfered in local policing, but at the same time national and international crime was neglected and our borders became porous. There was no cross-government strategy to tackle organised crime, no national tasking and co-ordination, and no co-ordinated border policing. Different agencies had varying responsibilities for policy, prevention and investigation, and there was a tendency to operate in silos. The overall effect was a fragmented and patchy law enforcement response, and we are putting that right.

By introducing police and crime commissioners, we can get central Government out of the way of local policing. We are putting the Government’s focus where it should have been all along: on securing our borders, and tackling national and international serious and organised crime. So we will shortly be publishing the first ever cross-government strategy on tackling organised crime and we will establish a powerful new operational body—the National Crime Agency.

The National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation. It will tackle organised crime, defend our borders, fight fraud and cybercrime, and protect children and young people. With a senior chief constable at its head, the NCA will harness intelligence, analytical capabilities and enforcement powers. Accountable to the Home Secretary, the NCA will be an integral part of our law enforcement community, with strong links to local police forces, police and crime commissioners, the UK Border Agency and other agencies.

The NCA will comprise a number of distinct operational commands. Building on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—SOCA—the organised crime command will tackle organised crime groups, whether they operate locally, across the country or across our international borders. Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders, and help to prevent terrorism, drug smuggling, people trafficking, illegal immigration and other serious crimes. It will ensure that all law enforcement agencies operating in and around the border work to clear, mutually agreed priorities. The economic crime command will make a major difference to the current fragmented response to economic crime. Working to a new unified intelligence picture, the economic crime command will drive better co-ordination of cases, and better tasking of resources, across agencies such as the Financial Services Authority, the Office of Fair Trading and the Serious Fraud Office. That will mean that a greater volume and complexity of economic crime cases can be tackled. In due course, we will review the relationship between the economic crime command and the other agencies.

Building on the significant contribution that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—CEOP—already makes within SOCA, CEOP will, as a key part of the NCA, be able to draw on wider resources and support to help protect even more children and young people. The NCA will also house the national cybercrime unit, which will have its own investigative capacity and help local police forces to develop their own response to the online threat. Each command will be led by a senior and experienced individual, and will manage its own priorities and risks, but, crucially, capabilities, expertise, assets and intelligence will be shared across the entire agency and each command will operate as part of one single organisation.

Intelligence will be at the heart of what the NCA does. Learning from our experience of counter-terrorism, the NCA will house a significant multi-agency intelligence capability. It will collect and analyse its own and others’ intelligence, building and maintaining a comprehensive picture of serious and organised criminals in the UK: who they are and who they work with; where they live; where they operate; what crimes they are involved in; and what damage they cause. The NCA will then use that intelligence to co-ordinate, prioritise and target action against organised criminals, with information flowing to and from the police and other agencies in support of tactical operations. Using this intelligence picture, the NCA will have the ability and the authority to task and co-ordinate the police and other law enforcement agencies.

For the first time, there will be one agency with the power, remit and responsibility for ensuring that the right action is taken at the right time by the right people—that agency will be the NCA. All other agencies will work to the NCA’s threat assessment and prioritisation, and it will be the NCA’s intelligence picture that will drive the response on the ground. That will be underpinned by the new strategic policing requirement.

As well as having the ability to co-ordinate and task the response to national crime threats by the police and other agencies, the NCA will also have its own specialist operational and technological capabilities, including surveillance and means to deal with fraud and threat-to-life situations. This is a two-way street; the NCA will be able to provide its techniques and resources in support of the police and other agencies, just as it will task and co-ordinate the response to national-level crime.

NCA officers will be able to draw on a wide range of powers, including those of a police constable and immigration or customs powers. That will mean that NCA officers, unlike anybody else, will be able to deploy powers and techniques that go beyond the powers of a police officer.

The agency will be an integral part of the golden thread of policing that runs from the local to the national and beyond. At home, the NCA will work in partnership with police forces, chief constables, police and crime commissioners and agencies such as the UK Border Agency. Overseas, it will represent the UK’s interests, working with international law enforcement partners. It will also provide the central UK contact for European and international law enforcement.

The agency will come fully into being in 2013, with some key elements becoming operational sooner. The total cost of the organisation will not exceed the aggregate costs of its predecessors. The combination of a single intelligence picture, the tasking and co-ordination function, the specialist operational support and the operational commands will result in a dramatic improvement in our response to national and international crime.

Organised crime, border crime, economic crime, cybercrime and child exploitation are real problems for real people. All areas of the country suffer their effects—from the very poorest communities to the most affluent, from the smallest villages to the biggest cities—and it is often the most vulnerable in our society who suffer the greatest harm. We owe it to them to do more to tackle the scourge of drugs, better to defend our borders, to fight fraud and to protect our children and young people. The National Crime Agency will do all those things and more and I commend the statement to the House.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for providing an advance copy of her statement. We have already had another day, another debate—now it is another day, another statement. Once again, to listen to the Home Secretary one would think this was year zero, that everything failed in the past and that everything will be nirvana in the future. Yesterday, she told us that the Labour Government’s Prevent strategy had failed and her new strategy would make no mistakes. Today, she claims that there was no cross-Government organised crime strategy and no effective work on organised crime before, but that for the future we will see a dramatic improvement in the fight against national and international crime just as a result of these changes. There is no end to this Home Secretary’s hostages to fortune.

The right hon. Lady also contradicts herself. She says that there was no cross-Government strategy on organised crime, but then she says the organised crime command will build on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which was set up by Labour in 2005 to take the fight to organised crime. It had a conviction rate of more than 90%. She says that the National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation with intelligence at the heart of what it does, with the combined powers of police, customs and immigration officers, but that is what SOCA is. Whereas yesterday we had control orders and son of control orders, today we have SOCA and SOCA plus. It is hardly year zero and hardly a new nirvana.

We think we should build on SOCA. Sometimes, it became focused too purely on intelligence and it makes sense to do more to reform national policing. There are considerable benefits that can flow in this area, but reforms also need to be handled effectively or they can go badly awry—and they have already gone awry. Child protection experts have resigned, counter-terrorism plans have been publicly slapped down by the Met and the Serious Fraud Office has been put in a state of suspended animation. That has all happened at a time when 12,000 police officers are being cut across the country and the Government are pushing ahead with American-style plans for police and crime commissioners whom nobody wants. The truth is that these plans have been dogged by chaos and confusion. From her statement, there is no sign that the Home Secretary has a grip. Let us consider the individual points that she has made.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency had good results this year, but Jim Gamble, its successful head, resigned from the agency after seeing the Government’s plans to merge CEOP with the NCA. He said today:

“I don’t believe that the rebranding or the submerging of CEOP within a far greater entity will allow the critical child protection focus that we need.”

He made the point that CEOP will also suffer a 10% reduction in its budget by 2014 and said that he hoped the Government would release the submissions to the consultation on the merger, because they were overwhelmingly against it. We hope too that the Home Secretary will release them, because she has clearly not persuaded the experts on those plans.

On financial crime, the grandly titled economic crime command is a far cry from the Home Secretary's plans to merge the Serious Fraud Office and parts of the Financial Services Authority. Instead, do we have a co-ordinating committee? Or is this just another agency to work with the many already in the field? Does this risk limbo for the SFO, whose director has already said:

“This is a distraction and it is important that a clear direction is made as soon as possible so that the SFO is focused on delivering results for the public.”

The Home Secretary has clearly not persuaded the experts or the Chancellor of her plans.

On the border command, the Home Secretary says: “Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders, and help prevent terrorism”, but the coalition pledge was for a border police force, not just a command. In the Conservatives’ manifesto, it was more boots on the ground. They were talking about 10,000 people a few years ago. Has that been replaced simply by a board to oversee better cross-agency working?

Plans to move counter-terrorism from the Met have been ditched after the commissioner said that national security is “too important” and

“must be based on more than mere structural convenience”.

Can the Home Secretary confirm that she does not plan to destabilise matters by revisiting this issue during the important period in the run-up to the Olympics?

On the National Policing Improvement Agency the Home Secretary has said nothing at all, but she is disbanding it in 2012—a year before the NCA starts. We still do not know what is happening to the DNA database or to a whole series of other functions. The chief constable of Derbyshire has said:

“We face an issue that there are absolutely critical services provided by the NPIA that, at the moment, have a date that is going to drop off, with nowhere to go.”

What will happen to them? The Home Secretary has not explained how tasking will work, what will happen if chief constables disagree and who will make the final decision when resources become overstretched.

On resources, the Home Secretary says that the total cost of the organisation will not exceed the aggregate costs of its predecessors, but she has not commented on set-up costs. Peter Neyroud has estimated that this top-down reorganisation will cost between £15 million and £20 million. When that is added to the cost of police and crime commissioners we have £120 million being spent on top-down reorganisations while 12,000 police officer posts are being cut, putting the fight against crime at risk across the country. There is a risk that chaos and confusion will make it harder for the police to cope given the drop in resources that they are experiencing.

For this renamed crime agency to be successful, it needs steady leadership, clarity and the resources to deliver. In the end, reorganisation is no substitute for police officers on the ground doing the job on national and local crime and going the extra mile to catch criminals and keep communities safe. That means we need an end to the confusion and a bit more realism both about the past and about the detail of the reform. We need to start closing the gap between the rhetoric and the reality on the ground.

[Mrs May]

Yes, another day, another Home Office statement and, sadly, yet another similar response from the shadow Home Secretary. Indeed, she repeated many of the phrases that she used in her response to yesterday’s Prevent statement. She really needs to go away and think very carefully about what we mean by a cross-government organised crime strategy. She said that the previous Government had such a strategy because it set up SOCA and because SOCA existed, but we are talking about bringing together all the strands of law enforcement, including law enforcement agencies and police forces, that deal with organised crime. We are developing a comprehensive, coherent cross-government approach to dealing with organised crime. That is an organised crime strategy, which is not what the previous Government had.

I accept that SOCA has been doing good work and we want to build on that as part of the organised crime command within the new National Crime Agency, but there are other areas of crime that we need greater focus on. Yes, we need to look more closely at what is happening on our borders and to enhance our ability to bring together various agencies that have responsibility for and operate on the borders. We need to do that in conjunction with organisations such as the organised crime command and CEOP to ensure that we have the advantage of using not only the intelligence capability that will be at the centre of the NCA but the synergies that will be available when those agencies work properly together.

We will also be setting up a new economic crime command. There is a need in this country to look much more closely at economic crime. There is a whole swathe of what could be called middle-level economic crime that we have not dealt with appropriately and properly in the past, and the economic crime command will enable us to put a clear focus on that. It will enable us to ensure that the various agencies dealing with economic crime are working together, are co-ordinated and are working to the same priorities. It will also enable us to ensure that resources are being put in the right place, at the right time, where they are needed. This is a new development and a very important one in enhancing our work on economic crime. Indeed, it will not wait until the NCA is set up. Within the next few months we will establish a co-ordinating board on economic crime which will already start that important work. This is a powerful new crime-fighting body which I believe will make a real difference to our ability to deal with organised crime.

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

I welcome the focus that the NCA will place on tackling organised crime, and the creation of the border command. We need the NCA to be set up seamlessly. Can the Home Secretary set out how the Government will minimise the disruption caused by the structural change and maximise the speed with which the NCA becomes fully operational and effective?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for an important question. The establishment of the NCA will require legislation. We aim for that legislation to be in place so that the NCA can be fully operational in 2013, but we believe that this is an important area and that we need to start working before then. The transition to the NCA can be eased by work such as developing the organised crime strategy, starting to develop the co-ordination capability on organised crime within the Home Office, which we are doing and, as I have just indicated, starting to develop the co-ordination capacity in relation to economic crime. These are the precursors for a more seamless transition to the NCA.

As we develop the agency, we intend to establish a position for an individual who will head the work. An individual at chief constable level will be appointed fairly soon—within the next few months—and will be able to work within the Home Office over the period before the NCA is set up. At that point there will be a transition for a permanent individual to be established as the head of the NCA.

We want to learn lessons—for example, from the setting up of SOCA, where there were some difficulties in terms of personnel and their move over to SOCA. We will be looking at the lessons to be learned from that.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on the prettiest little speech rewriting history that the House has heard for some time. I plead guilty to having been responsible for launching the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I had hoped for a 50% remission, but I will have to settle for a third instead.

The truth of the matter is that SOCA has had enormous successes but was bedevilled by the over-emphasis on intelligence rather than on enforcement, yet this afternoon the Home Secretary once again placed intelligence at the centre. In the new economic crime directorate, the new border directorate and the relationship with Customs and Excise, who will be responsible for the emphasis on economic and, by its very nature, cybercrime—the Treasury directing the policy or the Home Office laying it down? We had problems with that, and I did not hear any explanation of how the present Home Secretary intends to get round that difficulty.

