Control Order Powers
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The future of the control order regime
On 26 January 2011 I made a statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s intention to replace control orders with a less intrusive and more targeted regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures. Legislation to achieve this will be introduced in due course. Additional resources for covert investigative techniques will be made available to complement the new system. The full control order regime will continue to operate until the replacement measures are in force. I have now renewed the powers in the 2005 Act until 31 December 2011, following the debates in the House of Commons on 2 March and in the House of Lords on 8 March.
The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
As explained in previous quarterly statements, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During the reporting period, no CORGs were held in relation to the orders in force at the time. This is because meetings were held just before, and are due to be held just after, the reporting period. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period 11 December 2010 to 10 March 2011, two non-derogating control orders were made, with the permission of the court, and served. One non-derogating control order was made, with the permission of the court, and revoked without ever being served following the identification of an administrative error. A further non-derogating control order was made in respect of the same individual, with the permission of the court, but was not served during the reporting period. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period.
In total, as of 10 March, there were 10 control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Three individuals subject to a control order were living in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas.
One set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order was concluded during this reporting period following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest.
During this reporting period, 53 modifications of control order obligations were made; 21 requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. No appeals have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period two appeals were lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In one of these appeals, an interlocutory application for an injunction was also made, seeking an order staying the effect of the modification until a full hearing had taken place and judgment handed down.
One court order was made in relation to proceedings under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. On 8 March 2011 the court dismissed BH’s appeal against the renewal of his control order but allowed it in so far as it related to obligations imposed by the order. The obligations were modified by agreement between the parties and annexed to the court order.
On 10 March 2011 an oral judgment was handed down in relation to the injunction application referred to above. The injunction was refused and directions were set for an expedited appeal.
Equality Act 2010: Public Sector Equality Duty
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 3 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 Equality Act 2010 includes a new single public sector Equality Duty which will replace the existing race, disability and gender equality duties and will extend to also cover gender reassignment in full, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation.
The Act contains a power enabling a Minister of the Crown to make regulations imposing specific duties on public bodies listed in parts 1 (general) and 4 (cross-border authorities) of schedule 19 to the Act to enable them to carry out the Equality Duty more effectively. Following a public consultation on draft specific duties regulations which ran from August to November last year, revised draft regulations were published alongside the Government’s response to the consultation on the Government Equalities Office website on 12 January 2011.
Since then, we have considered the draft regulations further in the light of our policy objective of ensuring that public bodies consider equality when carrying out their functions without imposing unnecessary burdens and bureaucracy. As a result, we think there is room to do more to strip out unnecessary process requirements. Today, we are publishing a policy review paper seeking views on new draft specific duties regulations. Our proposals are designed to deliver a clear focus on transparency, freeing up public bodies to take responsibility for their own performance in delivering equality improvements and to publish the right information so that the public can hold them to account. This approach will be better for equality because it will focus on the delivery of results, not the performance of bureaucratic processes.
The new general Equality Duty will come into force on 5 April. For the period from 5 April until the new specific duties are in place, public bodies will still need to comply with the general Equality Duty.
We welcome comments on the new draft regulations from public bodies, equality organisations, users of public services, businesses which work with public organisations and other interested parties. Comments should be submitted to the Government Equalities Office by 21 April 2011.
The policy review paper, including the draft regulations, is available on the Government Equalities Office website: www.equalities.gov.uk. Copies are also being placed in the Library of the House. Comments can be sent to: specificduties@geo.gsi.gov.uk
Terrorism Stop and Search Powers
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 3 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 announced on 26 January the findings from my review of counter-terrorism and security powers. This included a recommendation that the Government consider whether the police needed the new counter-terrorism stop and search power more quickly than the Protection of Freedoms Bill would allow. On 1 March 2011 I announced that, given the current threat environment, I had concluded that the police do need the powers more quickly than the Bill would allow.
