Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 24 and 25 February in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Justice, Lord McNally, and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following issues were discussed at the Council:
The interior day began with the Council adopting the ‘A’ points list. This included the adoption of the draft Council conclusions on the effective implementation of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. The conclusions set out how the Council will ensure that the charter is reflected accurately in future EU legislation.
The Council also adopted Council conclusions on the Commission’s communication on a comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the European Union. The conclusions set out the Council’s views on the general principles arising from the communication and do not prejudice the need for careful and detailed consideration of any legislative proposals.
After the adoption of the ‘A’ points list, the Council, in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states), received an update from the Commission on the go-live date for the Visa Information System (VIS) regulation. The Commission said preparations at border crossings and consular posts in the first-phase region (north Africa) appeared on track. VIS would only go live once all consular staff there had been trained but current developments in the region could adversely influence this. They expected the April JHA Council would decide on a start date. The UK does not participate in VIS.
The Commission provided its regular update on the delivery of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) central system and stressed the importance of member state participation through the testing phases.
Frontex presented its annual work programme (AWP) for 2011 to the Council. The Frontex executive director said core objectives for 2011 were to enhance flexibility to respond to emerging situations, earlier detection of crime at external borders, and enhancing inter-agency co-operation and interoperability. The main challenge would be increasing effectiveness with decreasing resources. He mentioned that pledges so far had only met 50% of requirements for the post rapid border intervention team operation on the Greece-Turkey border. Frontex warned that progress could be put at risk. The Commission agreed and called for swift adoption of the new regulation.
The presidency gave an overview of Romanian and Bulgarian accession to Schengen and introduced its proposal for conclusions. While the technical evaluation process for Romania had been completed, Bulgaria required a further visit to its land border. The presidency acknowledged wider concerns expressed by some member states, but sought to avoid political discussion concluding that there was support for the conclusions.
The Commission gave an update on visa liberalisation road maps for the western Balkan countries, noting that abuses did have to be addressed and confirming they were looking into the possibility of a suspension mechanism that would not target specific counties or regions. Proposals would be brought forward in June.
Under Mixed Committee AOB, the Council received an update on the EU-Canada visa situation and noted an information-gathering visit had taken place at the end of January. Preliminary findings suggested no problems with the way Roma communities were treated. The report will be published in April.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, used his presentation to urge member states to ratify the convention relating to the status of refugees and to increase their support for capacity building in the developing world. On the current situation in north Africa, he highlighted that the majority of arrivals to the EU were mainly economic migrants, but he warned member states to be prepared for a potentially massive flow from Libya. He asked member states to consider using the temporary protection directive but advised that the present situation should not distract attention from the significant structural problems with the EU asylum system, and particularly with Greece. The EU’s next financial perspective had to rise to the challenges of protection both outside and inside the EU. The UK welcomed the UNHCR’s work to help member states improve their asylum systems, and highlighted the close UK co-operation on resettlement and the quality initiative. The UK stated that although it did not always agree with the UNHCR on legislative solutions, it was essential to work together to ensure that real practical action happened on the ground, and to reinforce levels of protection in the region. The Commission said we were at a crucial moment and had a duty of solidarity to member states facing particular burdens. Protection in developing countries through regional protection programmes was important, and they urged the presidency to make progress on the EU resettlement programme.
There was also a presentation by Rob Visser, the newly appointed executive director of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), who explained that the support office was already operational (before the 19 June deadline mentioned in the regulation). Providing support to Greece for the action plan was the top priority. Member states urged Greece to speed up its asylum reforms and called on the Commission to improve co-ordination of member state offers of assistance. The Commission was already providing co-ordination and would soon hand this over to EASO. On Dublin, the emergency mechanism would not apply in this situation; it was only proposed for member states fully implementing the asylum acquis.
The draft text of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement was presented alongside Council conclusions on visa liberalisation. The UK welcomed the text and called for its swift conclusion and implementation. Given the high level of transit migration through Turkey and into the EU, co-operation with Turkey was important to all member states. Although there were sensitive issues at stake, it made sense for member states to agree the text; further delay could result in no agreement being signed. Thanking the Commission for its declaration on territorial application, the UK submitted declarations relating to the application of the Title V opt-in protocol to future measures and stated that the Commission should act within its competence when undertaking, a dialogue on visas, mobility and migration with Turkey. The Council discussed the substance of the conclusions and a declaration was inserted at the end of the conclusions stating
“The Commission acknowledges that the last indent of the Council Conclusions does not legally constitute a negotiating mandate”.
The Commission concluded that it now approach Turkey to initial the readmission agreement.
During lunch Interior Ministers discussed the developments in the north African region (migratory flows and internal security). The UK pushed for a focus on practical responses. In the press conference after the Council, the Commission and presidency were careful to emphasise the difference between the existing situation (5,000 Tunisians who had arrived in Italy were largely economic migrants who should be returned) and the potential threat from instability in Libya. The Commission emphasised the need to strengthen protection in Tunisia and Egypt, for those already crossing the borders. Ministers had not considered invoking the temporary protection directive, but the Commission said it did form part of the toolbox. Article 78(3) of the treaty also enabled them to propose emergency measures including exceptional financial support to help member states receiving a mass influx. The next steps will depend on how the situation develops. The next planned discussion will be at the March European Council.
The Internal Security Council conclusions were adopted without amendment.
The Council did not discuss the Commission evaluation into EU readmission agreements, the new directive on passenger name records or remaining AOB items due to time constraints. The communication on EU readmission agreements will be discussed at working party level in March and depending on the outcome of these discussions the presidency will present draft Council conclusions to the April JHA Council. Passenger name records will be discussed by working groups in March and a substantive discussion will be held at the April JHA Council.
The justice day commenced with a discussion on the directive on attacks against information systems which demonstrated differences of view on whether to include use of false identity as an aggravating circumstance and the value of increasing sanctions. The presidency said they wanted the Council of Europe’s 2001 cybercrime convention to become the international benchmark and encouraged those who had not ratified to do so, noting there would be a conference on the 10th anniversary of the convention for signatories, including the USA, on 10-13 April. The UK thanked the presidency for leadership on this issue and highlighted concerns about the handling of identity theft in the text; the UK sought more discussion of the issue at expert level. It also noted the firm commitment of the Government to ratify the cybercrime convention this year. The Commission indicated openness to solutions to deal with concerns expressed and noted they would bring forward a communication on critical infrastructure protection in 2012.
Next, the Commission presented its proposal to revise the regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (known as Brussels I). The regulation lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the member states of the European Union (EU). The objective of the revision of Brussels I is to update and improve the operation of the regulation by addressing certain problems that have arisen with the current measure since its implementation. The Government generally support this objective and are currently considering the detail of the proposal and the results of the Government’s consultation in order to determine whether or not to opt in to the negotiations.
The presidency gave a state-of-play report on the directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This proposal is the second measure in the road map to strengthen procedural rights in criminal proceedings and it aims to set common minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects and accused persons by ensuring that they receive information about their rights and about the accusation and evidence against them. Although a date has yet to be identified for the trilogue discussions, the Hungarians hope to reach a first reading deal before the end of their presidency. The Government noted the presidency’s report.
Next, the Council adopted Council conclusions on the inclusion of the website of the European judicial network in civil and commercial matters (civil EJN) in the e-justice portal. The website of the civil EJN has existed since 2001 providing information on the laws and procedures on a number of topics in each member state. The presidency and Commission highlighted the migration was an important step forward in securing a single online access point for justice issues for citizens.
Under any other business, the Council took note of a report by the Commission on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe. The report presents, among other things, how the EU can play a meaningful role in the process of preserving the memory of totalitarian regimes and that there are a number of ways of maintaining that including through funding mechanisms. It also underlines that there are different national measures in place and therefore, the Commission currently has no plans to introduce EU-wide legislation on the subject. The Government agreed the importance of recalling the crimes committed by totalitarian states and welcomed the Commission’s report.
Ministers also received an update from the Commission on the subject of collective redress. The Commission informed Ministers that it had launched a public consultation on the issue and that by the end of 2011, a communication would be published. The Government welcome this consultation and have yet to make their response to it.