[Mrs May]

I am sorry about the approach that the right hon. Gentleman took in his comments. If he had listened carefully both to my statement and to the response I gave to his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, he would have heard me make it clear that I think SOCA has done good work over the past few years, but I believe, and I think those involved in SOCA would agree, that we can do more. We can build on the experience that it has built up. By making SOCA the organised crime command within the National Crime Agency and being able to take advantage of the synergies across the law enforcement agencies and police forces, we will be able to do a more effective job in the future.

On the intelligence issue, yes, there will be an intelligence capability at the NCA. That is important, but the difference is that the NCA will clearly be a crime-fighting body and the commands within it will be crime-fighting commands.

In relation to cybercrime, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, there will be a cybercrime unit at the NCA which will cross all the commands, because cybercrime is both a crime in itself and a tool for the execution of other crimes.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. On the role of the NCA with regard to human trafficking, it is estimated that more than 2,500 trafficked women were victims of sexual exploitation in 2009 alone. Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the border policing command will go further to clamp down on this unacceptable practice?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that this is an area in which she takes a particular interest. We recognise that a lot has been done in relation to trafficking in recent years, but more can be done. The great advantage of the border command is that it will be able to bring together resources and task resources within both agencies and local police forces. It will work with other command organisations within the National Crime Agency, such as the serious organised crime command, in a way that has not happened until now. One of the problems we have had until now is that the Government have too often approached this with silo thinking, but criminals do not think in silos. The human trafficking gang probably also deals in drugs and might be involved in other things, such as child exploitation, so we need to look across the whole swathe when dealing with criminals.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has said that the aggregate budget will not be more than the budget for the organisations comprising the new agency. Could she indicate what it will be, and if it is less will she guarantee that key functions now undertaken by the National Policing Improvement Agency, such as the Missing Persons Bureau or the DNA database, will not slip off the edge during the reorganisation?

[Mrs May]

It will not cost more than its predecessors. It is possible that some of the current functions of the NPIA, such as witness protection and threat to life issues, could move into the NCA, but if they do so they will move as funded functions so that the funding already available will be used for the operations of the NCA. The NPIA will cease to exist, as we have set out very clearly. We are looking at the functions that it is right to bring into the NCA, but, given that it is an operational crime-fighting body, it is not right that all the NPIA functions should come into it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I am sure that she, like me, would congratulate Cambridgeshire constabulary on the work it is doing to combat people trafficking through initiatives such as Operation Sodium. On a specific point about people trafficking, how does she see the priority for the NCA in respect of the sharing of criminal records data across the European Union, an area that, regrettably, was ignored by the previous Government?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and am happy to join him in congratulating Cambridgeshire constabulary on its work and the operations it has undertaken on human trafficking. In relation to all those issues, the National Crime Agency will be looking to operate across international borders as well as across police force borders in the UK. The sharing of information within the European Union, and indeed the sharing of information in other ways, as he knows, has been and is a matter of discussion within the European Union. The NCA will be the key point of contact for both European and wider international co-operation.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

The Missing Persons Bureau provides a single database of all missing adults and children, a valuable national and international resource. In addition, it continues to provide advice and support to some families of missing children, although some services have gone to CEOP. Will the Home Secretary give some more information on where the Missing Persons Bureau will sit operationally, particularly in relation to CEOP, in 2013 and between now and then?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. As she says, we have already announced that the missing children aspect will be going to CEOP. We are now looking at the wider work on missing persons to see where it is appropriate for that to sit. It might be that it is appropriate for that to be within the National Crime Agency. We will ensure that decisions are taken so that there is no opportunity for this to slip between two stools, because it is an important area of work.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s admission that the agency will pull together a lot of strands that had a silo mentality within the previous Government. On illegal immigration, given that under the previous Government many illegal immigrants came into the country, disappeared and could not be found, could it be that through this new overarching structure we will now have a greater way of informing intelligence, so that anybody with local information on the ground will be able to help and feed in information to the correct place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Yes, indeed. We will be looking to create a situation with the border police command in which it will be possible to use greater intelligence in relation to the issue that my hon. Friend raises—in due course, of course. Through our borders work, we are in the process of further developing our understanding of individuals who are in the United Kingdom, but of course those who come to the UK to work do have to have a biometric residence permit.

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

What discussions did the Home Secretary have with the devolved Administrations when she was setting up the agency, and what relationship will it have with devolved police services?

[Mrs May]

We have had a number of discussions on the matter with the devolved Administrations, and the National Crime Agency will deal with some aspects of crime which are reserved matters, but we are very conscious of working with the devolved agencies. In relation to Scotland, we expect the NCA to work with, for example, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish police forces—or force, should there be a single police force in future. In working with the devolved Administrations, we will respect the primacy of law enforcement agencies in the devolved nations.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I represent a large port in a county with a long coastline. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the border police command will ensure that all agencies responsible for the nation’s coastline and ports work together to prevent illegal immigration, drug and people trafficking and tax evasion?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give that confirmation to my hon. Friend. Given her constituency, I realise that the issue will be of particular interest to her. Crucially, the border police command will be able, not only by itself but working with other commands in the National Crime Agency, to provide much better co-ordination of all the forces and law enforcement agencies that need to be brought to bear in order to deal with the issues that she raises.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Online crime against children and the exploitation of children are growing in prevalence, and I know that the Home Secretary is concerned about that and wants to do something about it. CEOP is a very successful organisation, with many admirers throughout the world and, from what I can tell, very few critics. Given that it does not just detect crimes but assesses whether a crime has taken place, how will the Home Secretary assess whether her decision to merge it is the right one?

[Mrs May]

CEOP will continue to do the work that it has been doing, but it will be able to be even more effective because it will be part of that wider agency. The CEOP brand will continue to exist, and we have made it absolutely clear—we have talked to CEOP and to Peter Davies about this—that CEOP will continue to operate as it does at the moment, because an important part of its work is its links with the private sector. It will be able to continue to do that work within the National Crime Agency, but on top of that it will have the advantage of access to intelligence capability, of access to that prioritisation of work and of working with those other commands.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement. I am comfortable that the National Crime Agency will be able to deal well with serious and organised crime, but what about serious but not organised crime? What about serial killings, rapes and issues like that, which the NPIA currently deals with? It still seems unclear where its injuries database and all its other services in relation to serious but not organised crime will sit. What will happen to all that?

[Mrs May]

Of course, one of the difficulties in all such issues relates to the definitions that one uses for those types of crime, but serious crime that is not undertaken by organised crime groups is predominantly dealt with by individual police forces. As a result of the National Crime Agency being set up, however, I believe that it will be possible to share intelligence on serious crimes of that sort. It will encourage greater regional co-operation among police forces, so it will be possible to deal better and more effectively with serious crime that is not related to organised crime groups.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary bravely claimed that the new initiative will result in a dramatic improvement in our response to national and international crime. May I therefore ask her how the performance of the NCA will be measured and how it will be reported to the House?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, the National Crime Agency will be accountable to the Home Secretary. We will look at the procedures that we can put in place to ensure that there are appropriate timed reports to the House on this matter—although, as I observed to somebody who asked me that question earlier today, I have every confidence that the Home Affairs Committee, apart from anything else, will show an interest in it. The measurement of success is one of the issues that has dogged SOCA, because SOCA’s role is not only about finding and prosecuting criminals and seizing assets but preventing crime from taking place. Indeed, the success of such agencies often lies as much in what they prevent as in the number of criminals that they catch. We will be looking very carefully at the measurements that can be used because, as I say, SOCA has suffered from the sort of measurements that have been applied to it.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

This is an extremely positive move. Criminal gangs do not operate in the context of 43 forces, and for too long we have lacked a proper link between the forces in terms of intelligence and operations. Will the Home Secretary be looking for a similar model to that of the counter-terrorism hubs whereby local forces can collaborate and link into a national network?

[Mrs May]

Counter-terrorism is a good example of where there is a national organisation that deals with a matter at national level. When the National Crime Agency is in place, it will want to look at how it chooses to operate with the different commands that are under its remit.

My hon. Friend’s question reminds me that I did not respond to one of the points that the shadow Home Secretary made about counter-terrorism. I will do that now, if I may, because it is an important issue. We have never said that counter-terrorism would come under the remit of the National Crime Agency. We have made it clear that we will not do anything to disrupt the current counter-terrorism arrangements before the Olympics, and we will not do anything to disrupt those arrangements before the National Crime Agency is up and running. There will be a point at which it will be appropriate, in the new landscape, to look to ensure that counter-terrorism is still being dealt with in the most effective way possible.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The UK’s only land border is with the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland. Given the particular and specific challenges that that border raises, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with my colleague, the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, about how to implement this in the Northern Ireland context and how to ensure that the NCA benefits from the very positive working relationships between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana?

[Mrs May]

We have been talking to all the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland, about the establishment and operation of the NCA. We are very conscious of the particular issues in relation to Northern Ireland, particularly given the existence of the common travel area in relation to border issues. We are also conscious of the very good relationships between the PSNI and the Garda in dealing with a number of issues that affect both sides of the border. Obviously, we respect the relationships that have been established and will continue to work with and talk to the devolved Administrations about how the operation of the NCA will affect them and how we can all work together.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

From speaking to police, head teachers and other community workers in my constituency, it is clear, without question, that the biggest cause of crime, poverty and deprivation is drugs. With the best will in the world, having more police on the streets will not tackle the root cause of that problem—it is about tackling the dealers, the traffickers and the low-lifes who most benefit from the proliferation of drugs on our streets. Can the Home Secretary expand a little more on how the NCA will effectively tackle that?

[Mrs May]

Yes, indeed. We need to tackle the drugs threat at all levels. In relation to those who are drug addicts, we have already issued our new drugs strategy. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to look at the organised crime groups that are plying this trade and bringing drugs into the country. We will be putting a focus on the disruption of activity upstream. SOCA has had some success on this in relation to a number of countries, including Colombia. We will want to build on that to ensure that we can cut off the supply before it reaches our streets.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Many Members and development non-governmental organisations are extremely alarmed by the Home Secretary’s apparent decision to put the Serious Fraud Office on 12 months’ notice. The uncertainty about the SFO’s future has led to key staff leaving in recent months, which has undermined the fight against crime and corruption. Will the Home Secretary explain what is the point of prolonging the damaging uncertainty and instability in this organisation?

[Mrs May]

I gently suggest to the hon. Lady that she should not believe everything she reads in the newspapers. There is no suggestion that the SFO has been put “on 12 months’ notice”. What we have said has been absolutely clear. The SFO is continuing to exist and to operate as it has done. We will set up an economic crime command in the NCA. In the interim—very soon, within the next few months—we will set up a co-ordinating board, initially chaired by SOCA, which will bring together those involved in dealing with economic crime, including the SFO and other agencies, to see how we can develop better co-ordination among the agencies to improve the way in which we deal with such crime. In due course, we will consider what is the appropriate relationship between the NCA, the SFO and other agencies that deal with economic crime.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

It is often said that an organisation is only as good as its leadership. It is therefore important that the new head that is appointed is of sufficient quality. Has my right hon. Friend appointed a new head? If so, perhaps she can share with the House who that person is and what their experience is.

[Mrs May]

No, I have not appointed a new head, but an advertisement for the post has been published today. As I indicated in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), we intend that the head of the NCA will be a senior chief constable who is at the top tier in terms of salary and rank. It is important that they have crime fighting experience so that they can drive the NCA as a crime fighting body.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The convicted private investigator, Jonathan Rees, who was contracted to News International, targeted the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for covert surveillance, as well as at least one former Home Secretary. It is likely that witness testimonies have been available to the Metropolitan police for a number of years. Given the seriousness of this case, is it the sort of case that the Home Secretary would take from the Metropolitan police and give to the new National Crime Agency?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on an ongoing investigation, but it is not appropriate for me to do so. As he knows, because he asked this question at Prime Minister’s questions today, an investigation is being carried out by the Metropolitan police. We have made it absolutely clear that they should follow the evidence wherever it goes.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. Cyber-security is a growing concern. It is fair to say that Britain has been slow to recognise this threat. Every day, there are more attacks on Government Departments. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the NCA will co-ordinate the response to this growing threat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

There is a cyber-security office in the Cabinet Office that looks at cyber-security from a national security point of view. The NCA will focus on cybercrime. It will have a specific cybercrime unit that will develop our capability to deal with such issues. The mistake is often made of talking about cybercrime as if it is something completely new. Sometimes cybercrimes are new forms of crime, but sometimes it is simply that cyber-techniques and technology, rather than physical means, are used as tools to commit normal crimes such as fraud or robbery. That capability will be developed in the NCA.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but I echo some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, in highlighting the success of CEOP. I ask for reassurance that CEOP’s excellent work, such as its leading global role in tackling international child abuse networks on the internet, will continue under the NCA.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend absolutely has my confirmation and reassurance on that point. We are very conscious of the excellent work of CEOP, and nothing that we are doing will upset it. CEOP will continue to work in the way that it has, but it will also be able to build on its work because of the links that it will have with other commands under the National Crime Agency. I suggest that if he has any further concerns—I hope he will not, following my reassurance—he look at the comments that the chief executive of CEOP made a couple of weeks ago on the “Today” programme. He was absolutely clear that moving to the NCA would in no way degrade or affect CEOP’s ability to carry on doing its work.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make a statement yet again? It is a real improvement in parliamentary form. At this late hour, Members on both sides of the House have still been very interested in hearing what she has said.