The most appropriate way of meeting the legal and operational requirements concerning the counter-terrorism stop and search powers exercisable without reasonable suspicion is to make a remedial order under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to make immediate changes to the legislation. I therefore made a remedial order concerning the Terrorism Act 2000 on 16 March and that order has today been laid before Parliament. The new powers contained in that order are supported by a robust statutory code of practice. I have used the urgency procedure provided by paragraph 2(b) of schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act to make the remedial order because I have concluded that having these powers available to the police now is in the interests of national security and is needed to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.
The remedial order replaces sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a more targeted and proportionate power. The provisions in the order will cease to have effect on the coming into force of the similar provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—in other words, the order makes temporary provision and Parliament will have the opportunity to fully scrutinise the replacement powers in the usual way during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The order removes the incompatibility of sections 44 to 46 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with the European convention of human rights in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Gillan and Quinton which became final in June 2010.
The making of a remedial order using the urgency procedure means that it will come into force on 18 March. It will cease to have effect if both Houses have not approved the order by resolution within 120 days of the remedial order being made (the calculation of “days” for this purpose does not include any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or both Houses are adjourned for more than four days).
The decision to make a remedial order means that the discredited, ineffective and unfair “no suspicion” stop and search powers provided by sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are, in effect, replaced by a much more targeted and proportionate power. The use of an urgent remedial order is a necessary and sensible step to ensure that the police have the necessary powers in place to continue to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.
2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games (Security Preparations)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 4 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 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games will be a once-in-a-lifetime sporting event. The Home Office and police are leading planning and operations to ensure that the games will be safe and secure—and in keeping with the wider Olympic and Paralympic culture and experience.
I am today announcing the Government’s intention to increase the maximum penalty for touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets from £5,000 to £20,000. The change will ensure that there is a more substantial deterrent to serious and organised criminal groups, who may otherwise target Olympic tickets.
No conduct that is currently legal will be criminalised. The London 2012 Organising Committee (LOCOG) will be operating an exchange system for those who wish to sell unwanted tickets legitimately; and it also will remain possible privately to sell-on unwanted tickets at face value to family members or friends.
In addition, the Olympic and Paralympic safety and security strategy has been updated and the Home Office is publishing an unclassified version of this strategy today.
Publishing an unclassified version of the updated strategy builds on this Government’s intention to make public as much information about games safety and security as it can, without disclosing sensitive material.
The strategy has been produced in consultation with all key partners who are involved in Olympic and Paralympic safety and security planning.
Copies of this document will be placed in the House Libraries and in the Vote Office.
Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Ending violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government. On 25 November 2010, I set out our guiding principles in this area over the spending review period in a “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” and announced that we will be committing Home Office funding of £28 million to fund specialist services in this area over the next four years.
Today, to mark International Women’s Day, I am publishing a set of supporting actions to realise our ambition in this area. This includes a full response to Baroness Stern’s review into how rape cases are handled in England and Wales.
Copies of both documents will be placed in the House Library.
Police Remuneration and Conditions of Service
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Tom Winsor has today published the first report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.
The review began its work on 1 October last year. The terms of reference asked the review to make recommendations that enable the police service to manage its resources to serve the public more cost-effectively, taking account of the fiscal challenges. In particular they invited the review to focus on proposals that:
Use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles where their powers and skills are required;
Provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to and reasonable for both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;
Enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.
And to have regard to:
The tough economic conditions and unprecedented public sector deficit, and the consequent Government’s spending review;
The resolution by the Government that the public sector must share the burden of the deficit;
The Government’s policy on pay and pensions;
Analysis of the value of current remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff, as compared to other workforces;
A strong desire from the public to see more police officers and operational staff out on the front-line of local policing;
A recognition that there are also less visible front-line roles that require policing powers and skills in order to protect the public;
The particular front-line role and nature of the office of constable in British policing, including the lack of a right to strike;
Parallel work by the police service to improve value for money;
Wider Government objectives for police reform, including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction of police bureaucracy and collaboration between police forces and with other public services;
Other relevant developments including the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission led by Lord Hutton, the Hutton review of Fair Pay in the Public Sector led by Will Hutton, any emerging recommendations from them, and the Government’s commitment to protect accrued pension rights;
The impact of any recommendations on equality and diversity.