Finally, at the request of Slovakia, Ministers considered the rights of EU citizens as regards the enforcement of court decisions in third countries concerning custody laws, in particular, in cases of mixed marriages and parental child abduction. Slovakia stated that the EU should explore ways of improving co-operation with third countries on international custody disputes. The Government supported the Slovakian proposal.
East Caribbean Visa Waiver Test
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I are announcing the final decision under the UK’s first global review of visa regimes in relation to two countries in the Eastern Caribbean—Dominica, and St Lucia.
A visa regime is a very effective immigration, crime and security control measure. As part of our overseas defences our visa waiver test helps us determine whether our visa regimes are in the right places. Travellers from every country beyond the European economic area and Switzerland were measured against a range of criteria including illegal immigration, crime and security concerns.
In the final stage of the test we worked closely with Dominica and St Lucia whose nationals had been identified as posing a sufficiently high risk as to warrant, in principle, the introduction of a visa requirement for all visitors to the UK.
Work was undertaken over a six-month period to find ways to reduce the risks posed to the UK without the need for a visa requirement. Progress was made with both countries through a combination of advice, training and improved working relations on migration matters.
As a result, Dominica and St Lucia have made concrete improvements to the immigration, border control and identity systems which would not have happened without the test. At the end of this process we assessed the overall progress made by each country, and whether or not it was sufficient to mitigate the risks to the UK.
It has been decided that we will not be introducing new visitor visa requirements at this time for Dominica and St Lucia. We will continue to work with these countries on migration matters and assess the longer-term effectiveness of the actions taken.
Britain will always welcome genuine visitors but will continue to take all steps necessary to protect the border. Should circumstances warrant it, we will re-examine the situation and take prompt action to address any risk to the UK.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today we have a rare opportunity. The Bill gives us a chance to roll back the creeping intrusion of the state into our everyday lives, and to return individual freedoms to the heart of our legislation. Under the last Government, we saw a steady erosion of traditional British liberties and a slow march towards authoritarian government. They presented us with a false choice between our future security and our historic liberties, disregarding any notion of balance between the two.
The House rejected that choice on many noble occasions, notably when an extraordinary attempt was made to increase the period of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects to 90 days. On other occasions, illiberal laws were passed, and on yet others, well-intentioned schemes were left open to abuse. The Bill gives us an opportunity to redress the balance and to right some of those wrongs, although it is not the only such opportunity. We have already repealed some measures, and we will repeal others.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give way?
Mr Cash
I note that my right hon. Friend did not actually say that she would be happy to do so.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that however good the intentions may be, one of the great problems with the Bill is that it serially adopts, endorses and puts into British legislation European Court rulings, and that that in itself runs counter to the sentiments expressed only a few weeks ago when the House voted against a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights by 222 votes to 15?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right, I am afraid; but I almost said I was happy to give way to him. I am not going to rehearse all the arguments we have had on the issue he raises. I am well aware of the vote in the House on the Backbench Business Committee motion on prisoner votes, and the Government have made it absolutely clear that we are not happy about having to give prisoners votes and we will be looking to do so in the most minimal way possible.
The first issue the Bill addresses is DNA. The police national DNA database, established in 1995, has led to a great many criminals being convicted who otherwise would not have been caught, and I am sure all sensible people support it, but in a democracy there must be limits to any such form of police power, and we simply do not accept that innocent people’s DNA should be kept for ever on a database, as the last Government seemed to think was appropriate. Storing indefinitely the DNA and fingerprints of more than 1 million innocent people undermines public trust in policing and goes against any sense of natural justice, so we will be taking innocent people off the DNA database and putting guilty people on.
The Bill introduces a new regime, whereby retention periods depend on a number of different factors, including the age of the individual concerned, the seriousness of the offence or alleged offence, whether they have been convicted, and, for under-18s, whether it is a first conviction. So in future, as now, an adult who is convicted or cautioned will have their fingerprints and DNA profile retained indefinitely, and we will take steps to plug the inexcusable gaps in the DNA database where the profiles of those who have previously been convicted of a serious offence are not currently included on the database.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Although I recognise the Home Secretary’s concerns about privacy, does she accept that these moves will inevitably mean—this should be stated—that some people who have committed crimes will not be caught and convicted?
Mrs May
No I do not agree, and my hon. Friend will see that that will not be the case if he looks at the many provisions in the Bill setting out the circumstances in which people’s DNA can be retained. I come back to the fundamental issue, which is whether we think it is right for the DNA profile of innocent people to be retained on the database. Before and since the election, both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have consistently taken the view that it is not right for the DNA of innocent people to be retained on the database, but that it is right for guilty people’s DNA to be retained. The last Labour Government did not do that.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that under her proposals the DNA of innocent people will be kept on the database? She is not removing from the database the DNA of everyone who has not been convicted.
Mrs May
Indeed, the police will be able to apply for the DNA of some people who are arrested but not charged to be retained. I would expect that application to be made in certain circumstances, such as when the victim has been vulnerable, which may mean there is very good evidence that the individual concerned has committed a crime but the victim is not able or not willing to come forward and see that case through.
I also say this to the right hon. Lady: the last Government wanted the DNA of all innocent people to be retained on the database indefinitely. We do not think that is a proportionate response, and what we are introducing today is a proportionate response. We would expect the DNA of the majority of the 1 million innocent people on the database would now to be removed from it.
An adult who is charged with, but not convicted of, a serious offence will have their fingerprints and DNA profile retained for three years, with the option of a single extension for two years with the approval of a district judge in the magistrates court, and an adult who is arrested for a minor offence but not convicted will have their fingerprints and DNA profile destroyed as soon as possible once a decision has been taken not to charge them or once they have been found not guilty by the courts. Different arrangements will apply for under-18s who are convicted of a first minor offence, and there will be special provisions for DNA and fingerprints to be retained for national security purposes. If the police believe there are sufficient public protection grounds to justify the retention of material following an arrest for a qualifying offence that does not lead to a charge, the Bill allows them to apply to the new commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material, who will decide whether retention of the DNA profile and fingerprints of the arrested person is justified.
We must protect the most vulnerable in society, so when the victim of the alleged offence is under 18, vulnerable or in a close personal relationship with the arrested person the expectation is that the police will apply to the commissioner for retention. I believe that these rules give the police the tools they need without putting the DNA of a large number of innocent people on the database. 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 Bill also fulfils our coalition agreement commitment to outlaw the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission. I must say that I found it amazing that any school ever thought it appropriate to fingerprint schoolchildren without their parents’ permission. The Bill will contain a double lock, whereby a school or college must obtain the consent of the parents and the child before processing their biometric data. If either opts out, the school or college must ensure that reasonable arrangements are in place to enable the child to access the full range of school services.
I shall deal now with surveillance. As with 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. This Government wholeheartedly support the use of CCTV and DNA to fight crime.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
On this sensitive issue of surveillance, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is being abused by local authorities which have taken it upon themselves to film such things as dog fouling and littering? Were the measures not introduced to deal with far graver issues?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will be referring specifically to the abuse of powers by local authorities, so if he could be a little patient, I will deal with that point. On the specific issue of CCTV, it is not right that surveillance cameras are being used without a proper regulatory framework. That is why the Bill will place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a code of practice, which will contain guidance on surveillance camera systems. I have today launched the consultation on what that code of practice should contain. Local authorities and chief officers of police will be required to have regard to the code and, over time, we will consider extending this duty to other operators of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition systems. The Bill will also allow for the appointment of a surveillance camera commissioner responsible for encouraging compliance with the code of practice, reviewing its operation and providing advice on it, including on any changes that might be necessary. This sensible and measured approach will help to ensure that CCTV is used proportionately and best serves the purpose for which it was designed: tackling crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned local authorities. I think that the public have been disturbed by the many stories of councils using intrusive techniques, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to deal with trivial offences. Breaching school catchment area rules and dog fouling are not offences that warrant being subject to surveillance. These tactics are more appropriately used for tackling serious crime and terrorism, and it was irresponsible of the Labour Government not to put in place stronger safeguards for their use. That is why the coalition agreement contained a commitment to ban the use of these powers by councils unless they are signed off by a magistrate and are required to stop serious crime. The Bill enacts that commitment because it will require local authorities’ use of the powers to be subject to approval by a magistrate. In parallel with the passage of this Bill, an order will be made to introduce a seriousness threshold for the use of the most controversial power: directed surveillance. Local authorities will be authorised to use directed surveillance only for offences that carry a maximum custodial sentence of at least six months. Subject to limited exemptions relating to the under-age sale of alcohol and tobacco, this measure will restrict local authorities’ use of surveillance to serious cases.