Will the NCA effectively lose responsibility for human trafficking? The non-governmental organisations are very concerned that after the specific trafficking centre in Sheffield went into SOCA, it may now get lost. I know that the Government are keen to move forward on human trafficking, but that is a concern.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend obviously has a particular interest as chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking. I know that he is waiting, I hope with some interest and excitement, for the Government’s publication of our human trafficking strategy in a matter of weeks, when we will be able to set the matter in more context. The aim is that human trafficking will come within the National Crime Agency’s remit. Whether it is in a specific unit in the organised crime command or dealt with in another way will be a matter for the NCA when it is set up, but once we have an individual in place who is driving the creation of the NCA, I expect that to be exactly the sort of issue that they will want to examine.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the National Crime Agency will build on some of the good work of SOCA in tackling organised crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. As I have said in response to a number of hon. Members this afternoon, SOCA has done good work, but we believe that more can be done. The organised crime command being within the NCA will enable greater synergies of operation both across law enforcement agencies and with police forces’ activities. I believe that we will be able to build on our work in dealing with organised crime. As I indicated in my statement, Sir Paul Stephenson has said that sadly, at the moment we are not doing enough in that area and need to do more.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Crime is often linked with terrorism. Will the National Crime Agency have primacy over other agencies when several agencies have an operational interest?

[Mrs May]

It will for those matters that are under its remit, but as I indicated in a response a few minutes ago, the counter-terrorism policing structure will not be changed—certainly not before the Olympics, and not before the National Crime Agency is set up. That is staying as it is. There will be links between the NCA and the Association of Chief Police Officers’ terrorism and allied matters committee in dealing with terrorism, and when there are links between organised crime and terrorism it is obviously important that those bodies work together to ensure that they deal with them effectively.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to make the NCA a crime-fighting organisation, but can she say at this stage how many officers she expects will serve in it and what the balance of resources will be between the various commands?

[Mrs May]

By definition, we are bringing a number of existing agencies into the NCA, so it is expected that those who are in those agencies at the moment will come into it. The exact disposition of the numbers and those individuals among various commands is not yet set in stone. It will of course be considered in the transition period, once the individual who will head up the NCA in its transition is in place.

Justice and Home Affairs (Pre-Council Statement)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on 9 and 10 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary of Justice, Kenny MacAskill and I intend to attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed:

The Council will begin in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The Commission will give an update on the roll out of the central VIS (Visa Information System). The UK is not bound by the VIS regulation because it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.

Next there will be a presentation by the Commission on amendments to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, which lists third country nationals who must possess visas to cross the external borders of the Schengen area and those exempt from this requirement. The amendments include provisions for a “safeguard clause” allowing the temporary suspension of existing visa waivers. The UK is not bound by this regulation as we do not participate in the migration aspects of the Schengen acquis.

The Council will seek a general approach on elements of the amending Frontex regulation. This amending regulation builds on an evaluation of the first five years of Frontex’ performance and is intended to extend the remit of Frontex in areas that will allow it to be more operationally effective in future. The presidency remains optimistic that they will reach agreement of this co-decision measure before the end of June. The UK is excluded from the regulation.

There will be an update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II); the UK will reiterate support for the continuation of the current SIS II project.

The Council will be asked to adopt draft Council conclusions on the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to join Schengen. The conclusions confirm that evaluation visits have been completed and that both countries have met or exceeded the agreed Schengen criteria following a series of peer evaluations. The UK has actively participated in discussions within the Schengen Evaluation Committee and helped Bulgaria and Romania to meet the required standards. Bulgaria and Romania will join once a Council decision has been passed; this is not foreseen until at least the autumn.

The presidency will seek a general approach on the regulation creating an IT agency to manage existing IT systems. The UK supports conclusion of the regulation having secured amendments to ensure our participation.

The Council will discuss EU-Western Balkans JHA relations in relation to the post-visa liberalisation monitoring mechanism. Since 19 December 2009, the citizens of Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and since 15 December 2010 Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina enjoy visa-free travel to the EU member states if they hold a biometric passport. The follow-up mechanism set up at the beginning of 2011 covers border management, document security, combating organised crime, and fundamental rights, as well as the effective implementation of readmission agreements. The mechanism allows the Commission to engage with the countries concerned, under the framework of the stabilisation and association process, in a dialogue for the assessment of the consistent implementation of all reforms launched under the visa liberalisation roadmap. The UK does not participate in these elements of Schengen or the common EU visa policy.

Following Mixed Committee the main Council will begin with the Commission expected to present amended proposals to recast the asylum reception conditions directive and asylum procedures directive. The UK takes part in the existing directives but did not opt in to the original proposals to replace them that were brought forward in 2008 and 2009. Those proposals were strongly criticised by member states because of the significant additional regulation to which they would subject their asylum systems, and because they would grant asylum seekers additional unnecessary entitlements that would attract false claims for asylum. The Commission is therefore amending them in order to make agreement more likely.

Next the presidency will update the Council on progress of negotiations on three legal migration directives which the UK has not opted into. The first measure would establish common rules for the admission of third country nationals onto the territory of the EU where they are seeking admission on the basis of an intra-company transfer and make provision for intra-EU movement of such personnel. The second measure would establish common rules for the admission of third country nationals onto the territory of the EU where they are seeking admission for the purpose of seasonal work. The third measure would establish a single procedure for the issuance of a residence permit to, and a common set of rights for, third country nationals admitted onto the territory of the EU for the purpose of work.

Council conclusions have been proposed on borders, migration and asylum; these will be discussed in the context of recent Commission communications on migration and on a dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the southern Mediterranean, as well as the second annual report on the implementation of the migration pact. The proposed Council conclusions are intended to prepare for the European Council on 24 June, which will focus on migration with particular reference to the developing situation in the middle east and north Africa.

There will also be a discussion on Council conclusions regarding the EU’s strategy on readmission. These conclusions follow the recent evaluation by the Commission on the operation and effectiveness of readmission agreements currently in force. The UK welcomes the Commission evaluation and supports a number of recommendations made in it.

The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (EU CTC) will present his six-monthly discussion paper on EU CT strategy. The discussion paper aims to provide a stock-take of the current CT threat and proposes specific policy initiatives under the following headings: prevent, transport security, research and CBRN. The UK will promote the importance of co-ordinating internal and external CT activity. The Commission will also present its air cargo security progress report on the implementation of the EU action plan of 30 November 2011. There will be a vote on implementing the new EU cargo security regime at the Transport Regulatory Committee on 8 June. The UK supports the proposals in the EU action plan.

Next the Council will be asked to adopt draft Council conclusions on establishing priorities in the fight against organised crime over the next two years. The UK supports the priorities identified in the conclusions which have been drawn from Europol’s organised crime threat assessment. There will also be a presentation of complementary approaches and actions to prevent and combat organised crime: A collection of good practice examples from EU member states. This practical approach to tackling organised crime is supported by the UK.

The justice day will commence with the Council seeking a general approach on the directive on combating attacks against information systems. The directive seeks to repeal and replace the current framework decision on combating attacks on information systems and bring member states’ legislation up to date with technical developments and threats in this area. The UK has opted in to the directive which remains under parliamentary scrutiny in the House of Commons.

Next the Council will discuss the European Investigation Order (EIO). The EIO is draft directive aimed at streamlining the process of mutual legal assistance between participating EU countries. The UK has opted in. The presidency is seeking to agree a partial general approach to articles 1-18. While we believe that there have been significant improvements to the original draft of the EIO we continue to have a concern in particular about the handling of coercive measures in article 10. The EIO also remains subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The presidency will also seek political compromise on the main issues on the European certificate of succession. This measure aims to establish common rules and procedures relating to cross-border inheritance matters. The UK did not opt-in to the measure, but is playing an active part in negotiations.

The presidency had planned to seek agreement on a regulation on the possibility of attributing legal value to the electronic version of the Official Journal. However a number of member states, including the UK, have placed scrutiny reservations on the text and it is clear that political agreement will not be possible at this Council. Therefore we expect this item to be removed from the agenda.

The Council will then agree a resolution on the roadmap for strengthening the rights of victims. The roadmap is a statement of political intent, and sets out the basis for future legislative measures. The UK hope to be able to agree to this resolution.

There will be a progress report on e-justice provided by the presidency. The aim of e-justice is to promote the use of IT in the justice area—in particular through the provision of information.

The presidency will give a state of play report on EU accession to the European Convention of Human Rights. The accession by the EU will mean that the EU and its institutions are directly bound by the convention. The negotiating mandate was agreed at the JHA Council on 4 June 2010.

The Commission will make a presentation about the victims package which they published on 18 May. The package included two draft legislative instruments: a draft directive to replace the 2001 Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (2001/220/JHA) and a proposal for a regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. The Commission also published a communication setting out further work that it intends to undertake in this area.

It is anticipated that the Commission will also present an EU anti-corruption package. One of the expected documents is likely to include consideration of the modalities of EU accession to the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).

The presidency will also agree Council conclusions on the memory of the crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe. The draft conclusions reaffirm the importance raising awareness of the crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe and promoting a shared memory of them; and encourage member states and the Commission to promote their memory in various ways.

The Council is also expected to adopt Council conclusions on the ninth Eurojust annual report (calendar year 2010).

The Commission will present its approach to future work towards protecting EU public money against all forms of criminal conduct, including fraud. Its communication focuses on an integrated policy to protect EU financial interest by criminal law and by administrative investigations, including effective and equivalent legal action in member states and strengthening the institutional framework at European level. The Government are determined to see action taken to tackle fraud more effectively in relation to EU funds. For example, they broadly supports the aim of strengthening OLAF’s operational efficiency and improving its governance. However, this communication covers a wide array of policy proposals, which the Government will need to scrutinise closely in forthcoming working level discussions.

There will be an information point on the Missing Children Europe conference 25-26 May 2011 and under AOB there will be a presentation on the conference of Ministers of the Western Balkans countries requested by Slovenia and a presentation of the project “Police Equal Performance” requested by Austria.

Prevent Strategy

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the review of the Government’s strategy to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

Intelligence indicates that the UK faces a serious and sustained threat from terrorism. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but the threat from al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism is not. Indeed, the threat level from international terrorism remains at “Severe”, meaning an attack is highly likely. That threat comes both from foreign nationals and from terrorists born and bred in Britain.

To tackle that threat, as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in Munich earlier this year, we must not only arrest and prosecute those who breach the law, but we must stop people being drawn into terrorist-related activity in the first place. That will require a new approach to integrating our divided communities, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and delivered by Ministers across the whole of Government. In counter-terrorism policy, it will require an effective strategy to tackle radicalisation in this country and overseas. That is why, last year, I launched a review of the existing counter-radicalisation strategy known as Prevent. That review found that the Prevent programme that we inherited from the previous Government was flawed. It confused Government policy to promote integration with Government policy to prevent terrorism. It failed to tackle the extremist ideology that not only undermines the cohesion of our society, but inspires would-be terrorists to seek to bring death and destruction to our towns and cities. In trying to reach out to those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes even reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting. We will not make the same mistakes.

Our new strategy is guided by a number of key principles. Prevent should remain an integral part of our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, a full update of which we will publish later this summer. Its aim should be to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. Prevent should address all forms of terrorism, including the extreme right wing. That is only right and proper and will also provide a more flexible basis to adapt to emerging threats in the future.

In a world of scarce resources, it is clear that Prevent work must be targeted against those forms of terrorism that pose the greatest risk to our national security. Currently, the greatest threat comes from al-Qaeda and those it inspires. The majority of Prevent resources and efforts will therefore be devoted to stopping people joining or supporting al-Qaeda, its affiliates or like-minded groups. But Prevent must also recognise and tackle the insidious impact of non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views that terrorists exploit.

Prevent depends on a successful integration strategy, but integration alone will not meet our counter-terrorism objectives, and our integration programme should go much wider than just security and counter-terrorism. This was a fundamental failing of the last Government’s approach. They failed to promote integration, and where they did promote it, they did so through the narrow prism of counter-terrorism. So we will do more than any Government before us to promote integration, including through teaching our history and values in our schools, through the national citizen service, and through other policies, but we will do so separately and differently from Prevent. The combined effect of this work and of the new Prevent strategy will be an unyielding fight against extremism, violent extremism and radicalisation.

It is critical that agencies, Departments and local authorities work to a common set of Prevent objectives to deliver the outcomes that we want. Public funding for Prevent must be rigorously prioritised and comprehensively audited. The previous Government were far too lax in spending in this area, as they were in so many others. Let me reiterate that under this Government, public money will not be provided to extremist organisations. If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, participation in society—if they do not accept these fundamental and universal values—we will not work with them and we will not fund them.

