Justice and Home Affairs (Post-Council Statement)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs Council was held on 2 and 3 December in Brussels. My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following issues were discussed at the Council:

The Council began with Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States). The Commission provided an update on the progress of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) focusing on agreeing the additional financial facility for member states to cover national implementation of the system.

The Commission then reported on the implementation of the Council conclusions on 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the external borders and combating illegal immigration. Internal EU progress included the Frontex Rapid Border Intervention team (RABIT) at the Greece-Turkey border, the Asylum Support Office and the Frontex operational office in Piraeus. Externally, the EU had contributed to a regional protection programme in the Horn of Africa, concluded readmission agreements with Georgia and Pakistan, signed a mobility partnership with Georgia, and opened a migration dialogue with Libya. The Commission will report on the development of the European Surveillance System (EUROSUR) in spring 2011. The Commission highlighted the need by member states to adopt the new Frontex regulation; conclude further working arrangements between Frontex and third countries; develop EUROSUR and close ongoing readmission negotiations.

Under Mixed Committee AOB, Switzerland reported the results of last week’s referendum in which a majority of the population voted in favour of automatically deporting foreign national criminals.

Following Mixed Committee the main Council began with a debate on asylum and migration during which the presidency noted recent achievements from political agreement on the long-term residents’ directive to the first meeting of the Asylum Support Office and progress on the Greece action plan. The presidency welcomed the four incoming presidencies’ agreement to deliver the asylum package by 2012 and emphasised that all member states must meet their obligations under EU law. The Government welcomed the opportunity to discuss some of the most pressing challenges member states faced, and set out domestic plans to bring levels of non-EU migration down to sustainable levels. The Government were proud to share the EU’s strong tradition of protecting genuine refugees but noted there were clear weaknesses in the system. The Government stated that a focus on fast, efficient decision making; reluctance to see legislation as the solution; and emphasis on practical co-operation was needed. Delays in the negotiations so far demonstrated member states’ reluctance to compromise on proposals which would threaten their individual asylum systems. Instead, practical steps should be taken to provide quicker protection to those in need, and to support the safe return of those with no grounds to stay. The first meeting of the European Asylum Support Office was an important milestone. But the situation in Greece was the most pressing challenge and here the Government were pleased to see contributions to the national action plan were coming together; but a sustainable improvement would take years of commitment and substantial resources. More needed to be done. The EU had to take proactive action to stop new illegal immigration threats before they created this pressure. Commissioner Malmstrom updated Council on progress so far under the Greek action plan, set out next steps and urged Greece to take ownership of the plan.

The presidency updated Council on the results of its legal migration conference, which focused on the challenges of an older EU population, declining labour force, and weakening cultural identity in the face of immigration.

Over a private lunch Interior Ministers had an exchange of views on alternatives to the detention of children and agreed on the split-seat solution of the location of the IT Agency with infrastructure remaining in Strasbourg and its management in Tallinn.

After lunch the Council discussed air cargo security. Following the recent discovery of explosive devices in air cargo, a high-level group produced a report on strengthening air cargo security for both Council meetings on 2 December (Transport and Justice and Home Affairs). The presidency presented this report, which sets out ways to strengthen the security regime around air cargo coming into the EU. The Government broadly welcomed the report and the associated action plan. The presidency concluded orally that the Council had a “positive appreciation” of the report, and asked the Commission and member states to ensure a speedy implementation of the action plan. The Commission was asked to report back to the Council on progress made. A parallel discussion took place in the Transport Council.

The EU counter terrorism co-ordinator presented his regular assessment of progress against the EU’s CT action plan and noted in particular the importance of coherence between the internal and external dimension of CT. The Government broadly welcomed the report supporting the idea of a discussion of external CT in the JHA Council with the EU’s High Representative. However, the Government expressed concerns about plans to use article 75 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU as the legal base for an internal terrorist sanctions regime.

Next the Council agreed the three negotiating mandates to authorise the start of negotiations for agreements between the EU and the United States, Canada, and Australia for the transfer and use of passenger name records (PNR) to prevent and combat terrorism and other forms of serious cross-border crime. The Government welcomed the mandates but argued that we should also be collecting data on intra-EU flights. This would give the EU the best chance of avoiding future terrorist incidents.