As we restrict state powers of surveillance to serious offences, we should also ensure that state powers of entry into people’s homes or business premises are reasonable and proportionate. There has been a huge increase in the number of powers of entry in recent years, and there are now some 1,200 separate powers of entry. That means there are 1,200 reasons why state agencies or other bodies can invade people’s privacy. We need to protect the privacy of home owners, so we will remove unjustified powers and ensure that the remainder are subject to appropriate safeguards.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
This is all wonderful news and I am a strong supporter of the Bill. Given that there are 1,200 such powers, will my right hon. Friend make sure that her Cabinet colleagues are assiduous in rooting out dozens or hundreds of them, not just a handful, so that we make a real impact on this disgrace?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him. We will provide three order-making powers in the Bill to allow the repeal of unnecessary powers of entry, the addition of safeguards and the rewriting of powers of entry with a view to consolidating a number of powers in a similar area coupled with the inclusion of extra safeguards. Within two years of Royal Assent, the Government will be required to carry out a review of all existing powers of entry and to report the findings to Parliament. Provision will also be made for a code of practice for powers of entry, adding further protections for home owners.
Mr Cash
Will my right hon. Friend note that the Library research paper on the Bill indicates that a third of all powers of entry are based on EU requirements? Will she explain why and how she is going to repeal the provisions that are entrenched in our legislation through the European Communities Act 1972? What formula will she use—will it be the “notwithstanding” formula?
Mrs May
When I gave way to my hon. Friend, I almost said I had a deep suspicion that I knew what he was going to say, and I was absolutely right. Of course we will not be able to get rid of all powers of entry, nor would that be appropriate. It will be appropriate to keep some, and with others we will need to look at the implementation of a request or desire to gain entry in relation to what is at stake, what is the most appropriate use of power and how that power should be used. The process will take some time, but it is essential that the Government are committed to reducing the number of powers of entry, whereas the previous Government oversaw a significant increase in that number.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that at the end of this process the number of powers will be sufficiently small and simple that home owners will be able to determine for themselves whether someone who knocks on the door has a right to enter?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary had discussions with Ministers and the Justice Secretary about the overlap with issues relating to bailiffs and credit enforcement agencies and their rights of entry?
Mrs May
I have been in touch with colleagues across Departments about powers of entry, because they are found in all sorts of places. All Departments will be required to review powers of entry, and duplication is exactly the sort of issue we will be looking at.
We know that powers of entry are of great concern to the public, and another issue of great concern is wheel-clamping. The Bill will protect motorists from cowboy clampers, making it a criminal offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority. For too long, motorists have fallen victim to extortion and abuse from rogue clamping companies. We have heard stories of drivers being frogmarched to cash points late at night or left stranded by rogue operators who have towed their vehicle away. Clearly that is unacceptable.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
There will be support from across the House for measures to restrict the efforts of cowboy clampers, but what would the Home Secretary say to my constituent Mary Harrison, who has concerns about her residential area being overrun with cars because the existing structures to enforce parking restrictions are not sufficient?
Mrs May
Other powers will be available to control parking, such as barriers and ticketing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman point out to his constituent the experience in Scotland, where such clamping was banned in 1992, I think. No problems have arisen from that change, so that is a good example for him to consider.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I just want to say that this part of the Bill is fantastic and that the Home Secretary has my full support for it. [Hon. Members: “Where’s the barb?”] There is none—I just want to be nice. The thousands of people who signed my cowboy clampers petition will thank her for finally listening to the people of West Bromwich.
Mrs May
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. It is good to have cross-party support on such issues as this one, which affects many MPs whose constituents have suffered from cowboy clampers. By criminalising clamping and towing without lawful authority, the Government are committing rogue clampers to history and putting an end to intimidation and excessive charges once and for all.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Further to my right hon. Friend’s answer to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), will she confirm that local authorities will continue to have the power to clamp on the public highway? Will residents in private developments be able to contract with their local authority to clamp on private developments? I have been contacted by a large number of people in my constituency who have tried ticketing and barriers but found that they do not work close to the town centre and public transport hubs. Could local authorities continue to clamp on private land?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Local authorities already have the ability to take a controlling interest and to run parking on private land, subject to the agreement and request of the landowner, although that facility has not been much used.
To ensure continued access to key buildings, existing powers for the police to remove vehicles that are illegally, dangerously or obstructively parked on roads will be extended to other land. The registered keeper of a vehicle will also be made liable, in certain circumstances, for charges incurred as a result of parking on private land.
Let me address the counter-terrorism measures in the Bill, starting with pre-charge detention. Both coalition parties and many Opposition Members are clear that in the area of counter-terrorism legislation the previous Government went too far. I have already announced to the House the outcome of our review of counter-terrorism and security powers, and the Bill puts many of those changes into practice. I announced that we would not renew current legislation on the 28-day pre-charge detention period, which means that the sunset clause inserted by the previous Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The Bill will finally repeal the power to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 28 days by means of secondary legislation. As I said to the House in January, police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days, but we recognise that in exceptional circumstances that might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. I have therefore published draft legislation that could be introduced to Parliament only in such circumstances. The draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, the arrangements for which will be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
This has been asked before, but what will happen during parliamentary recesses? What if the right hon. Lady was seeking that extension on 30 July when Parliament was in recess? Will she expect to recall Parliament?
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
My question follows that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I had to propose a recall of Parliament, to which the Prime Minister and the Speaker agreed, to introduce emergency legislation following the Omagh bombing. The bombing took place on 15 August 1998, but with the very best will in the world we were not able to get a recall for almost three weeks, so Parliament was not recalled until 3 September, as the right hon. Lady might remember. That was a three-week period. If the prosecutors have a suspect whom they wish to continue to question, how in practice will the Home Secretary be able to shorten that time? The right hon. Lady shakes her head. I promise her that we were seeking the shortest possible time, and it is very complicated. How far has she thought about that?
Mrs May
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about his experience in relation to the Omagh bombing. I believe that it is possible to shorten that period to ensure that we can recall Parliament in such exceptional circumstances if that is needed. It would be wrong for hon. Members to expect that the only circumstances in which that would be required would be towards the end of a 14-day period of pre-charge detention. The period that would be available for the recall and for the new measures to be put through might be a little longer than the right hon. Gentleman is considering.
I want to move on to stop and search, which is the other aspect of counter-terrorism legislation that we will deal with in the Bill. As well as scaling back the excessive counter-terrorism legislation of the past, we need to stop the misuse of these laws. The extensive and disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is one example of that misuse. It has eroded public trust and dented public confidence. But the evidence, particularly in Northern Ireland, has demonstrated that when there is a credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack, the absence of such powers might create a gap in the ability of the police to protect the public.
The Bill therefore repeals section 44 and replaces it with a tightly defined power which would allow a senior police officer to make a targeted authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers. These would be authorised to prevent a terrorist attack only when there is a specific threat. The new power to search a person or vehicle would be subject to a number of additional safeguards, including a requirement that a senior police officer should reasonably suspect that an act of terrorism would take place and that the use of these powers was necessary to prevent the act of terrorism. The duration of any authorisation must now be no longer and no greater than is necessary to prevent the act of terrorism.
The purposes for which an officer may search a person or vehicle will be limited to looking for evidence that the individual is a terrorist or that a vehicle is being used for the purposes of terrorism. The Secretary of State would have the option of amending the authorisation, rather than only accepting or refusing it, as previously. Finally, the Secretary of State will be required to prepare a code of practice containing guidance on the use of the powers. These changes will provide the police with the powers that they need to deal with terrorist threats, while also ensuring that the public are not needlessly stopped and searched. The measures will also prevent the misuse of stop-and-search powers against photographers, which I know was a significant concern with the previous regime.