The review was asked to report in two stages, the first covering short-term improvements. Tom Winsor has now provided this first report and has been supported in this work by former chief constable Sir Edward Crew and labour market economist Professor Richard Disney.
I am very grateful for their work on this review and for this report. I will now consider the report very carefully. The report has been laid before Parliament today and copies are available from the Vote Office. It is also available electronically to the service and the public on the review’s website at: http://review.police.uk/.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
1. What steps she plans to take to decouple temporary residence from permanent settlement in the immigration system.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government have pledged to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement. Settling in Britain should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in. We have already announced that we will introduce a new permanent limit on non-EU economic migrants, with a reduction in the number of visas in the next financial year from 28,000 to 21,700, a fall of over 20%. The Government will consult later this year on breaking the link between work and settlement.
Dr Coffey
My constituents are largely concerned not about people who work here temporarily, but about people who work here for a short time and then can settle permanently. Is there not a case for a review of the criteria for permanent settlement, to try to avoid this kind of practice?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her supplementary question. We will review the entire question of permanent settlement including the criteria for it as part of our review of the whole immigration system. We will make announcements on that shortly, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already tightened the settlement criteria in April, by introducing, for example, a new criminality threshold so all applicants must be clear of unspent convictions when applying, a new income requirement for skilled and highly skilled migrants applying for settlement, and reform of the English language requirements.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Regardless of whether applicants are applying for temporary or permanent residence, and of whether they have friends in high places, should we not restrict the admission of foreigners convicted of paedophilia offences?
Mrs May
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to lead his question. Of course there are rules on that offence in relation to exclusions from the United Kingdom. Decisions on exclusions are taken by the Home Secretary on the basis of evidence put forward by the UK Border Agency.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
On temporary residence, is it not clear that under the Government’s plans students are welcome to come and study in this country, and, indeed, should be made welcome? However, is it not part of the inheritance of this Government that large numbers of people have used the study route as a means of coming to the country to work, rather than to study? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that this Government will bear down on bogus students and bogus colleges who abuse the system?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I am happy to give him precisely that assurance in relation to the stance this Government are taking. It is perfectly clear from the figures that, sadly, all too many people have used the student visa route as a means simply of coming to the UK to work. There are some very good examples of colleges that exist in name only, such as the college that had two lecturers covering 940 students. I hope there is cross-House agreement that that sort of abuse must be stopped, but we do want to ensure that legitimate students wanting to study legitimate courses at legitimate institutions come here.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Is it the Home Secretary’s intention to scrap identity cards for foreign nationals, and if so, how will that assist in preventing individuals who are here on visas from overstaying?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
3. What representations she has received from members of the public on the local crime and policing website.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
9. What steps she is taking to reduce the burden of paperwork on police forces.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are committed to reducing bureaucracy. We are scrapping the stop-and- account form, and reducing the amount of information to be recorded on the stop-and-search form. Doing those two things saves up to 800,000 man-hours a year. We are returning certain charging decisions to the police. That will save up to a further 50,000 man-hours per year. We are working with the police to sweep away a further range of the red tape that prevents officers doing what they and the public want them to do—getting out on the streets and cutting crime.
Claire Perry
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 14 months the Wiltshire police force has undergone four separate inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary lasting three working weeks and costing the force £60,000, and no meaningful recommendations have been made as a result? Does she intend to reform this box-ticking regime to cut the burdens of police bureaucracy and paperwork still further?
Mrs May
I was not aware of the specific figures for Wiltshire. I realise that this is an issue. That is why the Policing Minister has been working with HMIC on reducing the bureaucratic burdens of the inspection regime by ensuring that we maintain an effective inspection regime, and he will inform the House on this matter in due course.