The Council agreed the action plan on combating heavy arms trafficking, which recommends an integrated approach to combating arms trafficking and more particularly heavy fire arms, and adopted the conclusions on itinerant gangs which seek to define the problem of itinerant crime groups and agree an administrative approach to tackle the problem, including increased cross-border co-operation. The Council also agreed Council conclusions on preventing and combating identity-related crimes and on identity management with amendments which had been sought by the UK. The conclusions set out instructions for having a robust structure of identity management to combat the threat posed by identity-related crime.

Commissioner Malmström presented the communication on the EU Internal Security Communication to Council. The communication looks to translate the Council’s EU internal security strategy into action points.

Next the presidency updated the Council on the outcomes of and proposed follow-up to the EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council (PPC) (freedom, security and justice) (18-19 November), and the Western Balkans ministerial forum (23-24 November). The presidency stated that there was an agreement to work on a stage-by-stage basis, to ensure that all commitments for data protection were met, as well as the fight against drugs, extradition and aid. On the Western Balkans, the presidency felt that there was mixed progress, with some countries doing much better than others; generally the legislation was good, but implementation was taking longer than hoped.

Under AOB Commissioner Georgieva (Humanitarian Aid) presented the recent Commission communication on civil protection, which was broadly welcomed by member states.

On the justice day, the presidency informed the Council that agreement on the text of the EU directive on human trafficking had been reached with the European Parliament. Commissioner Malmström welcomed the historic agreement of the first criminal law instrument since Lisbon, although she regretted the failure to extend extra-territorial jurisdiction to habitual residents.

Next, the Council agreed a general approach on the draft directive on combating sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children and child pornography. This draft directive aims to update existing EU legislation in the area of combating child sexual exploitation and pornography in line with technological developments. The Government supported the presidency and agreed with the general approach.

The presidency noted they had made good progress on the draft directive on the European investigation order but that a number of issues still needed to be considered.

The presidency also sought a general approach on the draft directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is the second measure in the road map to strengthen procedural rights in criminal proceedings. 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. The Government maintained their parliamentary scrutiny reservation on this proposal but also welcomed the efforts made by the presidency to find a compromise to the text. The presidency concluded that there was support for a general approach.

The Council adopted a negotiating mandate authorising the Commission to begin negotiations with the United States on a proposed EU-US agreement on the protection of personal data when transferred for law enforcement purposes. The Government support the proposed agreement in principle, but were unable to vote in favour of the draft negotiating mandate because we consider that the UK rather than the EU should negotiate rules concerning data exchanges between the UK and the US under their bilateral arrangements.

There was a discussion about the Commission’s recently published Communication on “a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union”. The Commission argued that, while the principles of the data protection directive are still valid, a more comprehensive approach to data protection is needed to bring the legislation in line with technological developments. The Commission will be bringing forward new proposals in 2011.

Next, the presidency obtained agreement among participating member states of the regulation implementing enhanced co-operation in the field of law applicable to divorce—Rome III. The Government are not participating in this measure.

The presidency provided information about a seminar held on 14 October about resolving international child abduction disputes through mediation.

The Council then considered a state-of-play report from the presidency about the progress made during its term in the area of e-justice.

Under AOB, the Commission presented their citizenship report highlighting the importance of citizenship rights and the need to ensure they are better communicated.

Over lunch, there was a discussion about the forthcoming directive on access to a lawyer in criminal cases. This will be the third measure on the road map to strengthening criminal procedural rights, which is likely to be published in June 2011. The Commission is still in the early stages of drafting the proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

13. What methodology her Department follows to determine the nature of security threats to the UK.

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

As part of the Government’s national security strategy, we conducted a national security risk assessment—the first time that a Government have undertaken a comprehensive assessment of all national security risks to the UK. The most important risks were then placed into three tiers to inform the strategic defence and security review.