As recommended by the counter-terrorism powers review, I have considered whether the police need these revised powers more quickly than the Bill would allow. Given the current threat environment, I have concluded that they do. The most appropriate way of meeting the legal and operational requirements is to make an urgent remedial order under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make immediate changes to the legislation. I will be doing this shortly. This is only an interim solution. The proposed new powers will remain in the Bill to ensure full scrutiny of the provisions.
Another important area where we will roll back the state’s power to common-sense levels is in the vetting and barring and criminal records regimes. The previous Government created the vetting and barring scheme with reasonable intentions, but, as with much that they did, their implementation was disproportionate and over-reliant on the state. There is no doubt that a small minority pose a risk to vulnerable people, including children, but requiring more than 9 million people to register and be monitored is not an appropriate response. We should be encouraging volunteers, not treating them like criminals.
The Bill will therefore introduce a new regime, whereby employers will be given a much more central role in ensuring safe recruitment practices, supported by a proportionate central barring scheme. We will retain the sensible features of the vetting and barring scheme, but will not require registration or monitoring, which means that there will no longer be an intrusive state-run database containing the details of 9.3 million people. The scheme will cover only those who have regular or close contact with vulnerable groups. This will create a more convenient and proportionate system for both employers and voluntary organisations and the people seeking to work or volunteer with children or vulnerable adults.
On the criminal records regime specifically, the Bill will enable criminal records disclosures to become portable, through a system which allows for continuous updating. This would enable an employer to establish whether new information had been recorded since the certificate was issued. It will also remove the provision requiring a copy of a certificate to be sent directly to an employer. This will allow an applicant legitimately to dispute the information released on the certificate, without this information already having been seen by the employer.
To administer the new scheme, the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority will be merged into a single, new organisation. These changes will ensure the continued protection of vulnerable people and children, while at the same time allowing those who want to volunteer to do so without fear or suspicion. It will end the unnecessary state scrutiny of law-abiding people.
As well as dealing with recent illiberal laws, today’s Bill rights historic wrongs. Consensual sex between men over the age of consent was decriminalised in 1967, yet more than 40 years on, gay men can still be penalised and discriminated against because of convictions for conduct which is now perfectly lawful. It is right that we should change the law and wipe the slate clean. The Bill establishes a scheme whereby an individual with a conviction that would today not be considered an offence would be able to apply to the Home Office to have the conviction and caution disregarded. If an application were approved, details of the conviction or caution would be removed from police records and the individual would be able legally to conceal their previous conviction in any circumstances. It would also no longer appear on a criminal record disclosure.
Greater transparency is at the heart of our commitment to open up government to greater scrutiny and to allow public authorities to be held to account, so the Bill makes a number of changes to the Freedom of Information Act to extend its provisions. We will consult the House authorities on these provisions before the Committee stage to ensure that parliamentary copyright is properly safeguarded. The Bill also makes changes to the Freedom of Information Act and to the Data Protection Act to enhance the independence of the Information Commissioner.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be surprised to hear that I agree with quite a lot of the Bill, but on data protection, will she consider a constituent of mine who is extremely worried about the amount of information being collected about him and retained? For privacy reasons, I will not give his name, but let us call him Mr N Clegg. He is worried that in the next four weeks information will be gathered from him which he does not wish to give and which he does not wish the Government to retain. It is called the census. What advice would the right hon. Lady give to my constituent in such circumstances?
Mrs May
I was waiting for the dénouement of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. There is a requirement for people to fill in the census. It is an extremely useful tool for Government. Previous Governments wanted a census because it informs Government in the production of policy. What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent is that the census can provide useful information better to inform Government to produce better policy.
David T. C. Davies
I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I was waiting for her to be specific about surveillance cameras. I understand that it will be much harder for the police and local authorities to use them. Will newspaper editors be subject to the same restrictions?
Mrs May
I always wait with interest and occasionally trepidation for the points that my hon. Friend makes. [Interruption] I could make a response to the sedentary comment by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but it would probably be better not to do so in the context of the Chamber of the House.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the Bill contains a great number of significant measures that will be to the benefit of the people of this country and will ensure that surveillance cameras are used for the proper purposes for which they were introduced.
Mr Watson
The Home Secretary is indeed being incredibly generous. What will be her approach in Committee to the Information Commissioner’s powers? The relevant clause seems rather weak. Part of it mentions hearings for the appointment, but it does not really free the commissioner from a Department. The commissioner is currently under the yoke of the Ministry of Justice, but previous Select Committees have recommended that the commissioner be answerable to Parliament, not a Department. Will she take a generous approach in Committee to helpful amendments on those provisions?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman’s previous intervention was extremely helpful in supporting parts of the Bill. Members might wish to discuss that issue in Committee. It has been suggested that the Information Commissioner should be responsible to Parliament. The role goes rather wider than Parliament, however, which is why it has been placed where it has. We intend to increase the commissioner’s independence, so I am sure that the issue will be debated and discussed in Committee.
Finally, the Bill protects one of the most historic freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the British people: the right to trial by jury. The Bill repeals section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows the prosecution to apply for a serious or complex fraud trial to proceed in the absence of a jury. We sacrifice the cornerstones of our justice system at our peril.
I have told the House today that the Bill contains a number of provisions that put into effect commitments contained in the coalition agreement, but that does not mean that it should fail to gain support from across the House. Indeed, a number of positive statements have been made by hon. and right hon. Opposition Members.
Any Government and any Parliament must seek to protect not only the security of the British public but the freedoms that we hold dear. The Bill achieves those aims. All those who believe in liberty and the rights of the individual should support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman has considerable legal expertise, and I shall not attempt to get into a detailed debate about that point, but the critical issue is the complicated interaction between not only the work of the police and the role of Parliament, but the necessary role of the judiciary, and the alternatives merit more thoughtful debate, so that we do not prejudice individual cases or put the House in a difficult position.
Yvette Cooper
Legislation is not the right way to respond in such extreme circumstances. In the end, it might be the backstop that the right hon. Lady needs, but she should do more to avoid the situation arising. She is not even looking at what the appropriate special bail conditions might be, for example, or at other measures that could prevent her from ever needing to use emergency legislation in the middle of an extreme situation. She should look at the possible alternatives.
Part 5 makes significant changes to the vetting and barring regime, which works to protect children from abuse. As the Home Secretary knows, the Labour Government said that changes were needed to the system to ensure the right balance between protecting children and vulnerable adults without being unnecessarily burdensome. Indeed, Sir Roger Singleton recommended removing a series of unnecessary checks, and we welcome the recent technological developments that will enable portable Criminal Records Bureau checks and substantially simplify the system.
Some practical issues have been raised, and we will want to pursue those further in Committee.
We think that this is an important development. However, the Home Secretary’s proposals go too far. She is creating a series of loopholes in child protection that parents will rightly be very worried about. The evidence from the NSPCC makes that clear. It says that her proposals leave
“a disturbing gap in the planned legislation that could put children at harm.”
Under these plans, it will be possible for people to spend long hours in positions of authority and in regular intensive contact with children without being covered by the barring arrangements because someone else is in a supervisory role. For example, voluntary teaching assistants may well not be covered. As the NSPCC points out,
“supervised employees and volunteers are still able to develop and exploit relationships with children…A volunteer part time teaching assistant in a classroom of 30 children with only light touch supervision by the classroom teacher has plenty of opportunity to develop inappropriate relationships and groom children.”
Mrs May
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Lady and the House. This afternoon, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who is responsible for criminal information matters, had a meeting with a number of children’s charities, including the NSPCC, and was able to reassure them on that precise point. The employer will be able to get an enhanced CRB check for an individual who is volunteering in a capacity such as a teaching assistant, which will contain the same information that has been available in making the decision on the barring of that individual. The employer will therefore be able to make a decision based on exactly the same information as that on which the decision on barring was taken.