Within this overall framework, the new Prevent strategy will have three objectives. First, Prevent will respond to the ideological challenge and the threat from those who promote it. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in his speech in Luton, we must be much more assertive about our values. Let me be clear: the ideology of extremism and terrorism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Tackling that ideology will mean working with mainstream individuals and organisations to make sure moderate voices are heard. It will mean robustly defending our institutions and our way of life. So where propagandists break the law in encouraging or approving terrorism, it will mean arrest and prosecution, and where people seek to enter this country from overseas to engage in activity in support of extremist or terrorist groups, we will exclude them. Since coming to power, I have already excluded 44 individuals from the UK either because of unacceptable behaviour or for national security reasons.

Secondly, Prevent will stop individuals being drawn into terrorism and will ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support. Radicalisation is a process, not a one-off event. During that process it is possible to intervene to stop vulnerable people gravitating towards terrorism. We will do this by building on the successful multi-agency “Channel” programme, which identifies and provides support for people at risk of radicalisation. I want to use this opportunity to make one thing clear—Prevent is not about spying on communities, as some have alleged. It is about acting on information from the police, the security and intelligence agencies, local authorities and community organisations to help those specifically at risk of turning towards terrorism. It is incumbent on everyone in this country to play their part in helping them do so.

Thirdly, we will work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation. It is right to acknowledge that progress has been made in this area, but that progress has been patchy and it must be improved. So we will work with education and health care providers, universities, faith groups, charities, prisons and the wider criminal justice system. We will also work to tackle the particular challenge of radicalisation on the internet, and to make better use ourselves of social media and other modern communications technologies.

This review has been independently overseen by Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I pay tribute to him for his contribution. Lord Carlile has said that the new Prevent strategy has his full support. He said that

“it provides a template for challenging the extremist ideas and terrorist actions which seek to undermine the rule of law and fundamental British political values and institutions. Its tone is clear, and its policy compelling. It offers a positive message for mutual respect, tolerance and liberty.”

Prevent has not been without controversy. In the past, it received allegations that it was a cover for spying. Those allegations have been found to be false, but now we will make sure that this is seen and known to be the case. In the past, Prevent was muddled up with integration. It operated to confused and contradictory objectives—not any more. At times funding even found its way to the sorts of extremist organisations that themselves pose a threat to our society and to our security—not under this Government.

Let me be clear. We will not fund or work with organisations that do not subscribe to the core values of our society. Our new Prevent strategy will challenge the extremist ideology, it will help protect sectors and institutions from extremists, and it will stop the radicalisation of vulnerable people. Above all, it will tackle the threat from home-grown terrorism. I commend this statement to the House.

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

We should take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who work so hard to protect our national security. Today we expected the Home Secretary to update the Prevent strategy, but she has done nothing of the sort. We support updating the Prevent strategy, but there is a massive gap between her rhetoric today and the reality of her policies. Where she should be building consensus around counter-terrorism, instead she has been political point-scoring. She has set out no actual proposals on how she would deliver in such an important area.

Most of the work on the development of Prevent was done after the 7/7 bombings and it was treading completely new ground. Urgent work was needed to disrupt the process of radicalisation, but there was no experience to draw on, and a range of different approaches was rightly tried. Much of that work was supported by the Opposition at the time. Some like “Channel” were very successful; some were not as effective. We were clear from the very beginning that it would need to be reviewed and evolve in the light of the evidence. The same is true now.

The Home Secretary, however, has claimed with great certainty that she will not make mistakes. If she believes that she now knows all the answers on how to tackle extremism and radicalisation, she is heading for a fall. In her desire to blame the previous Government for everything she is blinding herself and her Government to the fact that this is difficult work. Some of what she would like to do will work, but some will not, and it will need to be reviewed again, but that should be on the basis of evidence, not political positioning.

The Home Secretary has not even told us what her new mistake-free strategy involves. We agree that some groups should not be funded because of their extremist views, but the review says that it found no evidence to indicate widespread, systematic or deliberate funding of extremist groups, either by the Home Office or by local authorities or police forces. She has told us nothing about the new framework that will somehow prevent it happening inadvertently with local decisions in place. She has said that there will be a new focus on integration from the Department for Communities and Local Government, but what is it, what will it do and how will it be funded? She has already cut 40% from the Prevent funding for local councils this year alone and they have major cuts still to come.

The Home Secretary has claimed that there will be stronger work by universities and the NHS, but the Universities UK and the British Medical Association have already rejected her views. How workable are these plans if such critical stakeholders are hostile from the start? She has not set out different approaches for dealing with violent extremism, non-violent extremist and integration and seems to be confusing all three. Is it not the truth that there is a massive gap between her rhetoric and reality?

The Prime Minister has claimed that there will now be no more of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism, but what will the Government actually do and how will they deliver? Police counter-terrorism budgets are being cut in real terms, as are the Foreign Office’s counter-terrorism programmes, and later today the Home Secretary will introduce a Bill that will make it harder, not easier, to prevent terrorism attacks by watering down elements of control orders. Despite all the Prime Minister’s strong claims about getting tough on extremists, there is still no sign that he will meet his pre-election promise to ban the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

I know from previous experience of the Home Secretary’s statements that if I give her a long list of questions, she will not answer them, so let me leave her with just one: will she confirm that the Government will not meet their promise to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and admit that sometimes it is not as easy in practice to deliver counter-terrorism and work to prevent extremism as it is to make grand political promises as she has done today?

[Mrs May]

I am rather disappointed in the tone that the right hon. Lady has taken in her response. On the one hand she said that she recognised that the Prevent strategy needed review, but on the other hand she has completely rejected the review that has taken place. She claims that no change is taking place, but clearly there is. On Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government are concerned about that group’s actions and keep it under constant review. She asked me to confirm that that is a very difficult area in which to work, which I am happy to do. It is difficult to make the proper judgments in this area.

When we came into office we looked at the previous Government’s approach and found that they had not looked at the issue of extremism but focused instead on violent extremism. We believe that it is important to look at extremism, because people involved in it can be led on to violent extremism and terrorist acts. We believe that it is also important to look at extremism because it can create an atmosphere in which people can more easily be radicalised towards terrorism. That is a key change that we are bringing about. We are looking at all forms of terrorism and have made that clear in what we are doing.

I have identified a number of areas where I think not enough has been done to look at radicalisation. The right hon. Lady said that Universities UK had rejected the review’s statements relating to universities, but I have to say to her and to Universities UK that I consider one of the problems to have been a degree of complacency in universities and their unwillingness to recognise the radicalisation that can take place on their campuses and do anything about it. We aim to work with universities to ensure that in future, with regard to their pastoral duty of care to students, they take radicalisation seriously and act accordingly.

There will be real differences in the approach we are taking. It has been a problem in the past that, because Prevent covered both integration and the counter-terrorism aspects of the strategy, it was perceived to be the securitisation of integration, so it is right that the Department for Communities and Local Government will take on the integration aspect of our policy and work on aspects of community cohesion.

Finally, I think that it is absolutely right that the Government should look very carefully at the groups that are being funded, analyse and evaluate them properly and carefully monitor how money is spent. The previous Government did not do that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I welcome wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend’s statement and comments, not least because a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a Muslim inmate of one of our high-security prisons, in which he said:

‘Last week our prison service imam told us ‘not to believe western media’ in relation to the death of Usama bin Laden. The week prior to that the imam celebrated the escape of hundreds of Taliban prisoners from the Kabul jail.’

He went on to list equally inappropriate teachings by prison imams in a total of five prisons. The Home Secretary is right to draw attention to the previous Government’s complacency over the issue. Will she give an undertaking that this will be put right and that we will not be able to say those things next year?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that letter to the attention of the House and, in doing so, raising a very important aspect of the work on which we wish to focus. There is a great deal more to be done in prisons, and a number of steps that we intend to take are set out in the Prevent strategy today. I should be very happy to receive a copy of that letter, if he feels able to share it with me, so that we can look at the specific allegations that have been made, but we intend to work more carefully with prisons, prison staff, the National Offender Management Service and those going into prisons to deal with individual prisoners in order to try to ensure that we do not see the sort of activity taking place that he has identified.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Who could possibly disagree with the three objectives that the Home Secretary has set out? But she has not done herself or her Government justice by seeking to make party political points about those who had to deal—I did not have to—with the reality of post-7 July 2005. I have just one very simple question. How can she this afternoon talk about building on our institutions and on an understanding of our values and history while the Education Secretary is proposing to withdraw citizenship from the school curriculum?

[Mrs May]

In relation to my comments on the previous Government, we did a proper review of the Prevent strategy to identify those areas where change was necessary. We have done that, and I have brought to the House a number of areas where we believe the previous Government’s strategy was flawed and where it is necessary to make changes, which I have set out before the House today.

In relation to what is happening in education, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is quite clear about the necessity of ensuring that values are indeed taught in our schools, but that that is done in a number of ways, including through the proper teaching of our history.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

During the cold war, Governments of Labour and Conservative persuasions differentiated between communists who were subversive and broke the law and communists who preached a totalitarian philosophy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the job of the police and of the Security Service to deal with those Islamists or, as I prefer to call them, un-Islamic extremists who break the law, but that the job of Prevent must be to destroy the philosophical basis of the perversion of the religion that they seek to convey?

[Mrs May]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that those who break the law are dealt with appropriately. We need to ensure also that we challenge the ideology—or, the perverse ideology—that people use to lure others down the road of radicalisation and into violent acts and into terrorism. In terms of the Prevent point of view and the very clear counter-terrorism aspect of the strategy that we have identified, that work will be done in a number of ways. In the Prevent strategy, we set out how we will deal with issues such as the internet and the use of the internet to radicalise people, but it will also be done through work with individuals who are identified as vulnerable.

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

I am very disappointed at the tone that the Home Secretary has adopted today. She has been extremely partisan in her comments. It is very easy to talk tough on these issues, but what practical support will she give to women and to young Muslims to develop the skills and confidence to tackle that pernicious ideology? In particular, what will she do about the £4.2 million that the research, information and communications unit in the Home Office spent last year? It is supposed to be developing a counter-narrative, but I for one have not seen one useful piece or product of research and information that RICU has produced. At the same time, the money for communities has been slashed, but we have a real responsibility to support people in our communities, so that they have the skills to tackle this pernicious, political ideology that is all too prevalent.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is correct to say that it is important to ensure that individuals are able to tackle this perverse ideology, and part of Prevent’s work with individuals will be precisely about that—about enabling people to understand the perversion of the ideology.

In relation to dealing with the wider aspects of community participation and cohesion, however, including looking at the involvement in society more generally, as we would like, of women from particular communities who are often not able or encouraged to do so, the Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at that issue in the integration strategy that it is developing.

We refer to RICU, which was set up under the last Government, in the strategy. I fully accept the right hon. Lady’s point about communication, which is extremely important; that is why we are looking at the role that RICU plays in it.

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

Does the Home Secretary agree that a clear divide must exist between the measures designed to tackle violent extremism and those designed to promote community cohesion, that funding must be denied to organisations that do not support our basic values in relation to respect for women and minorities, and that the most effective way to confront radical non-violent groups is to tackle their beliefs in open debate?

[Mrs May]

I certainly agree that we need to challenge the ideology. I also agree that the means by which we deal with violent extremism, or people who are vulnerable to radicalisation towards violent extremism, need to be separated from the wider task of community cohesion and working towards greater participation in society. In the past, people came to look with some concern at what was being done in the name of Prevent because it was trying to mix up those two aspects of work. It is important that we separate out the community cohesion work, which is overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

As somebody who has high regard for the Home Secretary, I, too, express regret that she has chosen to express some of her views in such party political terms. Surely it is right that we seek unity across the House on this issue.

Given that several thousand young Islamists in this country have been through training systems in Pakistan, can the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that that will be borne in mind in future and that the good work that has been carried out in Pakistan under Prevent and associated programmes will not be jettisoned, because it is important for the terrorist activities that take place in this country?

[Mrs May]

It is certainly the case that a strand of Prevent work takes place overseas and is overseen by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it is important that that work is properly evaluated and evidence-based so that we ensure that the money is being spent where it can be seen to be properly working. We need to look very carefully at how the money is spent in that area of activity, but we also need to ensure that it continues to take place, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be doing that. Separately from that, because the Department for International Development does not fund Prevent-related work, the work that DFID does in building up society has an impact in this area as well.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

The Home Secretary talked about the dangers from Islamist fundamentalism but did not, I am sure for good reason, mention the dangers from Irish republican terrorism. Could she account for the difficult nexus in terms of intelligence and prevention work on the mainland of the United Kingdom and how this policy will encompass it?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The Prevent strategy that I have outlined specifically does not cover Northern Ireland-related terrorism because it is important that we work through the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Ministers there, in looking at these issues. There is a responsibility for this in Northern Ireland, and it would not be right for us to bring Northern Ireland-related terrorism under the Prevent strategy that I have announced. However, certain aspects of the Prevent strategy have some commonality with themes in relation to Northern Ireland-related terrorism, and I am sure that others will draw on that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for clarifying that point, but will she elaborate on it? Will she confirm that where a dissident republican suspect is found to be operational, active and gathering intelligence here on the mainland, they will come under this policy and will be subject to its restrictions, and, importantly, that they will not be sin-binned back to Northern Ireland but will be restrained here, where they are trying to commit their crime?