[John Howell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the issue is even more important today, because the recent activities of WikiLeaks have shown the need to strengthen cybersecurity measures in the UK?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. On WikiLeaks, the Prime Minister’s national security adviser has written to all Departments to ask them to look again at their information security and to provide him with assurance about the level of that information security.

My hon. Friend makes a wider point about cybersecurity. This Government recognise the importance of dealing with cybersecurity and cybercrime, which is why we focused on both in the strategic defence and security review and in the national security strategy, and over the next four years £650 million is being made available to develop a national cybersecurity programme.

[Jonathan Lord]

What are the Government doing to prevent threats from within and to tackle radicalisation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend also makes an extremely important point about security. We must remember the importance of prevention as well as dealing with security threats as they arise. We are reviewing the Prevent programme, which was initiated by the previous Government, with a view to separating more clearly its counter-terrorism work from the integration or participation-in-society work of the Department for Communities and Local Government. In that work, we are also looking at radicalisation issues so that we can ensure that our programmes are effective.

[Stephen Mosley]

What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure the security of the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012?

[Mrs May]

The Home Office’s Olympic and Paralympic safety and security strategy, run by the police, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, the Olympic Delivery Authority and other partners, provides a framework for projects to safeguard and secure London 2012. The Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism has conducted an audit and review of Olympic security planning, which concluded that that work is well placed. There is of course more work to be done, but an effective foundation has already been established, and we are absolutely sure that there is sufficient funding to deliver a safe and secure Olympic games in 2012. We have protected the Olympic security budget, and counter-terrorism policing budgets will stay flat in cash terms.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I first concur with the Home Secretary about the threat posed by those involved in WikiLeaks, which is to be condemned by all in this House? In looking at the methodology for assessing a security threat, however, will she listen in particular to those voices internally who advise her on control orders, so that she does not move away from control orders in a way that potentially damages the United Kingdom but recognises that orders signed by former Ministers such as myself were placed for absolutely correct and proper reasons?

[Mrs May]

I accept that any Minister who has taken such a decision has done so for proper reasons. In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s question on control orders, I can assure him that the Government and I have national security at the forefront of our minds. In considering the counter-terrorism legislation review, we need to rebalance national security and civil liberties, but we are absolutely clear that we can enjoy our civil liberties only if we have national security.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the current system for intelligence gathering in Northern Ireland used to counteract the threat from dissident republican and other paramilitary groups has failed? The system is flawed and needs to be reviewed. The Police Service of Northern Ireland needs to take the lead in intelligence gathering to counteract the security threat.

[Mrs May]

I do not accept what the hon. Lady says about the flawed system that has existed so far. Sadly, the PSNI has had to deal with an increasing number of incidents over recent months in relation to bombs and other attempts on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. As I say, that threat has been increasing. It is important that we ensure that the tools are available to enable the PSNI to do the job that it has been doing. The whole House should congratulate the PSNI on its work.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

On control orders, will the Home Secretary give the House a categorical assurance that she will always put the safety of the British people first and that she will resist pressure to appease either her maverick Back Benchers or her Liberal Democrat coalition partners?

[Mrs May]

I think that I answered that when I responded to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). As I said, the Government are absolutely clear that there is a need to rebalance national security and civil liberties. We can enjoy our civil liberties only if we have our national security, and we are absolutely clear about the Government’s responsibility for ensuring our national security.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

3. How much she plans to allocate to development of the e-borders system in the next three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

9. What funding her Department plans to allocate to the provision of youth services provided by her Department in the spending review period.

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

I know that the hon. Lady, in the various posts that she has held over the years, has a wealth of experience in dealing with this area of youth services. Youth services are crucial in ensuring that our young people have the best possible chance in life and fulfil their potential. As I am sure she will be aware, the Home Office itself does not provide youth services directly, but we do contribute towards local youth crime prevention work, including youth offending teams, and we will set out our plans for future funding in due course.

[Julie Hilling]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the numerous studies that show that, where there is a well-funded youth service, there is a decrease in criminality. Now that youth services are being destroyed due to cuts to local government, education, health and Home Office budgets, leaving young people with nowhere to go and nothing to do, has she done a cost analysis of the effects of closures of youth centres on her departmental budget and on levels of antisocial behaviour?