Yvette Cooper
If the Home Secretary is changing her policy, perhaps she will take the opportunity to intervene again to clarify this point. Will somebody in these circumstances—
Yvette Cooper
Let me ask the question. Will somebody in these circumstances be able to find out whether the Independent Safeguarding Authority has made the judgment that somebody should be barred?
Mrs May
I am very happy to intervene again on the right hon. Lady, but may I just correct her on one thing? I have not changed the policy. The policy remains exactly as it was, and the Bill remains exactly as it was. A misinterpretation of what was in the Bill has led to the comments from the NSPCC, which, as I said, is one of the children’s charities to which my hon. Friend the Minister has been speaking today. In the circumstances that the right hon. Lady outlines, the fact of the barring will not be available to the employer, but the information that led to the decision on the barring will be available to the employer. We take a slightly different position from that of the right hon. Lady and her party—that the employer must then take some responsibility for making a decision as to who it is appropriate to have potentially dealing with children in the classroom.
Sex Offenders Register
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The sex offenders register has existed since 1997. Since that time, it has helped the police to protect the public from those most horrific of crimes. Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life, as they do now, has broad support across the House, but the Supreme Court ruled last April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to seek a review was a breach of their human rights—in particular, the right to a private or family life. Those are rights, of course, that those offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruellest and most degrading manner possible.
The Government are disappointed and appalled by that ruling. It places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of their reoffending, but there is no possibility of further appeal. The Government are determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders, so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with the ruling. I want to make it clear that the Court’s ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders register. The Court found only that they must be given the right to seek a review.
The Scottish Government have already implemented a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal for removal from the register after 15 years. We will implement a much tougher scheme. Offenders will be able to apply for consideration of removal only after waiting 15 years following release from custody. In England and Wales, there will be no automatic appeals. We will deliberately set the bar for those reviews as high as possible. Public protection must come first. A robust review, led by the police and involving all the relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered.
The final decision on whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, and not, as in Scotland, the courts. The police are best placed to assess the risk of an offender committing another crime, and they will rightly put the public first. There will be no right of appeal against the police’s decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register, and will do so for life if necessary.
When we are free to take further action to protect the public, we will do so. We will shortly launch a targeted consultation aimed at closing four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register. We will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad for even one day. That will prevent them from being free to travel for up to three days, as they are under the existing scheme. We will force sex offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are living in a household containing a child under the age of 18. We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities weekly of where they can be found when they have no fixed abode. We will tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their names by deed poll.
Finally, I can tell the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of rights. It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and, above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.
I commend my statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This is an important matter involving some of the most serious crimes in society. I thank the Home Secretary for supplying me with the statement within the last half hour, but I must say that it is worrying that the Home Office has again allowed information to be given to the media before it has been given to the House.
The depravity and seriousness of sex offences, and the harm and damage that they do to victims, mean that the systems that we operate to protect the public must be paramount. We have an obligation to ensure that vulnerable children and other victims can be protected from such terrible crimes. As the Home Secretary knows, that is why the sex offenders register was established in the first place. The law rightly requires people who have been convicted of such serious crimes to meet further registration requirements once their sentences have been served, in the interests of public protection and to prevent further terrible crimes from taking place.
The priority now must still be public safety, and the protection of our young and vulnerable people. Those victims of crime have suffered and continue to suffer greatly because of the actions of sex offenders. We know, too, that many such offenders can still pose a serious threat to the public. The court judgment to which the Home Secretary has responded today itself quotes the research finding that just over a quarter of those imprisoned for such offences did reoffend. Those offences included some that were very serious, a large number of which were committed many years later.
Does the Home Secretary agree that, while of course proper and fair processes must always be followed for individuals through the courts, the protection of families and communities up and down the country is paramount? She has said that the new system will be tough. Let me say to her that it is vital to the safety and protection of children in particular, but also to that of other victims, that the new system is extremely tough if it is to have the support of the House.
The Home Secretary said that Parliament should decide the level of protection that is needed, and that Parliament should set the laws. However, she has given Parliament very little information today about the way in which the new system will operate. Will the new framework be enshrined in legislation? Will Parliament have an opportunity to debate the details? The Home Secretary will know that many Members of Parliament and members of the public will be very concerned about the possibility that any new framework might enable serious offenders to manipulate the system. It is essential that that is not allowed to happen, but it is also important for Parliament to have an opportunity to debate it to ensure that it does not happen.
Will the Home Secretary ensure that the focus is on public protection, rather than on the convenience or rights of those who have been convicted of serious crimes? Will she tell us how many offenders will be affected? Will she tell us what the level of the police assessment will be, and what standards the police will seek to meet as part of their review?
Will the police be given additional resources to do this? She will know that there is concern in the House about the police’s resources and about whether they are stretched already as a result of the cuts the Government are making. Will she say what additional resources the police will have, what additional resources they will require and the number of people on whom they will be expected to carry out reviews as a result of the changes she is proposing? She will know that some police forces have already expressed concern that as a result of the 20% cuts they are facing, their need to respond and their need to try to keep as many people in neighbourhood policing as possible, many specialist units within police forces are coming under the greatest pressure as a result of the decisions she has made. What reassurance can she give the House and the public that there will be no increased risk to the public as a result of these changes and of pressure on the police?
I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal to consider other tighter measures on sex offenders, but does that have any implications for the changes that she appears to be making in the opposite direction to the vetting and barring provisions? She has also raised, as part of her statement, discussion of a Bill of rights. We would welcome a debate about that, although wider issues associated with written constitutions can also be debated. However, I am concerned at the form that this announcement has taken, because it is, in itself, a major announcement and the House should have an opportunity to have that debate and raise questions.
In conclusion, the Home Secretary will know that the public would be horrified if the rights, or even the convenience, of people who have been convicted of very serious crimes were to be put above the right to safety and family life of the public and of vulnerable people and vulnerable victims. She will know that Labour Members will not support any changes that will do that, and I hope that she intends not to do that. I look forward to her answers to the questions.
Mrs May
I can say categorically to the right hon. Lady that it is indeed the Government’s intention to put the protection of the public first. Had she listened to my statement or read it beforehand, she would have noted that it says that in a number of places. We are appalled by the Court’s decision. I would far rather not have to stand here saying that we have to make a change to the sex offenders register, but we do have to make a change. We will do so in the most minimal way possible to ensure that we do put public protection first, and that we give the police and others the ability to ensure that the public are protected from such serious and appalling crimes as have been committed by individuals on this register.
The right hon. Lady asked quite a number of questions. She asked whether we are making the protection of families paramount, and I have said that we are. She said that the system should be extremely tough and, yes, our intention is that it will be as tough as possible. That is why we have looked not only at what we can do in the minimal way to put this judgment into effect, but at ways to toughen up the sex offenders register regime—for example, by the requirement that we want to introduce for individuals on the register to have to notify when they are going abroad for at least a day. That is a toughening of the current system.
The right hon. Lady asked about Parliament’s opportunity to debate this measure. It will be introduced through an order—a statutory instrument—so there will be an opportunity to debate it. She asked about the numbers who will be affected. That will be set out in the regulatory impact assessment that will accompany the statutory instrument. She asked about the process of consideration that the police will go through. They will be talking to all other agencies that have an interest in this area, so they will talk to the probation service, local authorities, social services, youth offending teams and a variety of other agencies to ensure that they have the best possible picture of the individual concerned in order to make the best possible judgment. I am sure that she will agree that the police are very clear about the importance of public protection. That is why I want the police to make these decisions; I believe that they will put public protection first. They will examine a series of issues, such as the seriousness of the offences originally committed and the age of the victims. They will address a range of issues when they are considering whether a review should be upheld and whether the individual should stay on the register.