[Mrs May]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that anybody who is identified as being involved in acts of terrorism or preparatory acts of terrorism that are suitable for prosecution under the law will be prosecuted under the law.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The strategy highlights the targeting of university campuses by extremists for the purposes of radicalising vulnerable students. I noted her concern that some universities are complacent about those risks. Will she give more detail on how the revised Prevent programme will better protect students while not overwhelming universities with excessive burdens?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to look at that issue. That work has started in a number of ways. The National Union of Students has done good work on the role that it can play to prevent radicalisation on campuses by considering issues such as who is speaking on campuses. We will continue to work with the NUS to develop its approach, including to other university societies. We will also work with university vice-chancellors and staff on this issue. It is certainly not our intention suddenly to overburden universities with red tape. However, we hope that universities are prepared to recognise the role that radicalisation on campuses can play and accept that they have a responsibility to look at what is happening on their campuses.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the last Parliament, the Communities and Local Government Committee did a report on the previous Government’s Prevent strategy. One criticism that was made to our inquiry, to which the Secretary of State has alluded, is that there was confusion between a strand of the policy that dealt with individuals who were felt to be at risk of becoming involved in terrorism and other policies that were more closely related to social cohesion measures. Is the Home Secretary saying that the first of those issues will be the responsibility of the Home Office and the second the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government? Will there be any links between the two? If there are, how will the policy differ from that of the previous Government?

[Mrs May]

It is our intention that there will be different responsibilities for those matters. We will allow the Department for Communities and Local Government to identify how it wishes to operate its integration strategy. I believe that hon. Members will hear more from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the wider issues of community cohesion, participation in society and integration in due course. We will bring together a joint board to ensure that all activity takes place against the Government’s overall objectives in this area. I expect that that board will look at the interface between the Prevent strategy and the integration strategy of the Department for Communities and Local Government. We will not label the DCLG work as part of the Prevent strategy, and it will not be part of the counter-terrorism strategy run by the Home Office.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in South Ribble that these reforms will ensure that the Prevent programme is properly focused and, above all, more effective than it has been?

[Mrs May]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House following her recent illness. It is good to see her back in her seat. It is certainly our intention to monitor how money is spent on Prevent to ensure that it is spent effectively. In looking at the programmes that work, we will ensure that the decisions that are made are fully evidence-based.

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

In what new ways will the right hon. Lady promote integration? What core values and whose history will now be taught in schools?

[Mrs May]

The last time I looked, there was a different education system in Scotland, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not suggesting that I will touch it. However, I think that people across the United Kingdom share a belief in the values of democracy, human rights, equality and the rule of law, and those are the values that we are talking about.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I welcome the teaching of British history in our schools. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the police and security services are content with the new package of proposals?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation. We have of course been talking to the police and the intelligence agencies about the issue, and there will be particular interaction with the police because a significant part of the Prevent money is spent by them. I will write to chief constables and others today to set out the new strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am very impressed that the hon. Gentleman is still breathing.

[Mrs May]

I of course recognise the experience in Stoke-on-Trent, particularly over the past year, in relation to both terrorist plots of an Islamic nature and the influence and actions of the English Defence League. I would hope that everybody in the House believes in the values to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), namely democracy, the rule of law, equality and human rights. Those are the values that we wish to promote.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, and say what a breath of fresh air it was to hear some of the things that she said? As she knows, much of the threat to the UK comes via Pakistan. Can she explain how the Government are working with counter-terror agencies to deal with that specific threat?

[Mrs May]

We work closely with the Government of Pakistan on counter-terrorism matters, and I should put on record in the House, as I believe I have on previous occasions, that in fact the Pakistani people have suffered significant losses to terrorist attacks. Several thousand people have died in Pakistan in recent years as a result of such attacks, and we should never forget what is happening to people living there. Of course, there are considerable links between this country and Pakistan, and as I said, we work closely with the Pakistani Government in examining counter-terrorism issues.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the better targeting of our resources, but will the Home Secretary ensure that projects and schemes that are doing extremely well in inner cities, such as some around the mosque in Lambeth, are protected or at least not arbitrarily thrown away just to save money?

[Mrs May]

One aspect of the new strategy that we are adopting is a much closer evaluation of the work that is done, so that we can identify precisely the projects that are working well and should continue to be supported. At the same time, we will also identify groups that we feel it is no longer right for the Government to fund.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House again to keep us informed. In Wellingborough prison, the imam is in charge of all the religious affairs. I am sure he is very good, but what checks are made in prisons to ensure that the imams there are not preaching extremism?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s question refers back, in a sense, to that asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). In considering how we deal with prisons, we will do much more work to examine exactly what is happening there. We will work with prison governors and staff and with the National Offender Management Service to get better information about what is happening in prisons, which is a key aspect of the strategy. We recognise that more work needs to be done.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. In disentangling the issues of trying to create more community cohesion and at the same time trying to deal with terrorism and radicalisation, how can we ensure that there is not a gap through which radicalised young people can emerge? How can we ensure that the policies co-exist and are complementary to each other, not in conflict?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated earlier, we will take steps to ensure that our policies are complementary across the Government. Importantly, I hope that the integration and community cohesion strategies will encourage people to be willing to identify those young people who they consider to be vulnerable to radicalisation, and who they feel need the support and action of the programmes that are available, to ensure that they do not go down the route to terrorism.

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

The Home Secretary spoke of the values of our country. It is important to recognise the Christian heritage of those values, so will she recognise the failure of the previous strategy, which diminished the positive contribution of faith-based organisations and distorted their relationships with the Government? I welcome the announcement of the £5 million of near neighbours funding to enable churches to be involved in reaching out to all communities. That is a positive and welcome step.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that it is important that the Government are willing to work with groups from all faiths, to ensure that we use the expertise and ability that faith groups have to reach out into their communities in a way that the Government cannot. As I said, it is important to do that across all faiths.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

If I pointed out to the Home Secretary that before 1997, her Conservative predecessor, who was advised by the current Prime Minister, allowed into Britain no fewer than four times Sheikh Qaradawi, the theologian and ideologue of suicide bombing, she would just dismiss it as a political point. All Governments get some of their policies on such things wrong, and she should not have made such a partisan statement.

On a specific point, the University and College Lecturers Union has just repudiated—at its congress last weekend—the EU’s definition of anti-Semitism. That is a highly retrograde step, because that working definition is accepted around the world. The union has given a green light to all those who want to encourage anti-Semitic thinking. Will the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary look into that?

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Gentleman may have seen, an Education Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench. He will have heard that point and I am sure he will raise it with the Education Secretary.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement? Since the terrible bombings of July 2005, it is clear that in some cases self-appointed Islamist groups have used public funds to poison young Muslim minds. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make it absolutely clear that this Government will only work with and fund groups that accept the British way of life, our democracy and our values?

[Mrs May]

As I made clear in my statement, and as is made clear in the strategy, the Government will not work with or fund groups that hold extremist views.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that one key to this strategy is international co-operation with agencies in other countries, particularly in addressing the prevalence of propaganda on the internet? Sharing intelligence across agencies could well get to the source of that problem.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for again raising the internet, which was mentioned in an earlier question. It is important that we look at the use of the internet, and we can do so in a number of ways. The police could take action in relation to some of the things that are put on the internet here, but one of the key things is to work internationally, particularly with the US. Many internet providers are based there rather than here, and are therefore outside UK jurisdiction. We are doing more to talk to the US, and indeed to those companies directly about their responsibilities.

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

As somebody with an Islamic background, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. She has announced an excellent and proper way forward to deal with that bizarre, distorted ideology and to promote community cohesion. What representations, if any, have been made to the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan on reforming the madrassahs—the religious schools—which have often been a breeding ground for extremism?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that that was one of the issues that I discussed with the Pakistan Interior Minister when I visited that country last October.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

One problem with the Prevent scheme funding under the previous Administration was the lack of clarity on what the funding was for and which organisations would receive it, and ensuring appropriate outcomes. Will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that a broad range of organisations receive funds, but that those organisations are outcome-based, so that we can clearly evaluate the success or otherwise of the funding?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not good enough for Governments simply to give money to organisations; we need to ensure that it is being effectively used for the purpose for which it was intended. That is why it is important that we establish much clearer evaluation and monitoring of the use of that money.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

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

There is no greater task for any Government than to protect their citizens, to uphold their values and to defend their way of life, but when we face such a significant threat from terrorism over so great a period it becomes even more important that the Government ensure that the protection of our citizens does not overshadow the freedoms of us all. That is why we reviewed counter-terrorism legislation and it is why we need this Bill. Let me be clear: I will do nothing that risks our national security or the safety of our citizens, but this Bill is necessary precisely because public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.

There is in this country a small number of people who pose a real threat to our citizens, but whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport. Prosecution, conviction and prison will always be our priority because the right place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities. Since becoming Home Secretary, I have made use of the control order powers available to me to stop terrorist activity and to place restrictions on such individuals on a number of occasions.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I think that my right hon. Friend may have anticipated that I would have something to say. She refers to terrorists and I am sure she realises that what she is talking about in this context is suspected terrorists. Does she recognise that it is the fault of the Government and Parliament if judges are given too much scope in human rights matters? Why produce a Bill here at Westminster that fails to provide for due process and a fair trial according to the basic principles of British justice? The coalition is simply giving in to Lib-Dem pressure for this Bill to comply with the Human Rights Act and the European convention; and it has not even provided for a derogation from article 5.

[Mrs May]

I did indeed expect that, as my hon. Friend was in the Chamber, he might wish to raise certain matters. I am aware of his private Member’s Bill on the same issue. I have to tell him that I was not entirely clear from what he said whether he was in favour of more human rights or against more human rights. I see him leaping to his feet.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for walking into that one. I am very much in favour of human rights, but I am in favour of human rights according to principles of British justice, not those devised through the European convention and applied through the Human Rights Act, which has led to so many contradictions and inconsistencies and has raised so much concern among the public at large.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I hope my hon. Friend is grateful for the opportunity I gave him to clarify that particular point. I simply say in response to that and his comments about the judiciary that legislation is, of course, set by Parliament, but I believe that the relationship between politicians and the judiciary has changed as a result of the operation of the Human Rights Act. As a Government, we have set up a commission, which will report in due course, to look at the Human Rights Act and the possibility of introducing a Bill of Rights.

I said that I felt the Bill was necessary because public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers. Protecting the British public will always be my top priority, but the current control orders regime is neither perfect nor entirely effective. I believe that the Bill will give us appropriate, proportionate and effective powers to deal with the risk posed by people we believe are involved in terrorist-related activity whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.

Our approach is clear, consistent and coherent. We will repeal the control order regime and replace it with a more focused and targeted regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures. We will then support the new measures with increased covert investigative resources. So this Bill starts by repealing the Act that provides the power to impose control orders on individuals: the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

The Bill sets out the essential elements of the TPIM—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—regime that will replace control orders. It enables the Secretary of State to impose specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures on an individual by means of a TPIM notice. Unlike under the control order regime, the detail of the measures that will be able to be imposed will be specified in legislation and so will be specifically approved by the House. It is only right that it is Parliament, and not the Executive, that decides what types of measures may be imposed.

The Bill establishes 12 types of measures that could be imposed as part of a TPIM notice. It also provides clear limits on the restrictions that may be imposed under each measure. These measures include: an overnight residence measure; a travel measure, mainly to prevent travel outside the United Kingdom; an exclusion measure to prevent individuals entering specified areas or places; a financial services measure; an electronic communication device measure; an association measure; a reporting measure and a monitoring measure.

The overnight residence measure is not the same as the control order curfew requirement. Under control orders, curfews could last up to 16 hours and apply at any point in the day. Our intention is not to force individuals to remain in their homes during the day, when they might normally go out to work or study, but to ensure they are in their homes overnight, as most people normally would be. This will reduce the scope for involvement in terrorism-related activity and reduce the risk of absconding.

The travel measure will allow the banning of overseas travel without permission. It will also allow the individual to be required to surrender their passport or travel documents. This measure is, I believe, absolutely vital to stop travel for terrorist training, for example.

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

The Home Secretary has said that the overnight residence requirements are different from curfews and that she does not want to prevent people from going out in the evening. Why, then, did she apply for a control order that included a curfew between 5 pm in the evening and 9 am in the morning—a total curfew of 16 hours?

[Mrs May]

We are currently operating—and have been since the Government came to power—the control order regime that was put in place by the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That is the basis on which I am currently operating. The new regime that will be put in place—of terrorism prevention and investigation measures—is a package that includes not just the measures in the Bill, but, as the right hon. Lady knows, the extra resources for the security services and the police.