[Mrs May]

I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady has set out in relation to youth services across the country. I would also remind her of the extremely effective point that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made just now in response to the shadow Home Secretary—namely, that the Government have had to take the recent decisions on funding because of the mess that the last Labour Government left the finances in. We will be looking very closely at the support that we can provide in relation to specific issues about youth crime, to ensure that we are able to help young people not to go down the route of crime and to ensure that they are able to fulfil their full potential and develop the life that they deserve.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

In my constituency, there are many voluntary organisations providing key services such as children’s centres and youth services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to maintain the funding for those voluntary organisations that are doing such key work?

[Mrs May]

I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations that are doing key work in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and indeed in other constituencies up and down the country. This is a very good example of the big society in action. As he will be aware, the Government are putting support into voluntary organisations; £100 million is being made available to help voluntary organisations in the difficult times ahead.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

10. What her most recent assessment is of the performance of the Criminal Records Bureau in undertaking checks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

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

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

Last Tuesday, we introduced the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. It makes provision for the new police and crime commissioners, who will ensure that for the first time the public have a greater say over how their community is policed. That will make forces truly accountable to the communities whom they serve, and will ensure that resources are targeted properly where they are needed.

[Annette Brooke]

Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress towards the ending of child detention in relation to immigration? What improvements can she make to ensure that family applications are processed at an earlier stage?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to confirm, first, that the coalition Government retain their commitment to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes and, secondly, that we will make an announcement before the House rises for its Christmas recess. One of the issues that we will be considering is how we can work with families at a much earlier stage of the application process to help them to negotiate the system.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T6. In 1997, a 17-year-old girl in Chesterfield was raped. The offence remained undetected by the police for 12 years. Finally, a gentleman who was arrested and not charged was matched to it by the DNA database, and he is now serving time. Why is the Home Secretary more in favour of supporting someone like that than supporting use of the DNA database by our police to ensure that dangerous rapists are locked up?

[Mrs May]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about what the Government are doing. The Government take a very simple view. The last Government wanted to hold the DNA records of innocent people, but did not even possess the DNA records of all those who were in prison. We will change that. We will establish the protections of the Scottish model in relation to the DNA database. DNA will continue to be a tool available to the police to secure convictions, but it is crucial for us to stop holding the DNA records of innocent victims without holding those of all the people who are in prison.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T3. What steps are being taken with the help of the French authorities to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration from the northern French coast into our channel ports?

--- Later in debate ---

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

In an earlier reply, the Home Secretary was a bit vague about the ending of the detention of children in removal cases. Does the commitment to end the holding of children in prison in those cases by Christmas still stand?

[Mrs May]

I was not at all vague. The commitment does still stand. I said in my earlier answer that the coalition Government’s commitment to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes still stands, and we will be making an announcement to this House before the Christmas recess.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

T8. The Minister will know that 50% of all violent crimes are alcohol related, and that 70% of alcohol is now sold through supermarkets and the off-trade. Given his commitment to tackling alcohol-related crime and binge drinking, does he not agree that the measures he set out earlier are weighted against pubs and that if he wants to take real action, they must be followed up with a ban on below-cost selling to tackle binge drinking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was absolutely clear that there is no simple link between police numbers and levels of crime. Indeed, that view was reiterated last September by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)—and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a conversation with him about this very point as they are sitting next to each other on the Opposition Benches.

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

T9. In the WikiLeaks affair referred to earlier, was not the real problem that a low-level crime yielded such a high volume of confidential data? So is not the real lesson for the future that gigantic databases of this sort ought not to be created? Will the Home Secretary be spreading that lesson around relevant Departments?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the national security adviser has been in touch with Departments about the use of confidential information by the UK Government, asking them to review matters and provide him with assurances about their information security arrangements. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will be aware that there is a balance to be achieved between the very real need for people to have access to information in order to be able to do their jobs properly and the need to restrict access to some of that information. That balance has to be achieved, and decisions are made on that basis.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Police community support officers are arguably even more important in communities such as North East Derbyshire that are rural and isolated, so what impact does the Home Secretary think cuts to the budget of Derbyshire police force will have on community policing in constituencies such as mine?