Mark Lancaster
I commend my right hon. Friend on her efforts to improve on the just 11% of time that the police are visible to the general public, but may I press her on what actions she will take to reduce the unnecessary amount of time that police officers spend in court, especially as delays continue to be endemic?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. In looking at saving police time so that they can do the job that we want them to do, we need to look across the whole of the criminal justice system. That is what I am doing, together with the Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Policing Minister, who is also a Minister in the Ministry of Justice.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to reducing police bureaucracy. As she knows, in October last year Jan Berry published her report and made 32 recommendations. How many of those recommendations have now been implemented? Will the Home Secretary continue Jan Berry’s term of office so that this is not just a one-off piece of research, but a continuing monitoring of the bureaucracy in our police service?
Mrs May
Jan Berry did a valuable piece of work looking at bureaucracy in policing. We have already implemented a number of the recommendations that came out of that. I have referred to the restoration of some charging decisions down to local police, the more proportionate approach to inspections, and revising the police performance development reviews. We are taking the work forward in a slightly different way. There is a programme board led by Chris Sims, the chief constable of west midlands, which is working with the Home Office and identifying further areas of bureaucracy that can be scrapped.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What estimate she has made of the likely number of police officers in Greater Manchester in March 2015.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
16. What assessment she has made of the trends in levels of complaints against police forces in England and Wales in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The police complaints statistics for 2009-10, published by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, show an 8% increase in recorded complaints against the police in England and Wales over the previous year. It is right that citizens should feel able to hold the police to account for the service they provide, and improving police accountability is a top priority of this Government.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I raise a matter that I have raised with the authorities before, which is about the practice of kettling, first, at the G20 demonstrations, then at the student demonstrations last autumn and, even, on new year’s eve, when dealing with crowd control? Does she have any further thoughts that she can share with the House on how the increasing number of complaints about the practice can be dealt with in an effective and long-term manner?
Mrs May
Of course, within the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, we are putting forward some proposals to enhance the complaints procedure against the police, and we have been doing that work in consultation and discussions with the IPCC. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will also be interested to know that the senior officer in the Metropolitan police with responsibility for public order has recently made several announcements about how containment will be dealt with in future, making it clear that, should containment take place, toilets and water will indeed be provided, and that an individual will be available on site to ensure that those who are vulnerable or wish to leave are able to leave such areas.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
19. When she plans to announce the outcome of her review of human trafficking policy.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office is committed to protecting the public and to freeing up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently. The House will shortly consider the remaining stages of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is aimed at empowering the public to hold the police to account for their role in cutting crime, before it moves to consideration in another place. Tomorrow, Tom Winsor will publish the first part of his independent review of police pay and conditions, which will help to ensure that police forces can protect jobs and keep officers on the streets.
Simon Danczuk
Will the Secretary of State join me in praising Greater Manchester police, Rochdale council staff and community mediators who managed an English Defence League demonstration in Rochdale this weekend extremely effectively? It was clearly shown that Rochdale residents stayed away from the protest and that our town has no appetite for the EDL.
Mrs May
I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the Greater Manchester police and the professionalism that they showed in dealing with the EDL march that took place in Rochdale at the weekend. It is in keeping with responses from police forces up and down the country to such marches. I understand that the policing operation was a success and that the demonstration took place with minimum disruption. I also join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of not only the local authority but the Rochdale community and the approach it took to ensure that the protest was largely peaceful and that there was co-operation, tolerance and restraint from community leaders.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
T2. With many councils claiming cuts in their Supporting People grants, what action will the Government take to monitor the provision of vital services, and what leadership will they give in providing services nationally?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary confirmed to the House that under her new arrangements, someone who is barred from working with children could still get a job as a voluntary teaching assistant without the school or the parents knowing that they were barred. Now that she has had a few days to think about it and about how concerned parents will be, has she changed her mind?