[Yvette Cooper]

But will the Home Secretary confirm that she has the power to specify how many hours a curfew should be for and that she has chosen to specify a curfew for 16 hours rather than for fewer hours?

[Mrs May]

I will not comment on a particular case, which the right hon. Lady appears to be trying to get me to do. What I will say is that under the current control order regime it is possible to specify the length of a curfew. As she will know, the length of curfew has been challenged—and challenged successfully—in the courts. What we are doing with TPIMs is taking a different approach to the issue. The TPIMs in the Bill are intended to ensure that we allow prevention of terrorism activity for national security requirements, while also ensuring that individuals can take part in what is regarded as normal activity, such as work or study.

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

Will not the Home Secretary simply accept that these TPIMs are nothing other than a repackaging and rebranding of the old, discredited control orders regime? Has she had a chance to look at the sheet produced by Liberty, which goes through measure by measure, showing how similar they are? Is it not the case that she is no better than Lord Reid when it comes to control orders?

[Mrs May]

We are introducing a new regime. We did what we undertook to do as a coalition Government when we came to power. Both parties were committed to reviewing the control order regime. We did that, and what we have decided is that the right balance between civil liberties and national security is reflected in the Bill. It will enable us to take action to prevent terrorist activity by that small number of people who, as I have said, we are unable to prosecute or deport, while at the same time re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties. The financial services measures would allow individuals to be limited to one bank account, for which they would have to provide statements. Transfer of money and goods overseas without prior permission could also be prohibited. Under the association measure, a list of prohibited associates would be supplied to the individual in advance, with the possibility that notice would be required of meetings with other individuals. The reporting measure would require individuals to report to a particular police station at a particular time, and the monitoring measure would require them to co-operate with arrangements to monitor their movements, communications and other activities. That might include a requirement to wear an electronic tag.

The Bill places clear limits on each of the restrictions that can be imposed. For example, it clearly provides no power for individuals to be relocated to another part of the country without their consent. The exclusion measure will allow only tightly defined exclusion from particular places such as named buildings and streets or defined locations. It will not allow exclusion from wide geographical areas. Exclusion will also be allowed from certain types of locations such as airports, ports or international railway stations. The need for such an exclusion should be obvious. As for restrictions involving electronic communication devices, the Bill makes it clear that the individual concerned must be allowed to own and use at least one fixed-line telephone, a computer and fixed-line internet connection and a mobile telephone. All that must of course be subject to specific conditions, such as the provision of passwords and phone numbers.

The Bill also sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the Secretary of State may impose a TPIMs notice. A key change from the control order regime is that the Secretary of State must now reasonably believe, rather than reasonably suspect, that an individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. The Secretary of State must also reasonably consider that it is necessary to impose particular measures on an individual to protect the public and to restrict the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. That means that the package of measures will vary from case to case, which is only right given that all cases will be different.

We are aware that TPIMs are a short-term tool to protect the public rather than a long-term solution. A person will be subject to a TPIMs notice for no more than two years in response to specific terrorist-related activity. The initial notice will be imposed for one year, and can be extended once if that is necessary to protect the public. If an individual engages in new terrorism-related activity, of course a new notice and new measures can be imposed with a further two-year time limit. A new notice could be imposed immediately if terrorism-related activity had occurred during the life of the TPIM, and a new TPIMs notice could be imposed after the original one had expired. That is an essential safeguard for our national security, ensuring that appropriate disruptive action can be taken if an individual re-engages in terrorism-related activity.

As with the current regime, the courts will have to give permission for a TPIMs notice to be imposed. Only in the most exceptional and urgent cases will court permission not have been obtained before the imposition of a notice. If the court gives permission, a full review of the decision must begin automatically. There will be no requirement for the lodging of an appeal. The full review will be heard by a High Court judge. If the judge does not consider that the relevant conditions have been met, in relation to the notice as a whole or in relation to specific measures within it, the judge may quash the whole notice or specific measures as appropriate. Individuals will know enough of the case against them to enable them to instruct their own lawyer and the special advocate who will have access to all material, including sensitive material.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The power to use control orders has always extended to Northern Ireland, but has never been used. What discussions has the Home Secretary had about the availability of special advocates in Northern Ireland? There are very few at present, and the imposition of TPIMs could present a problem.

[Mrs May]

One of the issues that we are examining is the more general issue of special advocates and the information available to them, but I take the hon. Lady’s point. As she says, the current regime is not being used in Northern Ireland, but we will be very aware of the issue of special advocates and their availability there. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—who is responsible for crime and security matters—is involved in wider Government work in relation to the availability of sensitive information in cases relating to terrorist activity.

In practice, individuals subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures will know the key elements of the case against them, even if it is not possible for them to see all the underlying intelligence. Once a TPIMs notice has been imposed, there will be a further right of appeal against subsequent decisions—for example, decisions to extend or vary the terms of the notice. The package in the Bill will assure individuals subject to TPIMs notices of a significant and appropriate level of judicial oversight of their cases. As well as providing for rigorous consideration by the courts, the Bill contains a formal statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to keep under review whether a TPIMs notice, and all its restrictions, remains necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. That will remove any doubt about whether such notices are assessed to ensure that they remain necessary at all times.

The Bill provides a number of further safeguards. The Secretary of State will be required to make a quarterly report to Parliament on the exercise of the powers in the Bill. That mirrors the current practice in relation to control orders, and will ensure appropriate visibility, and public accountability, of the TPIMs regime. The Secretary of State must also appoint an independent person to review the operation of the enacted legislation. That, too, mirrors the current control order regime.

As the House will know, David Anderson QC recently took on the role of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, which was previously undertaken so effectively and for so many years by Lord Carlile of Berriew. As independent reviewer, David Anderson would undertake the statutory reviews of the TPIMs legislation, just as he currently reviews control order powers.

The final part of the Bill relates to enforcement. It provides for a criminal offence of breaching measures specified in a TPIM notice without reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty will be five years’ imprisonment. The Bill also contains detailed provisions relating to powers of search and entry, which build on the existing powers relating to control orders. There will be an explicit power for the police to undertake a search for compliance purposes—for example, to check that the individual has no prohibited communications devices—but they will be required to obtain a warrant first.

The final part of our approach is to combine the new preventive measures with significantly increased resources for the police and the Security Service, over and above those agreed in the spending review, to help with investigation and prosecution. For security reasons I cannot give the House a full breakdown of the funds provided for specific security activities, but I can reassure Members that this is new money that has not been taken from any existing counter-terrorism programmes. These additional investigative capabilities and resources will help the police and MI5 to gather evidence with a view, as always, to prosecution. The commitment to prosecution is also reflected in clause 10, which requires prior consultation with the police on whether evidence is available that could realistically be used for prosecution in relation to a terrorist offence. It also requires the police to keep the individual's conduct under review while a TPIMs notice is in force, and to report to the Home Secretary on that review.

I have discussed the new arrangements in detail with Jonathan Evans, the director general of the Security Service. He has told me that he considers that the changes provide an acceptable balance between the needs of security and those of civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.

The Bill is a vital part of the Government's new, more effective and more proportionate approach to counter-terrorism. This afternoon I announced to the House a new and more effective strategy for countering radicalisation; the Bill is, perhaps, as important as that new strategy in restoring trust in Britain's approach to counter-terrorism. The repeal of control orders, their replacement with TPIMs, and extra resources for covert surveillance and investigation constitute the right approach. It is an approach that is necessary and proportionate, that will do a great deal to protect the public from the risk of terrorism, and that deserves support from all parties. I commend the Bill to the House.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Written Statements

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

In accordance with section 14(3), 14(4) and 14(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC prepared a report on the operation of the Act in 2010, which I laid before the House on 3 February 2011.

I am grateful to Lord Carlile for this, his final report as independent reviewer of CT legislation, and more broadly for the valuable contribution that he has made to this important area of work. Following consultation within my Department and with other relevant agencies, I am today laying before the House my response to Lord Carlile’s recommendations.

I am also laying before the House my response to the report on the renewal of the control order legislation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (published on 1 March 2011).

Copies of the Government responses will be available in the Vote Office and a copy of each will also be placed on the Home Office website.

Policing and Crime

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The Opposition’s motion is wrong in every point of fact and wrong on every point of policy. Given that they seem to have so little knowledge or understanding of policing and crime, let me deal with each of their points in turn.

First, the motion says that the Government are cutting 12,000 police officers throughout England and Wales. Of course, that is not Government policy. Decisions on the size and make-up of the police work force are a matter entirely for chief constables to take locally in conjunction with their police authority and, from May 2012, with their police and crime commissioner.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Lady say exactly how much money is being cut from budgets that are going to police authorities?

[Mrs May]

I think the hon. Gentleman asks me how much money is being cut from budgets to police authorities. The average cut this year in real terms from central Government funding for police is 5.5%, but each police force area raises funds through the precept.

I heard the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, complain when I made the point that decisions on police numbers are a matter for chief constables, yet in an interview with the New Statesman on 11 January she said that

“decisions will be taken and that is always going to be a matter for chief constables.”

So, she agrees that such decisions are taken by the police authority and the chief constable together.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says in its most recent report that the size of the work force gives no indication whatever of the quality of service a force provides to its community, and that is because of all those officers who are sat behind desks, filling in forms and giving no benefit to the public. What matters is the visibility and availability of officers and the effective use of resources, and many forces are increasing availability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) made the point about the increased number of police officers under the Mayor of London, an elected individual responsible for policing in London. In Gloucestershire, the police force has put 15% more sergeants and constables into visible policing roles while reducing overall numbers, and by doing that in Gloucestershire it is increasing the number of police officers on the beat from 563 to 651.

[Mark Tami]

What does the right hon. Lady think she is doing to the morale of those people who work in the back office when she constantly decries the work that they do?

[Mrs May]

There are a number of roles in policing, and we have been absolutely clear about that, but we are absolutely clear also that some of those people working in police force back offices have to spend significant amounts of time filling in paperwork—imposed by the previous Labour Government—which is taking up valuable time and effort. I shall deal with that issue further in a few minutes.

In London, alongside the new recruitment of police officers in the Metropolitan police area, the Met is also getting more officers to patrol alone, rather than in pairs, and better matching resources to demand, thereby increasing officer availability to the public by 25%.

Given that the Opposition are getting their facts wrong, let us look at the real facts.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that, on reflection, increasing the cuts from Labour’s proposed 12% to 20% is a false economy? It will critically impact on the number of front-line officers, and the cost of increased crime will be much greater than the savings to police forces, so should not she go back to the drawing board?

[Mrs May]

No. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all, and in a few minutes I will address exactly that point about funding.

Let us look at the facts. Our police forces understood perfectly well that they would have had to make reductions in staff numbers no matter which party was in power. The Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), found that almost all police forces were predicting future staff losses by January 2010—months before the election. In fact, 21 police forces—almost half of all police forces—saw falling officer numbers in the five years up to March 2010, when we had a Labour Government.

Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said, when Labour’s last Home Secretary was asked during the election campaign whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall under Labour, he answered no. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) understood that he could not guarantee police numbers, so why is the right hon. Lady not so straight with the public?

[Mark Tami]

If, as the right hon. Lady says, every party knew about the issue before the previous election, why did the Liberal Democrats promise 3,000 extra police?

[Mrs May]

I suggest that, instead of trying to look across to Government Members, the hon. Gentleman asks his Front Benchers why they got this country into such a financial mess that we have had to be elected as a coalition Government to clear it up: two parties, working together to clear up the mess left by one.

The Opposition’s mistake on the first point in their motion is linked to their mistake on the second point. They are simply wrong to suggest that the cuts that the Government are having to make that go further—cuts, let me remind them again, as I just have, that we are having to make because of the disastrous economic position that they left us in—

[Geraint Davies]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will find that I am about to come on to the point that he made in his first intervention.

[Andrew Bridgen]

There is a police station earmarked for closure in my constituency that is completely inefficient and unsuitable for modern policing. Local alternatives are cheaper and provide more community access, but is it not a sad indictment that such inefficient buildings are still being used, and is it not better to cut inefficient buildings rather than front-line policing?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and the sadness of the Opposition’s position is that they would not be making such very important decisions that can lead to a better and improved service to the public. I commend my hon. Friend’s local force for being willing to make such decisions.

I said that I would respond to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on the difference between the 12% cuts, which HMIC suggested could be made, and the Government’s cuts. He and other Opposition Members who have raised the point in the past, including the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, have obviously neither read nor understood the HMIC report, so let me tell them what it said.

HMIC found that more than £1.15 billion per year—12% of national police funding—could be saved if only the least efficient police forces brought themselves up to the average level of efficiency. Well, the state of the public finances that Labour left us is such that all forces must raise themselves up to the level not of the average but of the most efficient forces. That could add another £350 million of savings to those calculated in HMIC’s report. But HMIC did not consider all areas of police spending. It did not consider IT or procurement, for example, and it makes absolutely no sense for the police to procure things in 43 different ways, and it makes absolutely no sense to have 2,000 different IT systems throughout the 43 forces, as they currently do.