[Mrs May]

We have been absolutely clear about the need for forces to ensure that the cuts are made to the back office, procurement, IT provision and so forth. Forces must focus, in line with what chief constables up and down the country are saying, on front-line policing—on visible community policing—which is of benefit not only to forces in terms of catching criminals, but of course to local communities.

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

What discussions has the Home Secretary had with police forces about the potential to increase police visibility by, for example, reducing the 100 or so processes that the police and police staff have to go through between the reporting of a crime and the final appearance in court?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to say that a number of discussions are taking place with police forces about how we can ensure that we bring greater efficiencies into the whole criminal justice system in order to get the benefits and make the gains to which my hon. Friend referred. I am not just discussing that with the police forces; together with the Police Minister, I am discussing it with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Do the Government really intend to end the obligation for scientists to be members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? Will this not result in the failing Government drugs policy ending up being evidence-free and prejudice-rich?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

It has today been brought to my attention that all e-mails sent using the parliamentary system are redirected through computer networks in a foreign country. Will my right hon. Friend undertake a review of that arrangement to see whether there are implications for national security?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to my hon. Friend—I am looking at you, Mr Speaker—that I am not sure that responsibility for the processing of parliamentary e-mails is a matter for the Home Office. I think that it is a matter for the House of Commons Commission and the parliamentary authorities.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

On 31 October, on the “Politics Show”, the chief constable of Durham Constabulary, Jon Stoddart, said in answer to a question about the reduction in police budgets:

“Well what we are having to do is take more risks…That does not come without costs.”

What kind of irresponsible Government would make front-line police officers take more risks in their jobs?

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

In relation to the use of control orders, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorist legislation last week suggested that they should instead devise a new system. Will the Home Secretary heed his advice and replace them?

[Mrs May]

The review of counter-terrorism legislation is of course taking advice and representations from a wide variety of those who have interests in control orders and other aspects of counter-terrorism legislation. Indeed, the reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation has made his views clear to the review.

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

Some 1,400 police officers and 1,500 police staff are to be axed from Greater Manchester police. Given that the Conservatives—and the Liberal Democrats, for that matter —locally pledged more not fewer police in the elections last May, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to apologise on their behalf?

“Building a Fairer Britain”

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Written Statements

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

Today the Government are publishing its equality strategy. The strategy sets out our vision for a strong, modern and fair Britain. It is built on two principles of equality—equal treatment and equal opportunity. This means building a society where no one is held back because of who they are, or where they come from.

Our strategy sets out a new approach, not built on bureaucracy but aimed at changing culture and attitudes, tackling the causes of inequality and building a stronger, fairer and more cohesive society where equality is for everyone and is everyone’s responsibility. Government cannot and will not do this by dictating from the centre. Instead, our strategy sets out how we will work with business, local communities and citizens to promote good practice, transparency and accountability.

The strategy includes the coalition Government’s commitment to implement section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 (positive action in recruitment and promotion) and plans to develop a voluntary approach on gender pay reporting in the private and voluntary sector.

As part of the new approach, the Government Equalities Office will be brought within the Home Office, and will cease to be a separate Department. We expect this to take formal effect from 1 April 2011. GEO will continue to have cross-Government responsibilities but this move will help to embed the work on equalities within the departmental structure in line with the equality strategy’s commitment.

Equality is fundamental to this coalition Government. The strategy sets out a new approach to delivering equality, moving away from the identity politics of the past and to an approach that recognises people’s individuality. It sets out a new role for Government, promoting equality through transparency and behaviour change and working with businesses, the voluntary sector and wider civil society to create equal opportunities for everyone.

I have placed a copy of the strategy in the House Library and it has been published online at: www.equalities. gov.uk.

Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on 2 and 3 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I intend to attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed:

The Council, beginning in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States), will receive an update from the presidency on the state of play of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II) project.