The right hon. Lady asked about the ability of the police to deal with this. ACPO and the National Offender Management Service have been actively involved in putting together and shaping the policy. One of their considerations has, of course, been its deliverability. We are confident that the policy can be delivered, as is ACPO. Like us, ACPO wants to ensure that we have the toughest possible policy to protect the public. It is different from the vetting and barring scheme, where the problem was that lots of innocent people found themselves on it and were subject to its requirements. This proposal is about the people who have been found guilty of heinous crimes and is about making sure that we reduce the risk of reoffending to members of the public. As I have announced in relation to the Bill of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will make further announcements about that imminently.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
May I astonish my right hon. Friend by saying that I think there is some merit in the Court’s decision, particularly in the way she has interpreted it? Does not this case illustrate the fact that rights are not absolute and that the rights of the victim have to be balanced against the rights of children and the public in general? The process of reconciliation is ultimately as much political as legal and Parliament should therefore always have the last word. Is it not a relief that this decision was taken by the Supreme Court and not by the Court in Strasbourg? Does she agree that we should resile from that as soon as possible?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend tempts me down a route that it would not be appropriate to go down. On his first point, rights are not absolute. The article 8 right against which the judgment was made clearly is not an absolute right. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members—indeed, all of them, I hope—are as concerned as I am when a court makes a judgment that puts the rights of a perpetrator above the rights of the public and individual victims. In a similar area, I find it incredible that we are not able to deport people who are linked to al-Qaeda and who have terrorist intent in this country because the court says that their rights mean that we cannot deport them, but the court is not looking at the rights of members of the British public. That is what we should be doing.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I support the Home Secretary’s views on the merits of the existing sex offenders register and her concern about the Court’s decision, but will she confirm that under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 there is absolutely no obligation on her or the House to change the law one bit? All the Court did was to issue a declaration of incompatibility and section 4 makes it absolutely clear that any decision following that is a matter for the sovereign Parliament. It would be entirely lawful for the House and her to say that the existing regime will continue without any amendment.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the right to respect for private life must not trump the safety of our children? Given the impossibility of tackling some offending behaviour of a sexual nature, even if reviews of notification requirements are granted, presumably she expects that those reviews will insist that the notification requirements are maintained. Is it also her understanding that the police decision could be subject to judicial review?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the balance of rights. It is the case, I believe, that the police decision could be subject to judicial review. It is absolutely right that the police will look at all aspects of cases and take every consideration into account when deciding whether a review should be upheld such that the individual no longer remains on the register. I cannot second-guess any decisions that the police will take, but they will be making every effort to ensure that they are, absolutely, looking properly at these cases to ensure that the decisions they take enable them to maintain public protection.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has struck exactly the right tone today, and it is heartening to hear both Front Benchers being very clear about where they stand on this issue. Protection of the public is the most important consideration, but, in view of what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has just said, will the Government ensure that the appeal process is examined very carefully indeed so that it is as robust as possible and there is not a legal challenge? That will mean proper consultation with Parliament and a proper scheme, so that people are well aware that it is very tough indeed.
Mrs May
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and it is absolutely our intention that we should make the scheme as tough as possible and make it clear that it is about an ability to seek a review of a decision. We will frame it in the toughest possible terms and ensure that the process is absolutely right, so that we reduce the opportunity for it to be subject to any sort of judicial review once the decision is taken.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I support and welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but may I ask for a little more clarity? She said that the final decision on whether an offender should remain on the register would be one for the police. Will that be a matter for the chief constable, as at present, or will it be one for the police commissioner in future?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
In the unfortunate event of somebody being released from the sex offenders register because of this judgment, does the Secretary of State agree that it is imperative that the victim of the crime be informed of that variation?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s approach to this as being purely a police matter. There has been a common misapprehension that requirements to sign on the sex register are somehow court orders. They are not. They are not part of the sentence or the judicial process, and I therefore welcome the commitment to keep the matter firmly within the realms of police discretion.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the rigorous approach that the Home Secretary is taking, and I say that as the Minister who took the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through Committee. Does she agree that given the highly secretive and manipulative behaviour of many sex offenders, it is highly unlikely that the offence of which they were convicted is the only crime that they have committed? Will she ensure in any review process that there is a clear onus on the offender to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are no longer a risk to the public?
Mrs May
I have a number of points to make to the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the House, we all agree that Parliament needs to get the answer right for the sake of public protection. The police will be able to take other offences into account when they consider whether an individual should remain on the sex offenders register, and they will look as widely as possible at the behaviour of the individual in question, consulting as wide a number of agencies as possible to ensure that they make the best possible decision for the public.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s desire to tighten the loopholes in the sex offenders register, and particularly her proposal to prevent sex offenders from avoiding registering by changing their name by deed poll. I am sure she will be aware that deed poll is only one way in which a person can change their name. It is the most formal way, but not the most usual. Changing name by statutory declaration is quicker and easier. Perhaps she will consider that as another loophole that should be closed.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is important that we examine the process of changing a name by deed poll and tighten the rules so that sex offenders cannot use them as a means of avoiding the need to register. He makes a valid point about statutory declaration, and we will certainly take it into consideration.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Home Secretary has said that the police decision on these matters will be final. I hope she agrees that if one offender gets off the sex offenders register, it is one too many. Will the victim be able to appeal against that decision by the police and try to overturn it?
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, the key phrase in which was that public protection must come first. We may compare that with judges who have instead ruled that paedophiles’ and rapists’ rights to privacy must come first. What would she say to those out-of-touch judges in the Supreme Court who are now openly, proudly and provocatively saying that a paedophile’s right to privacy is more important than children’s protection from those who have committed evil sexual acts?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on adopting a much tougher approach than the Scottish authorities. Does she have any regrets that she did not overrule her officials and similarly reject the much weaker Scottish model for the retention of DNA profiles?
Mrs May
We have not in fact absolutely adopted the Scottish model in relation to DNA, and we have gone further than it has. We have adopted protections for those who are innocent, and that is different from the situation that we are considering today, which is about people who have been found guilty and are at risk of reoffending. We must deal with public protection in that regard. The rules that we propose for the retention of DNA are about enabling the police to have the tools that they need, but at the same time not putting the DNA of a lot of innocent people on the database.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I, like many others, am appalled by the Court’s decision, but I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly the part about tightening the rules. One concern will be about potential inconsistency of approach between different police forces. Highly manipulative people moving around the country may find themselves on the sex offenders register in one part of the country, but a decision may be made to take them off it in another part. How will she ensure that consistency is applied to the whole country?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend obviously makes an important point, but of course ACPO has been actively involved in putting the proposals together, as I said earlier, and it will be for ACPO to ensure that its guidance to forces across the country is appropriately strong and followed by all forces.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
My constituent, 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall, was murdered having been groomed by a registered sex offender on Facebook. When the Home Secretary is examining the loopholes, will she ensure that all sex offenders are required to register their online identities as well, and that any failure to do so is seen just as seriously as if they had failed to register the fact that they were living with young children?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My constituents will welcome the taking-on of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a Bill of Rights, particularly as it was a manifesto commitment. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and the public that sex offenders who have a right of appeal will not be removed from the register if they continue to pose a threat to the public?
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She highlighted in it the difference in the approaches in Scotland and here at Westminster. Will she reassure us that differences between different devolved Administrations will not lead to people being able to be removed from the sex offenders register because of different thresholds being applied in different locations?
Mrs May
I reassure the hon. Lady that we will talk to the devolved Administrations. What I have announced will cover England and Wales, but we will talk to Scotland and Northern Ireland about the approach that we are adopting to ensure as far as we can that sex offenders do not move from one jurisdiction to another to get around the rules.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary not only for the content of her statement, but for the fact that she has come to the House so quickly and that the statement was not leaked in advance.
Yesterday, when the Justice Secretary was questioned on the establishment of a commission on the Bill of Rights, he said that it would be done very quickly. Unfortunately, he was unable to answer my question on when that commission will report. Until we have a British Bill of Rights, I am afraid that the Home Secretary will be coming to the Dispatch Box to make more such statements.
Mrs May
I am tempted to point out to my hon. Friend that the statement may not have been leaked, but the Prime Minister covered one or two aspects of it in Prime Minister’s questions.
On the Bill of Rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will imminently set out the arrangements for that commission and say how it will be formed, which I expect will include an end date.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked about funding for specialist units, many of which were formed because of a failure in normal policing to find people on the register, and because police forces did not talk to each other. What guarantees can the Home Secretary give on funding for such specialist units?