With a national joined-up approach, better contracts, more joint purchasing, a smaller number of different IT systems and greater private sector involvement, we can save hundreds of millions of pounds—over and above the savings identified by HMIC.

Likewise, HMIC did not consider pay, because that was outside its remit, but in an organisation such as the police, where £11 billion—80% of total revenue spending—goes on pay, there is no question but that pay restraint and pay reform must form part of the package. That is why we believe, subject to any recommendations from the Police Negotiating Board, that there should be a two-year pay freeze in policing, just as there has been across the public sector. That would save at least £350 million—again, on top of HMIC’s savings.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I know that being in opposition is difficult, but I really hope we were not as bad as that lot over there during our time in opposition.

Would it not be possible to have a royal commission on police terms and conditions? The police do a wonderful job, and we need to maintain high morale and ensure that they do not bear a disproportionate burden of the cuts that we have to make as a result of the financial mismanagement of the Labour Government.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the behaviour of the Opposition today.

On the proposal about the royal commission, the cuts we have to make and the timetable within which we have to make them means that we have to make decisions now. However, we are not just making those decisions as a Government. I set up the independent review into police pay, terms and conditions under Tom Winsor, who has produced his first report. The proposals from that report are now going through the Police Negotiating Board, and decisions will be taken by the Government once those proper processes have been gone through. At the beginning of next year, he will report on the second part of his review. I felt that it was important for the police that we ensured that an independent reviewer looked at these issues who could fully take into account the impact of all the changes.

I remind any hon. Members who are considering the royal commission proposal that in its report last summer HMIC said, in very stark terms, that there is no time for a royal commission because of the nature of the decisions that have to be taken and the speed at which they have to be taken.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The police represent the best of public services. They work tirelessly, they sign up to no-strike agreements, and they cancel leave at a moment’s notice to deal with murder or any violent crime. Do they not deserve, therefore, to be given a royal commission on pay and conditions and not to be treated as another victim of Government cuts?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right. We have the best police force in the world and the best model of policing in the world. I believe that the British model of policing is one that we should welcome, support and applaud. However, if she thinks that there is time for a royal commission, she should consider why, as a member of the Labour party, she allowed it, when in government, to get the finances of this country into such a state that we need to take the action that we do. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to say, “Oh no, we don’t want to hear it again”, but if the hon. Lady’s party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 we are cutting this year.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Last Thursday, PC Nigel Albuery was stabbed on duty on the streets of Croydon. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to look at the issue of police terms and conditions, but does she agree that we should consider the results of the Winsor review in the light of the dangers that police officers such as PC Albuery face day to day and the debt of gratitude we owe to them?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we will indeed do that. I take this opportunity to commend PC Albuery, who suffered terrible injuries, as result of which he is in a serious condition. He was doing the job that he signed up to do, which is protecting the public and dealing with criminals. I pay tribute to him and to all the other officers who, day in and day out, go out to deal with instances and incidents that take place not knowing whether they will be subject to the sort of attack to which PC Albuery was subject.

[Mr Anderson]

Raoul Moat began his killing spree in my constituency, a mile from my house. Twenty-four hours later, he damaged PC David Rathband to the extent that that man will never see again. Last week, at the Police Federation, he asked the Home Secretary, “Do you think I’m paid too much?”, to which she replied, “I’m not saying to any individual officer that your pay is wrong.” Just what is she saying to all police officers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am saying to all police officers that we value the work that they are doing, though it is important that we look at their pay terms and conditions, which have not been changed significantly for some time. We need to ensure that we have a modern, flexible work force in the police who can take us forward in the policing that we need today in the 21st century. That is why I thought it important to set up an independent review. We will look at the results of the proper processes that that independent review report is going through with the Police Negotiating Board.

I have set out a number of areas in which it is possible to make savings over and above those identified in the HMIC report in areas, such as increasing efficiency, IT, procurement, and a pay freeze. Together, these savings amount to £2.2 billion a year—more than the £2.1 billion real-terms reduction in central Government funding to the police. Even that ignores the local precept contribution from council tax payers, which independent forecasts suggest will rise by £382 million, or 12%, over the comprehensive spending review period.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Home Secretary is so confident in her savings figures, why does she think that chief constables from across the country, including in Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Kent and Norfolk, are all saying that front-line services will be hit as a result of her cuts, and why are 12,000 officers going?

[Mrs May]

Chief constables up and down the country are giving a commitment to maintaining the quality of their front-line services. The chief constables of Gloucestershire, Kent and Thames Valley, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, are all saying that they have a commitment to ensuring front-line services.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chief constable of Staffordshire has reorganised the back office of his operation and organised his local policing units to ensure that no front-line services are cut in Staffordshire? In fact, in Tamworth we have an extra bobby on the beat. That is no thanks to the Opposition, who are forcing us to make these cuts.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The chief constable of Staffordshire is another chief constable who is committed to protecting front-line and neighbourhood policing and ensuring that he does so in a way that makes sense and introduces greater efficiency in several areas. The problem with the position taken by the Opposition is that they do not want to see any change of any sort in policing, and yet there are chief constables out there who know that a transformation of policing is what is needed in the circumstances that we find ourselves in. In many cases, as has been evidenced by my hon. Friends, we may see an improvement in the service that is given to people.

[Yvette Cooper]

Then what does the right hon. Lady say to the chief constable of Lancashire, who says,

“we cannot leave the frontline untouched and that is because of the scale of the cuts”;

to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, who has said,

“we will be unable to continue to provide the level of service that we do today in such areas as neighbourhood policing”;

to the chief constable of Kent, who said that 20% is

“a significant drawback into police numbers, both civilian staff and police numbers, and clearly there's a potential impact that crime will rise”;

and to the chief constable of Norfolk, who says that given the scale of the cuts,

“Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary…report confirms what we have always maintained, that…the constabulary will have to reduce its front line over the next four years”?

Her policing Minister has said that he likes chief constables who stay quiet. Does she want to gag the chief constables of Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Kent and Norfolk, or does she think they are doing a bad job?

[Mrs May]

A number of those chief constables, including the chief constable of Kent, have made it absolutely clear that they are going to protect neighbourhood policing. Perhaps the right hon. Lady should reflect on the evidence given by the chief constable of Greater Manchester to the Home Affairs Committee, when he said that an artificial numbers game had been necessary under the last Labour Government, with the result that some officers were being put into back-office roles that need not be undertaken by officers.

Crucially, all the savings that I have set out can be made while protecting the quality of front-line services. At the same time, as I have made clear in response to several interventions, we are reviewing police pay, terms and conditions to make them fair to police officers and to the taxpayer. If implemented, Tom Winsor’s proposals to reform police pay and conditions will help the service to manage its budgets, maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles, and enable front-line services to be maintained and improved.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

I am going to make a little progress.

[Mr Walker]

It is a microscopic intervention.

[Mrs May]

I will complete this point and then I might be generous to my hon. Friend.

Winsor proposes rewarding those with specialist skills, those who work unsocial hours, and those who are on the front line. His proposals are comprehensive, wide-ranging and far-reaching. They are things that the Labour party never had the guts to do. Given that the Labour party would be cutting £7 in every £8 that we are cutting this year, the shadow Home Secretary needs to tell the House where her cuts would fall.

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend is as wise, charming and insightful as ever. However, I think that the Winsor review is a trifle too aggressive on police terms and conditions, and I hope that she will bear those concerns in mind when independently reviewing Winsor’s recommendations.

[Mrs May]

There is indeed a process that is taking place in relation to the proposals of the Winsor review. The proposals are before the Police Negotiating Board at the moment, and there will be a proper process to consider its decisions. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Winsor review identified significant savings that could be made by changing the terms and conditions, and then proposed to plough half that sum back into improved pay and terms and conditions for the police.

We want not only to manage the cuts that we are having to make, but to make the police service better. The Labour Government spent a lot of money on policing in the boom years, but they spent it all on making simple things very complicated. They made an industry out of performance management and league tables; created a forest of guidance, manuals and pointless paperwork; and hugely increased the number of bureaucrats, auditors and checkers. At the same time, they did nothing to increase police visibility, nothing to increase public accountability and nothing to reform and modernise the service. We are putting that right. We are slashing the bureaucracy that Labour allowed to build up.

Earlier this month, I announced measures that would save up to 2.5 million man hours of police time each year. That is on top of the measures that we have already taken to scrap all Labour’s targets and restore discretion to the police. We have got rid of the policing pledge, the confidence target, the public service agreement targets, the key performance indicators and the local area agreements. We have replaced them with a single objective: to cut crime. I want police officers chasing criminals, not chasing targets. The Government do not put their trust in performance indicators, targets or regulations. We put our trust in the professionals and in the public.

Let me address the third fallacy in the Opposition motion. Police and crime commissioners are not an American-style reform; they are a very British and very democratic reform. The Labour party certainly did not consider democratic accountability to be an alien concept when the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said in 2008, when he was the Minister for Policing, Crime and Security, that

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.

I could not agree more.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

What did we do?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman asks what the previous Government did. Well, they did nothing. They said they wanted democratic accountability and then did absolutely nothing about it. I say to him that if democracy is good enough for this House, it is good enough for police accountability.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My right hon. Friend might remember that the last Labour Government did have plans for policing reform. Indeed, they proposed that police forces should merge and spent some £12 million of taxpayers’ money, only ultimately to abort the plans. Does that not show scant regard for the spending of taxpayers’ money?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point about the attitude of the previous Government.

Our reforms are based on the simple premise that the police must be accountable not to civil servants in Whitehall, but to the communities that they serve. That is exactly what directly elected police and crime commissioners will achieve. The legislation for police and crime commissioners has passed through this House and has entered Committee in the other place. We will seek to overturn the recent Lords amendment when the Bill returns to this House. Unlike the existing invisible and ineffective police authorities, the commissioner will be somebody people have heard of, somebody they have voted for, somebody they can hold to account, and somebody they can vote out if they do not help the police to cut crime.

We now come to the Opposition’s fourth error. It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest there will be no checks and balances on the powers of police and crime commissioners. We have specifically legislated for strong checks and balances. A police and crime panel will scrutinise the police and crime commissioner. The panel will have several key powers, including the power of veto over the police and crime commissioner’s proposed local precept and over the candidate they propose for chief constable. The panel will also make recommendations on local police and crime plans, and will scrutinise the commissioner’s annual report. It will have the power to ask the commissioner to provide information and to sit before it to answer questions. It will also be able to call on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for professional judgment over the police and crime commissioner’s proposed decision to dismiss a chief constable.

We have published a draft protocol setting out the relationship between police and crime commissioners and chief constables. The protocol was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, the Met and the Metropolitan Police Authority. A copy has been placed in both House Libraries and copies are available on the Home Office website. The protocol makes it clear that commissioners will not manage police forces, and that they will not be permitted to interfere in the day-to-day work of police officers. The duty and responsibility of managing a police force will fall squarely on the shoulders of the chief constable, as it always has.

We will publish a strategic policing requirement to ensure that commissioners deliver their national policing responsibilities, as well as their local responsibilities. A strengthened HMIC will monitor forces and escalate serious concerns about force performance to Ministers. Finally, the Home Secretary will retain powers to direct police and crime commissioners and chief constables to take action in extreme circumstances, if they are failing to carry out their functions.

The Opposition are simply wrong to say that there will be no checks and balances on police and crime commissioners. There will be extensive checks and balances—the Opposition just choose to ignore them. Of course, unlike the current invisible and unaccountable police authorities, police and crime commissioners will face the strongest and most powerful check and balance there is: the ballot box. This should be a concept with which the Labour party is familiar: if they fail, they get booted out of office.

I will turn to police powers. The police national DNA database, which was established in 1995, has clearly led to a great many criminals being convicted who otherwise would not have been caught. However, in a democracy, there must be limits to any such form of police power. Storing the DNA and fingerprints of more than a million innocent people indefinitely only undermines public trust in policing. We will take innocent people off the DNA database and put guilty people on. While the previous Government were busy stockpiling the DNA of the innocent, they did not bother to take the DNA of the guilty. In March, we gave the police new powers to take DNA from convicted criminals who are now in the community.

Rather than engaging in political posturing, we are making the right reforms for the right reasons. Our proposals will ensure that there is fairness for innocent people by removing the majority of them from the database. By increasing the number of convicted individuals on the database, we will ensure that those who have broken the law can be traced if they reoffend. In all cases, the DNA profile and fingerprints of any person arrested for a recordable offence will be subjected to a speculative search against the national databases. That means that those who have committed crimes in the past and have left their DNA or fingerprints at the scene will not escape justice. The rules will give the police the tools that they need, without putting the DNA of millions of innocent people on the database.