Next there will be a discussion of the Commission report on the implementation of the Council conclusions on 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the external borders and combating illegal immigration. The UK has not yet received a copy of the report; however, we expect that the Commission will use this item to inform member states of progress regarding these measures. The measures include: Frontex working arrangements; exchange of relevant information between FRONTEX, other EU agencies and member states; development of the European Surveillance System—EUROSUR; exchange of information on illegal immigration, trafficking in human beings and falsification of documents; and solidarity and the integrated management of external borders by member states.

After Mixed Committee the Council will receive an update from the presidency on the progress being made on asylum and legal and illegal migration and seek to ensure that the following four presidencies (Hungary, Poland, Cyprus and Denmark) remain on course to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline for delivery of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The UK Government believe that the challenges that Europe faces on asylum and illegal immigration are better addressed by practical co-operation than by further legislation. We do not consider the adoption of a common EU asylum policy to be right for Britain. But we do believe there are many issues in the area of asylum and migration on which all EU member states have much to gain by working together. We will be active in promoting effective cooperation, and will consider participation in legislative proposals on their merits in consultation with our European partners and relevant EU institutions.

The Council will then receive updates from the Commission on the Mediterranean Office for Youth, the Greek national action plan on asylum and migration and a legal migration conference held on 26 November. The Mediterranean Office for Youth supports circular migration for educational purposes. The UK is not a participant in the Mediterranean Office for Youth, which is restricted to members of the Union for the Mediterranean. The UK considers the Greek national action plan on asylum and migration (the “Greek Action Plan”) to be key in increasing the ability of Greece to act as an efficient partner in countering illegal migration. Alongside other EU member states we have offered practical assistance to Greece, however we would like to see the establishment of an effective Commission-led process to ensure co-ordination and prioritisation; avoid duplication of member states’ actions; ensure the availability of clear, accessible funding streams to support the action plan; and the setting of clear timescales for action and milestones for progress. The presidency will also present their conclusions following the conference on legal migration.

Over lunch Interior Ministers will be asked to agree a regulation to create an agency for large-scale IT systems in the JHA field. This would be accompanied by a Council decision ensuring full UK participation in the agency, which was a Government priority as the agency will manage a number of existing systems in which we participate (Eurodac and the second generation of the Schengen Information System). While the Government are content with the text as drafted some member states have maintained reserves which will need to be resolved before the Council, in particular concerning the location of the agency. Also during lunch Ministers will discuss alternatives to detaining children for immigration purposes. The UK Government are committed to ending the detention of children in the UK and a review is currently underway to consider how this can be done in a way which protects the welfare of children and ensures that families leave when they have no right to be in the UK. This will be an opportunity to share experience and ideas with other member states who are also dealing with this difficult issue.

After lunch, the Commission will present their draft action plan on combating heavy arms trafficking. Should this plan be endorsed during this Council, the EU will have an integrated approach to combating arms trafficking, and more particularly heavy fire arms.

Next the presidency will present for agreement Council conclusions on itinerant gangs which seek to define the problem of itinerant crime groups and agree an administrative approach to tackle the problem, including increased cross-border co-operation. The Council will also be asked to agree draft Council conclusions on preventing and combating identity related crimes and on identity management.

The Council will be asked to agree negotiating mandates which will authorise the start of negotiations between the EU and the United States, Canada, and Australia for the transfer and use of passenger name records (PNR) to prevent and combat terrorism and other forms of serious cross-border crime. Clear PNR agreements between the EU and Australia, Canada and the US will play a vital role in removing legal uncertainty for air carriers flying to those third countries. It will also help ensure that, where appropriate, PNR data can be shared quickly and securely with all necessary data protection safeguards in place. The Government are content with the proposed negotiating mandates but has yet to take a decision on whether or not to opt in. The Government strongly believe that early publication of an EU PNR Directive covering intra-EU as well as external flights is vital to the safety and security of EU citizens.

Next the EU CT co-ordinator will present a discussion paper to Council on an EU CT strategy which covers transport security, terrorist travel, cyber threats, the external dimension of CT and fighting discrimination and social marginalisation of Muslims.

The UK welcomes the paper as a useful starting point for further policy discussions. The EU CT co-ordinator will also provide an update on progress against the EU action plan on combating terrorism to date.