Mrs May
I think what matters for parents is the decisions that are made about individuals who play any part in dealing with their children, in a school or any other setting. As I made clear to the right hon. Lady last week, information that informs the decisions on barring will be available as part of the check that I would expect employers to make in such circumstances. We have a simple view: employers must take some responsibility for ensuring that they make the appropriate checks and judgments about who should be involved in dealing with children.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady said last week that employers would get “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities. However, Home Office officials have told some people in the charities something rather different. Will she therefore confirm whether employers will be given “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities? If so, why not give them the barring authorities’ expert recommendation about whether someone should be barred? Parents want to know that the teaching assistant in their child’s classroom has not been previously barred by the experts from working with children. Safeguarding children is too important to have such loopholes. I urge her to listen to the experts and think again.
Mrs May
Of course safeguarding children is important—we all have that as top priority. Of course, the regime that is in place will in future cover those who deal with vulnerable adults as well as children. That is important. The information that informs a decision on barring will be available as part of the check so that a decision can be made. However, as the right hon. Lady has raised a query about that, I am happy to write to her with the detail on it so that she will have that to inform her questions in future.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
T3. On a similar theme, law-abiding volunteers and employees in Bedford and Kempston are quite fed up with having to get a new Criminal Records Bureau check each time they change jobs. Can the Home Secretary tell me how those checks will change to avoid that ridiculous duplication that so debilitates so many volunteers and employees?
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The previous Government’s figures demonstrate that only one hour in seven was spent on patrol by the average patrol officer. Given the Government’s anti-bureaucracy reforms, will the Home Secretary advise us on her view of the number of hours the average patrol officer will spend on the beat?
Mrs May
We are absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in response to a previous question, that we want the visibility and availability of police officers to increase and improve. The latest figures from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary show that 11% of officers are visible and available at any one time—[Interruption.] Before we get chuntering from Opposition Members, that is not to say that other police officers are wasting their time—of course they are not—but visibility and availability need to improve.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Hundreds of my constituents have signed a petition supporting the reopening to the public of Sowerby Bridge police station. Will the Minister urgently consider the matter, because it is at the very heart of the community and would play a huge role in preventing and tackling crime in the area?
Mr Speaker
Order. One question must be enough, because other people are waiting.
Mrs May
I refer the hon. Lady to the response given by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to an earlier question on this matter. The Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no simple link between levels of crime and the number of police officers. Indeed, that view has been supported by a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Will the Minister responsible for antisocial behaviour assure me—in relation to the review he will be conducting—that when antisocial behaviour is aggravated by the victim’s disability, it will be taken into account when considering the severity of the disposal?
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Residents of Hastings and Rye warmly welcome the additional information from the crime and policing website, but is the Home Secretary aware of the additional service it provides to women who may be coming home late at night and might feel vulnerable? That is particularly important ahead of international women’s day tomorrow.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I am pleased to tell her that I was able to join the Prime Minister in meeting a group of readers from Company magazine recently who were raising exactly the problems of women walking home at night. I was able to point them to the crime maps as a useful tool.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
T10. Will the Minister confirm that the police officers working in Northumbria force’s public protection units dealing with serious crime such as child abuse and domestic crime are classified as front-line police officers?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When asked to justify the cuts to policing in Greater Manchester, the Minister for Policing, and Criminal Justice said that cuts could be made to the back office. May I tell him that at least 1,600 police staff are being made redundant in Greater Manchester on top of the 1,377 uniformed officers? I ask him again how he can justify that.
Mrs May
We are looking to police forces first and foremost to take cuts in the back office, but that is not just about individuals; it is about improving procurement and collaborating with other forces to make savings. Significant sums of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—can be saved by better procurement, better IT services and collaboration between forces.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is clear from my own experience of Leeds Rhinos and its legal firm Chadwick Lawrence that the current immigration system for foreign international sports people is inherently biased against rugby league players. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Rugby Football League to look at the criteria, so that this problem—
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 4 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(14 years, 4 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(14 years, 4 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.