Like DNA, it is clear that CCTV can act as a deterrent to criminals, can help to convict the guilty, and is warmly welcomed by many communities. The Government wholeheartedly support the use of CCTV and DNA to fight crime. However, it is clearly not right that surveillance cameras are being used without proper safeguards. When or where to use CCTV are properly decisions for local areas. It is essential that such measures command public support and confidence. Our proposals for a code of practice will help to achieve just that. If the Opposition disagree, as was clear from the speech by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, perhaps they should cast their minds back to the controversy over the use of CCTV cameras in Birmingham in the last year. British policing relies on consent. If that is lost, we all suffer. Sadly, the Opposition do not seem to understand that.

[Philip Davies]

I hope I am right in sensing that my right hon. Friend is moving back from the left-wing, liberty agenda on DNA and CCTV. The police installed 14 cameras in what used to be a no-go area of east Leeds. Within 18 months, that led to crime falling by 48% and burglaries falling by 65%. Will she confirm that that did not restrict anybody’s freedoms, but enhanced them by allowing people to go out at night, which is a freedom that they had been deprived of for many years?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the Government wholeheartedly support the use of CCTV and DNA in the fight against crime. We are introducing not unnecessary bureaucracy but a sensible and measured approach, which will help to ensure that CCTV is used for the purpose for which it was designed—tackling crime.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will my right hon. Friend say a word or two about Criminal Records Bureau checks? We had a case in Bournemouth in which a teacher from one school was not allowed to drive a minibus for another school, to which her children went, because of CRB checks. That seems a mad situation, and I hope it can be rectified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will come on to vetting and barring once I have covered the issue of antisocial behaviour, because every aspect of the Opposition’s motion is wrong.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

What effect does the right hon. Lady think her cuts will have on counter-terrorism, given that, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, chief constables will not be able to provide 24-hour policing for such matters?

[Mrs May]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget, because we recognised the importance of that.

The next mistake in Labour’s motion is on antisocial behaviour. We are giving the police and local practitioners a simpler and much more effective set of tools. The current alphabet soup of powers is confusing, bureaucratic and, far too often, simply not effective. The number of antisocial behaviour orders issued has fallen by more than half, and more than half of them are now breached at least once. More than 40% are breached more than once, and in fact those that are breached are now breached an average of more than four times.

We are introducing a smaller number of faster, more flexible and more effective tools that will allow practitioners to protect victims and communities. Far from making it harder for communities to get action on antisocial behaviour, we will introduce the community trigger, which will give communities the right to force agencies to take action to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour if they have failed to do so. The last shadow Home Secretary said:

“I want to live in the kind of society that puts ASBOs behind us.”

I find it rather concerning that the current shadow Home Secretary does not want to live in the same kind of society as the shadow Chancellor.

The Opposition’s final mistake in the motion is on child protection, and it brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) raised. There are no loopholes in the programme that we have proposed. If by “loopholes” the Opposition mean that our scheme will no longer require 9 million people to register and be monitored by the state, they are right. We will not put nearly one in six of the entire population on to some enormous, intrusive Government database. We will not stop famous authors from reading poetry to schoolchildren. We will provide an appropriate and proportionate scheme that will give vulnerable people and children the protection that they need, while allowing those who want to volunteer to do so without fear or suspicion. That will make children’s lives better, by encouraging, not discouraging, people to work with them. I am sure that many Members, like my hon. Friend, can give examples of people who have found the whole process difficult and, sadly, been put off volunteering.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary respond specifically to the NSPCC’s concern? It has raised the issue of a loophole whereby someone who has been barred from working with children can apply for a voluntary or part-time supervised job with a sports organisation or school, and that organisation will not even be told that they have been barred. Her junior Minister confirmed in the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee that that was the case, and children’s organisations, the Children’s Commissioner and Labour Members are deeply concerned about that loophole. Can she confirm that it does indeed exist?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for mentioning the NSPCC, because it enables me to put the record right and quote its chief executive, Andrew Flanagan, who has said:

“The Government’s amendment is absolutely right. We welcome this wholeheartedly as it will make a huge difference to the safety of young people. We look forward to working with the Government as the new scheme is implemented.”

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady will know that the matter was discussed in detail in Committee, and my hon. Friends who served on the Committee were clear that that NSPCC comment referred to the changes for 16 and 17-year-olds. She rightly listened and made the changes in question. Will she also make a change in the case of someone who has been barred? It might be known that there is a problem with someone working with children, yet they will be allowed to do so again. The organisation that is supposed to be supervising them will not even be told that they have been barred from working with children. Will she look again at that matter? It is very serious.

[Mrs May]

The issue was discussed in Committee, and the points that were made were very clear. As she said, she is talking about a situation in which an individual will be supervised. In the past she has talked about people with part-time jobs in schools, whose activity will be regulated. The potential for barring will therefore apply. In situations in which people’s activity is supervised, information will be available from the enhanced CRB check.

I accept that throughout, there has been a difference of opinion between Government Members and the Opposition. Labour wanted to put millions of people on to the database, which prevented people from volunteering to work with children and prevented authors from going into schools to read to children. Frankly, the scheme needed to be revised, and the Government are doing so.

We have a clear and comprehensive plan to cut crime. We are empowering the public, cutting bureaucracy, strengthening the fight against organised crime, providing more effective and appropriate powers and getting better value for money for the taxpayer. Those are the right reforms at the right time. In contrast, the Opposition are wrong on police numbers, the HMIC report, front-line availability, police and crime commissioners, DNA, CCTV, antisocial behaviour and child protection. They are wrong on each and every point, and that is why their motion deserves to fail.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I will not give way, because I have only a couple of minutes. I normally would, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

A point that has not yet hit home is that supported housing, domestic and sexual violence services and youth services—the community services that people depend upon—are all being cut. When specialist housing support, sexual violence officers and the specialist domestic violence services provided by local authorities or voluntary organisations are no longer in place, people will instead dial 999 and ask for a police officer, who by their nature will try to attend. That will be a real problem for the police, because demands on them will go up as there is contraction in other services.

The Home Secretary spoke in absolute terms about what police and crime commissioners would do, but said not a word about the defeat in the House of Lords. She spoke as though the vote there had never taken place. There was no reference to it at all, no slight heed paid to the fact that the Government’s plans might need to change.

[Mrs May]

May I suggest that in future the hon. Gentleman listens to my speeches? I made specific reference to the defeat in the House of Lords and what would happen in the House of Commons.

[Vernon Coaker]

I will have a look at what the Home Secretary said, but I think all of us know that she is just going to plough on regardless of what the House of Lords has done.

We have a Government who are playing fast and loose on crime, and who say that they know best but are out of touch on law and order. It is about time that they got a grip and made the right choices for the country, the police and communities. If they can U-turn on forests and the NHS, we need a U-turn on the police. It will be interesting to see whether the Home Secretary and the Government do that.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

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

The Extraordinary Council which focused on interior issues was held on 12 May in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom.

The Council started with an EU ministerial breakfast with the Director of the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) who presented his assessment of the situation following the death of Osama bin Laden and changes in north Africa. Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator, highlighted that cargo security was a priority for the EU and engagement with north African countries was essential. The UK noted that the death of Osama bin Laden was a strategic blow but the risk remained serious including from reprisal attacks and the events in north Africa served to undermine the al-Qaeda narrative.

Next the Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states), received a state of play update on the Frontex regulation. The presidency said they would not be able to reach agreement with the European Parliament by June unless member states were flexible. Compromise would be necessary on several of the Parliament’s demands, including the precise name of its proposed “European Border Guard System”. The presidency stressed that the whole deal should not collapse because of disagreements over terminology. The UK is excluded from the Frontex regulation; however the UK can support activities on a case-by-case basis with the agreement of the Frontex management board.

Next there was a discussion on immigration, preparing the forthcoming June European Council discussion on migration and the Commission communication on migration. Commissioner Malmström introduced the communication and set out the Commission’s priorities across all aspects of EU immigration and asylum policy. She put particular emphasis on: an effective EU response to developments in north Africa; agreeing a package deal on asylum; building conditionality into the EU’s third-country agreements to deliver immigration results; and effectively combining mobility with security. On reintroducing intra-Schengen border controls, Commissioner Malmström underlined the fundamental importance of Schengen, highlighting that (based on existing legislation and an EU-level approach), the Commission’s proposals would reinforce, not undermine, the Schengen framework. Guidelines would address differing interpretation of the rules, and new co-decision proposals would strengthen Schengen monitoring and evaluation to better define when and how controls could be used; that is, in exceptional circumstances and through an EU-level procedure.

The UK stated that, in order to achieve tangible results, the immediate priorities had to be border security, returns and practical support to member states. The UK wanted to see a border control taskforce sent to Tunisia to support capacity-building, provide technical assistance and support Frontex’s efforts against people smuggling. On returns, the EU should do more to help return third-country nationals in north Africa back to their countries of origin. We were seeing increased numbers of asylum claims already; the Support Office should help responsible member states deal with them. Relocation was not the answer. The UK said that co-operation on migration should be an integral part of the EU’s partnerships with third countries. Building stability and prosperity was in everyone’s interests, and would help relieve migratory pressure. But the EU had to reinforce the principle that each country must readmit its own nationals—that was not dependent on financial incentives or visa liberalisation. The UK would not want to see a single system of European border guards, but did support greater co-ordination and co-operation. We were surprised to see proposals for further harmonisation given current high-levels of unemployment within Europe. On asylum, the UK was clear that any talk of invoking the temporary protection directive was premature and that it did not support relocation proposals as they carry a risk of acting as a pull factor to the UK. The UK was supportive of any reforms decided on by the Schengen countries that would help combat illegal immigration and strengthen the external border. Free movement was an ideal at the heart of the EU, but it was an ideal that was jeopardised when abused. Every action had to ensure that member states could maintain fair and robust immigration systems, and do nothing to create an incentive for illegal immigration into Europe.

The main Council commenced with the Commission outlining its proposals for a revised strategy on EU readmission agreements. The Commission defended increased references to human rights provisions and the introduction of a post-returns monitoring mechanism for returnees. If member states wanted the European Parliament to agree to future negotiating mandates, they would have to accept an enhanced profile for human rights. The UK believed that readmission agreements were operational instruments for facilitating returns and protection needs were already carefully considered before a return decision is reached. Therefore it was not necessary to include additional references to human rights in the agreements. Any decision on whether it is safe to return, an individual should be made on a case-by-case basis and the Commission’s proposed blanket approach to suspending returns was misguided. The UK added that the Commission’s proposal for a post-return monitoring mechanism was inappropriate as it could put returnees at risk. The UK stated that the starting point for any readmission strategy should be a country’s obligation to readmit their own nationals and co-operation should not be solely dependent on incentives such as visa facilitation. The UK supported the Commission’s proposal to refocus its readmission strategy on key countries, but noted that objective criteria would be needed as member states would have different geographical priorities. The presidency said they would draft Council conclusions (which would make reference to the importance of human rights) for consideration at the June JHA Council.

The Council received an update on the situation in Japan at the request of Belgium. The Commission said that member states had made an impressive contribution to the effort in Japan, but that this had been a wake-up call. The Commission had developed an action plan and had already started to implement the communication on strengthening disaster response. There was a need to prioritise scenario development, and they would be developing legislative proposals by the end of the year. The presidency said that the subject should be further discussed at the working level.

The Commission presented its evaluation report on the data retention directive. Most member states seem to be happy with the current directive, but it was a flexible instrument and there were large differences in how it is implemented. Member states had the opportunity to revise the directive and the Commission would submit a proposal later this year. The UK said that retained communications data were a critical tool. Ninety-five per cent of serious crime investigations used retained data, as had all major counter-terrorism investigations. It was also used on a daily basis to secure convictions and alibis. The UK did not wish to see changes made in the name of harmonisation since it should not undermine operational effectiveness.

Finally, over lunch Ministers discussed the asylum aspects of the Commission’s communication on migration. The presidency and Commission tried to set up a political deal on asylum at the June European Council. The Commission said it was time to compromise; technical meetings could go on for years a package deal was needed to break the deadlock of red lines that included an emergency mechanism in Dublin in return for law enforcement access to Eurodac. Recognising that they were the most difficult directives, Commissioner Malmström set out the features of the forthcoming amended proposals on procedures and reception conditions (simplification, clarification and reduction of financial and administrative burdens). The scope for using accelerated procedures would be extended and it would be easier to reject repeated abusive claims.

There would be more flexibility on border procedures to address national security and public order concerns and a lower reporting burden. Access to the labour market could be delayed if applicants did not co-operate. The UK opened the discussion: the goals of the EU’s engagement in asylum had to be practical, not legislative—both in relation to the current situation, and looking to the long-term. Refugees had to be protected, but protected where they were—they should not be expected to move around the EU. The Asylum Support Office would help member states do that (as with the Greece action plan), but further legislation to meet an artificial deadline was a distraction. The UK could not support an emergency mechanism under Dublin—it would undermine the very principle of member state responsibility for asylum claims, remove the incentive to make necessary reforms, move the problem from one place to another, and would encourage asylum seekers to target particular member states (knowing they could then move to their destination of choice). The presidency would ask COREPER to try to prepare a package for political agreement at the European Council.