The presidency will seek agreement on a paper on a system for sharing information on terrorist threat levels in the member states. The UK supports improvements to the information sharing mechanisms on terrorist threat levels at the EU level while maintaining that changes to threat levels remain a member state competence.

The Council will also be asked to reach agreement on a paper recommending proposals to strengthen aviation security following the incident at East Midlands airport. This paper will go jointly to the Transport and JHA Councils on 02 December for agreement. The UK welcomes this report and will press for early, effective and co-ordinated action.

Commissioner Malmström will present her EU Internal Security Communication, which looks to translate the Council’s EU internal security strategy into action points and will seek initial views from member states. The text was published on 23 November. The Government are therefore considering the detail of what is proposed and will set out their initial views at the Council.

On the justice day, the Council will be asked to agree the text of the EU directive on human trafficking. In June, the Government made a decision not to opt in to the directive, but to review its position after adoption, at which point the UK could apply to opt in retrospectively. The directive is in its final stages of negotiation; there is a qualified majority in the Council and should the European Parliament also agree the text in December adoption will follow.

The presidency will then seek a general approach on the draft directive on combating sexual exploitation and abuse of children and child pornography. This draft directive aims to update existing EU legislation in the area of combating child sexual exploitation and pornography in line with technological developments such as the use of webcams to bully children into sexual posing (a pornographic performance). The Government are seeking scrutiny clearance to enable the UK to support the presidency in reaching a general approach.

There will be a state of play report on the European Investigation Order (EIO), which is a draft directive aimed at streamlining the system of mutual legal assistance between participating EU member states. The presidency will report progress on negotiations but is not expected to seek agreement on any issues at this time. The Government will take the opportunity to press for further detailed work on the grounds for refusing assistance.

The presidency will also seek a general approach on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is the second measure in the roadmap to strengthen procedural rights in criminal proceedings. 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. The presidency has taken on board the Government’s concerns in relation to article 7 of the draft directive. The Government are seeking scrutiny clearance to enable it to agree to the general approach.

The presidency will then seek agreement among participating member states on the regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the field of law applicable to divorce—Rome III. The European Parliament will adopt its opinion by the end of the year. The UK is not participating in this measure.

The presidency held a seminar on 14 October to discuss issues around resolving child abduction disputes by mediation. At the end of the seminar the presidency produced conclusions aimed at encouraging EU law makers and member states to consider promoting mediation in such cases. The presidency is seeking agreement to these conclusions at the Council.

There will be a discussion on the Commission’s communication on “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union”. The Communication is intended to serve as a basis for further discussions between the Commission, other European institutions and interested parties with a view to developing a new data protection legislative framework. It is anticipated that the Commission will publish a legislative proposal in mid-2011.

The presidency will seek agreement to the adoption of a negotiating mandate for an EU-US Agreement on data protection. The agreement would clarify data protection safeguards for the transatlantic exchange of personal data for law enforcement purposes.

Ministers will then be provided an information point on the outcomes of and proposed follow up to the EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council (PPC) (freedom, security and justice) (18-19 November), and the Western Balkans Ministerial Forum (23-24 November). The PPC agreed steps forward on visa liberalisation (the top priority for Russia). They agreed to work on a list of common steps towards negotiations on an EU-Russia visa waiver agreement. This does not directly affect the UK as we are not part of the Schengen visa arrangements. The UK did not attend the Western Balkans Ministerial Forum. Ministers will be updated at the JHA Council.

Ministers will then be presented with a report on the activities of the e-justice working party during the Belgian presidency. The main focus of this work so far has been the development of a European e-justice portal which is a website (launched at the July Informal JUA. Council) that acts as a point of access to a range of information on justice matters across the EU.

Over lunch, there will be a discussion about the forthcoming directive, access to a lawyer. This is the third measure on the roadmap to strengthening criminal procedural rights, which is likely to be published in June 2011. The Commission is still in the early stages of drafting the proposal. It is considering provisions on the right to waiver legal advice, consequences of violations, the competence and quality of lawyers and provisions for European arrest warrant proceedings.