Mrs May
Of course, how a police budget is distributed to the different departments of each police force is a matter for the chief constable. The hon. Gentleman will know what I am about to say because the Government have made this clear a number of times. Police forces can take a significant sum of money out of their budgets not by cutting specialist units and visible policing, but by dealing with procurement and IT, and through collaboration with other forces. It is not just me saying that; Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says it too.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to close the loophole that allows sex offenders to go abroad for up to three days without notifying the police. The previous Government had since 1997 to close that loophole, but did not take such action.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been absolutely right in setting her face against the judgment, but will she confirm that it remains lawful to insist that sex offenders stay on the register for life? Although the measures she has announced are strong and seek to protect the public, she does not have to take them—it would be lawful for her to keep to the higher standard of keeping them on the register for life.
Mrs May
We have already had one challenge on this ruled on by the Supreme Court, and there is the prospect of others. We have no further right of appeal through the Supreme Court mechanism, so we are introducing what we believe to be a tough set of measures that will address the issue. Of course, it will continue to be possible for sex offenders to stay on the register for life.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I have appeared in Parole Board hearings. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the police officers who will make decisions will have all the information on an offender that is available in a Parole Board hearing, from judges’ sentencing remarks on dangerousness, to pre-sentence reports and the offender’s full record in custody, so that they can make a thorough decision, so that the public are fully protected?
Mrs May
That is absolutely our intention. The police should have the fullest information possible on which to base their decision on whether a sex offender should stay on the register. Indeed, I expect that when we lay the statutory instrument before the House, we will be able to go into more detail on the sort of information that will be available to the police.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I assure the Home Secretary that my hon. and right hon. Friends wholeheartedly agree with her statement. It is time to assert that Parliament makes the laws, not the courts. It is our duty as a House to protect the general public from those who perpetrate such horrific crimes. If it is the will of the House to strengthen our laws, instead of weakening them in the light of the Court’s decision, we should assert the authority of the House.
When will consultation be held with the Northern Ireland Executive?
Mrs May
We will have discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Government shortly—we have held some discussions with the latter because they have taken some steps down this road already. These issues will come to Parliament for it to decide. The commission on the British Bill of Rights, which was announced today, is a step that the Government are taking to ensure that we bolster the ability of Parliament to set our laws. The previous Government introduced the Human Rights Act. I am afraid that they saw the problems that the Act created and did nothing—this Government are doing something about it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but how confident is she that the increasingly robust Supreme Court, and the European Courts with their extraterritorial reach, will not overrule her very firm and welcome announcement today? Is it not time to introduce a Bill of Rights very early indeed, rather than having a commission which may report sometime in the future—
Mrs May
I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but it is right to have a commission to look into the British Bill of Rights. The purpose of my statement was to set out a way forward that meets the requirement set by the Supreme Court, which should therefore not be subject to a further ruling by that Court.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
Will the victims be not only told of the outcome of the decision, but consulted before the decision is made?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Residents in my constituency are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with human rights legislation and the way in which it is being used to promote the rights of bad people over the rights of good people. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that when the commission on the Bill of Rights is established, an end date will be published. May I urge her to urge the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary to choose an early end date, which we need so that legislation can be introduced in the House in this Parliament, so that the issue can be resolved once and for all?
Mrs May
Most Members of the House are fed up with the way in which decisions by the House are increasingly being overturned by the courts. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary know well of his interest in this matter. As I said, we will ensure that we can take action to assert the rights of Parliament.
Bill Presented
Welfare Reform Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Clarke, Mr Secretary Lansley, Mr Secretary Pickles, Chris Grayling and Maria Miller, presented a Bill to make provision for universal credit and personal independence payment; to make other provision about social security and tax credits; to make provision about the functions of the registration service, child support maintenance and the use of jobcentres; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First Time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 149) with explanatory notes (Bill 149-EN).
Access to Elected Office Consultation
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today the Government are publishing a consultation paper, co-produced with Equality 20251 and disability organisations, which seeks views on the additional support which can be offered to disabled people who wish to become elected representatives.
We want to ensure that our democracy is diverse and that we have a political system which better reflects the people it serves. To this end, the coalition programme contained an important commitment to introduce additional support for disabled people “who want to become MPs, councillors or other elected officials”. This commitment was borne from the recognition that the 10 million and more disabled people in the UK are under-represented in public life. It also follows the recommendations made by the cross-party Speaker’s conference in January 2010 on how to improve the representation of women, disabled people and minority ethnic people in the House of Commons.
In order to produce an effective strategy, we need to establish the practical support needed by disabled candidates to encourage greater participation in public and political life. This consultation is an opportunity for us to seek a diverse range of views, from disabled people themselves and others, on the measures which would make a real difference.
The consultation paper sets out a range of proposals including the establishment of a fund to support disability-related costs. This will not, however, replace existing obligations for parties under the Equality Act 2010/Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition to helping break down financial barriers, the proposals are intended to address some of the wider obstacles faced by disabled people who seek elected office, for example introducing measures to raise awareness and tackle attitudes which might discourage disabled people from putting themselves forward for election.
The proposals will apply to: English local elections, Greater London authority (GLA) elections, English mayoral elections, police and crime commissioners and all candidates from all parts of the UK who are seeking elected positions at UK Westminster elections. We would continue to work with colleagues in the devolved legislatures to help best practice from this strategy to be embedded in the electoral practices for their elections.
The consultation will run for a period of 12 weeks, until 11 May. A consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on the Government Equalities Office website at www.equalities.gov.uk and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
A summary of the results of this consultation will be published on the Government Equalities Office website within three months of the end of the consultation period.
1Government’s advisory body on disability issues
Departmental Expenditure Limit (2010-11)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Home Office’s departmental expenditure limits for 2010-11 will be reduced by £46,805,000 from £9,975,064,000 to £9,928,259,000 and the administration budget will be reduced by £2,722,000 from £392,510,000 to £389,788,000.
Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
Voted | Non-voted | Voted | Non-voted | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource DRT, | 130,196 | (116,318) | 8,529,448 | 903,767 | 9,433,215 |
of which: | |||||
Administration budget | 38,009 | (40,731) | 251,214 | 138,574 | 389,788 |
Capital DEL* | 15,970 | (2,129) | 604,431 | 173,632 | 778,063 |
Less Depreciation** | (73,749) | (775) | (224,778) | (58,241) | (283,019) |
Total DEL | 72,417 | (119,222) | 8,909,101 | 1,019,158 | 9,928,259 |
£000's | |||||
(a) | Total | o/w Non-cash ringfence | o/w Admin | ||
The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from: | 13,878 | 74,524 | (2,722) | ||
Transfers from other Government Departments: | 10 | 0 | 10 | ||
Admin from the Ministry of Justice to the UK Border Agency (section D) for training on how to restrain people on aircraft. | 10 | 10 | |||
Transfers to other Government Departments: | (3,132) | (386) | (2,732) | ||
Admin from Central Services (section F) to the Ministry of Justice for shared accommodation costs. | (2,556) | (210) | (2,556) | ||
Programme from the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (section C) to the Ministry of Justice to help victims of overseas terrorism. | (400) | ||||
Admin from the Crime and Policing Group (section A) to the Serious Fraud Office for asset write down costs. | (176) | (176) | (176) | ||
End Year Flexibility: | 17,000 | 17,000 | 0 | ||
Programme to section D to meet the UK Border Agency's anticipated non cash costs. | 17,000 | 17,000 | |||
Switch from non ringfence to ringfence funds: | 0 | 57,910 | 0 | ||
Within the Departmental Unallocated Provision switch ringfenced cash to non-cash ringfenced funds. | 57,910 | ||||
(b) | Capital | Total | |||
The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from: | 13,841 | ||||
End Year Flexibility: | 13,000 | ||||
Capital grants to the Crime and Policing Group (section A) to provide rescue aid to the Forensic Science Service. | 13,000 | ||||
Transfers from other Government Departments: | 7,600 | ||||
Capital grant from the Ministry of Justice to Central Services (section F) in return for the transfer of Ashley House (see entry under 'Transfers to other government departments' below). | 6,759 | ||||
Capital from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Identity and Passport Service (section E) for a contribution towards the purchase of new passport issuing equipment. | 841 | ||||
Transfers to other Government Departments: | (6,759) | ||||
Transfer of Ashley House from Central Services (section F) to the Ministry of Justice in return for a capital grant (see entry under 'Transfers from other government departments' above). | (6,759) | ||||
*Capital DEL includes items treated as resource in estimates and accounts but which are treated as Capital DEL in budgets. **Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting. |
G6 Meeting (Krakow)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland held their most recent meeting in Krakow, Poland on 3-4 February 2011. The meeting had been postponed from September 2010. The meeting was chaired by the Polish Minister for the Interior, Jerzy Miller.
The meeting was divided into two working sessions over one day, both of which were attended by G6 Ministers of the Interior (I represented the UK; Thomas de Maizière—Germany; Brice Hortefeux—France; Roberto Maroni—Italy), with the additional guest attendance of the US Attorney-General, Eric Holder and the US Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security, Jane Lute. Spain was represented by the Minister of State for Security, Antonio Camacho Vizcaíno.
The first working session was on cyberspace security. Ministers considered the need to inform the public on how to keep safe in cyberspace. I noted that the Government had allocated £650 million to fund national cyber-security, including £63 million on cybercrime and that the Government would be publishing a cyber-security strategy in the spring. The approach of the UK was for more effective self-regulation rather than formal regulation. To this end, there was frequent consultation between Government and internet security providers. The US Attorney-General noted that his Government had recently issued a cyberspace policy review and created an office for cyber-security co-ordination. There were discussions around data retention and protection.
The second session focused on the issue of information policy in countering terrorism. The Poles were particularly keen to gather expertise from other states in advance of the Euro 2012 football championships which they will jointly host with Ukraine—in particular how to ensure that the accurate messages get to citizens rapidly. I offered to work closely with Poland noting that the championship will take place only a month before the London Olympics.
I also held separate bilateral meetings with other heads of delegations.
The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in Spain in June.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Lord Carlile's Report)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to say that in accordance with section 14(3), 14(4) and 14(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of the Act in 2010, which will be laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Knife, Gun and Gang Crime
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are today announcing a total of over £18 million of ring-fenced funding over two years for police, local agencies and the voluntary sector to tackle teenage knife, gun and gang violence and prevent young people from entering a cycle of crime. An independent report by Brooke Kinsella, “Tackling Knife Crime Together—a Review of Anti-Knife Crime Projects,” is also being published.
The two-year Home Office funding will support enforcement work by police in three police force areas, alongside positive activities for young people across England and Wales, and local work to bring about long-term changes in attitudes and behaviours. The money, to be distributed in 2011-12 and 2012-13, includes up to:
£10 million for prevention and diversionary activities and engagement with young people at risk of becoming involved in crime, including knife-related violence;
£4 million for local voluntary organisations across England and Wales working specifically with young people most at risk of involvement in knife and gang violence;
£3.75 million for the three police forces areas where more than half of the country’s knife crime occurs—London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands;
£1 million to support the development of anti-knife, gun and gang crime materials for schools and a good practice website to enable local projects to share knowledge and expertise; and
£250,000 for one further year of the Ben Kinsella fund for young people to run anti-knife crime projects in their local area.
Police and Crime Commissioners will be introduced in May 2012 and this funding will run from April 2011 to March 2013.
The Brooke Kinsella report makes a number of recommendations including anti-knife crime work with school children, more information sharing between police, schools and other agencies on local issues, a best practice website for local organisations and more work with young children to stop them getting involved in knife crime.
Over 2011-12 and 2012-13 the Home Office will also provide up to £20 million towards Department for Education’s early intervention grant which local areas can use for youth crime prevention, and up to £18 million for youth offending teams (via the Ministry of Justice) to deliver front-line work, including knife crime prevention programmes, for young offenders.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I attended the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 and 21 January in Gödöllo.
Discussions on the Interior day centred on two themes: “Internal Security: combining efforts in combating organised crime” and “comprehensive security through integrated border management”.
The Commission opened the item on organised crime by highlighting cybercrime and asset recovery; they felt there was a need to focus on the exchange of best practice. The Chair of the European Parliament LIBE Committee suggested that proving the effectiveness of the EU in the security field was one of the biggest challenges for the EU. The Europol director gave a preview of their organised crime threat assessment noting an increasing risk in particular in relation to the infiltration of the legal economy and facilitation of illegal activity by the internet. There was an increasing use of aircraft and helicopters for smuggling of goods, use of minors for petty crime and sexual exploitation, an upsurge in counterfeiting and a largely unnoticed trade in endangered species. Interpol highlighted the ability of organised crime to destabilise whole countries and gave the example of cocaine trafficking via West Africa.
The UK said that it recognised organised crime as a real threat alongside counter-terrorism and would be developing a new strategy. In particular the UK acknowledged cybercrime as requiring particular attention, although it was often old crimes committed by new methods. The UK welcomed practical co-operation, rather than legislation, and agreed with the presidency that we needed to look imaginatively at ways of tackling crime, including seizure of assets. Most member states thought further work on asset-freezing, confiscation and sharing was a priority and welcomed the Commission’s commitment to bring forward a report on the issues in the second half of 2011.
The Commission opened the second session by highlighting action they were taking. They would forward a border package over the next year, including looking at an EU electronic system for travel authorisation (ESTA) and a proposal on a European border surveillance system (EUROSUR). They also saw a need to finalise discussion on the new Frontex regulation and to reform the Schengen evaluation mechanism. Frontex, the EU’s External Borders Agency, felt that priorities were better inter-agency co-operation, situational awareness and targeted co-operation at the border. Frontex also needed to be able to do more on capacity building and returns with third countries.
The UK stated that it was correct to focus on integrated management of the border and supported the Greek action plan, which was critical to the EU’s collective success. For the UK modern technologies were a key part of a 21st century response to maintain border security while facilitating legitimate travel. For that reason the UK supported the philosophy behind EU proposals for registered travellers and an entry-exit scheme and, given our experience, the introduction of biometric visas. We were concerned about the UK’s exclusion from the proposal for the Schengen evaluation mechanism. The e-borders system allowed the UK to focus resources and evidence suggested that intra-EU flights were important and hoped that would be covered by the new EU passenger name records measure. In subsequent discussion many member states highlighted the use of technology as important and in particular interoperability of technologies. Many welcomed the Commission proposals for amendment to the Schengen evaluation mechanism and thought that greater use needed to be made of Frontex.
The Justice day began with a discussion on a Communication published by the Commission entitled “EU Citizenship: how to dismantle the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights?” This sets out what the Commission considers to be the obstacles EU citizens face when trying to exercise their rights across national borders and suggests actions to tackle them. Among other things, the presidency invited discussion about whether the Justice and Home Affairs Council should adopt an oversight role over the actions suggested in the report, but this gained little support. The UK welcomed the overview the Commission report provided and highlighted criminal justice as an area where we needed absolute confidence in others’ systems. The UK suggested that the Commission should also focus on making it easier for individuals and businesses to enforce civil debts across borders.
Ministers were also asked what they considered to be the key elements of the proposal on Succession and Wills in simplifying citizens’ rights. This gave rise to a substantial debate. The UK reiterated its concerns with this proposal.
Over lunch, the presidency held a discussion on the role of the Council in ensuring the effective implementation of the charter of fundamental rights in the legislative process. Their paper raised the question whether there was a need for further Council processes to verify member states’ compliance with the charter. The UK, together with a number of other member states, questioned whether there was sufficient support for the presidency’s proposal to be taken forward.
Next, there was a discussion on “Judicial training: how to improve training of legal professionals in the EU”. The Stockholm programme stressed the importance of judicial training and the Commission has committed to producing a communication on training of legal practitioners in September 2011. The majority of member states, including the UK, did not favour creation of a new training institution, preferring to build on existing structures including the European Judicial Training Network. The UK welcomed the intention of improving judges’ knowledge of EU law and each others’ systems and particularly the Commission’s recognition that it would have to accommodate very different systems.