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has reappointed members to the tribunal (including a president and vice president) by letters patent for a period of five years, as provided by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The reappointed tribunal members are:

Lord Justice John Mummery - President

Mr Justice Michael Burton - Vice President

Sir Richard Gaskell

Sheriff Principle John McInnes QC

Mr Richard Seabrook QC

The tribunal considers proceedings brought under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the intelligence agencies and, in respect of the investigatory powers covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, by all public authorities. It also considers all complaints against the intelligence agencies and all complaints against public authorities in respect of the powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The tribunal, which is independent of Government, has full powers to investigate and decide any case within its jurisdiction.

“Call to End Violence against Women and Girls”

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Written Statements

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

The Government’s ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against women and girls. This is a key priority for us and today, on the international day for the elimination of violence against women, we have set out our guiding principles for this over the coming spending review period. This includes a commitment to provide more than £28 million for specialist services for victims of domestic and sexual violence over the next four years.

We will take a cross-departmental integrated approach to ending violence against women and girls by tackling its root causes and dealing fully with its effects. For the first time we have also included the work that we do at an international level to promote women’s rights globally and reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls.

We will publish the detail of the supporting actions in the spring.

The “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” strategic narrative is available on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/vawg and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

Departmental Expenditure Limits

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Written Statements

[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 £27,570,000 from £10,002,634,000 to £9,975,064,000 and the administration budget will be reduced by £12,300,000 from £404,810,000 to £392,510,000.

Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following tables:

Controlling Migration

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on immigration.

Controlled migration has benefited the UK economically, socially and culturally, but when immigration gets out of control, it places great pressure on our society, economy and public services. In the 1990s, net migration to Britain was consistently in the tens of thousands each year, but under Labour, net migration to Britain was close to 200,000 per year for most years since 2000. As a result, over Labour’s time in office net migration totalled more than 2.2 million people—more than double the population of Birmingham.

We cannot go on like this. We must tighten up our immigration system, focusing on tackling abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants. To achieve that, we will have to take action across all routes to entry—work visas, student visas and family visas—and break the link between temporary routes and permanent settlement. That will bring significant reductions in non-European Union migration to the UK and restore it to more sustainable levels. We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands.

On the work routes to entry, all the evidence shows that it is possible to reduce numbers while promoting growth and underlining the message that Britain is open for business. After consulting widely with business and with the Migration Advisory Committee, I have decided to reduce economic migration through tier 1 and tier 2 from 28,000 to 21,700. That will mean a fall of more than a fifth compared with last year in the number of economic migrants coming in through tiers 1 and 2, excluding intra-company transfers.

Business groups have told us that skilled migrants with job offers—tier 2—should have priority over those admitted without a job offer, who are in tier 1. I have therefore set the tier 1 limit at 1,000, a reduction of more than 13,000 on last year’s number. Such a sharp reduction has enabled me to set the tier 2 limit at 20,700, an increase of nearly 7,000 on last year’s number.

The old tier 1, supposedly the route for the best and the brightest, has not attracted highly skilled workers. At least 30% of tier 1 migrants work in low-skilled occupations such as stacking shelves, driving taxis or working as security guards, and some do not have a job at all, so we will close the tier 1 general route. Instead, I want to use tier 1 to attract more investors, entrepreneurs and people of exceptional talent. Last year, investors and entrepreneurs accounted for fewer than 300 people, and that is not enough, so I will make the application process quicker and more user-friendly, and I will not limit the numbers of those wealth creators who can come to Britain.

There are also some truly exceptional people who should not need sponsorship from an employer but whom we would wish to welcome to Britain. I will therefore introduce a new route within tier 1 for people of exceptional talent—the scientists, academics and artists who have achieved international recognition, or are likely to do so. The number will be limited to 1,000 a year.

Tier 2 has also been abused and misused. Last year more than 1,600 certificates were issued for care assistants to come to the UK. At the same time, more than 33,000 care assistants who were already here were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, so I will restrict tier 2 to graduate-level jobs.

We have listened to business and will keep intra-company transfers outside the limit. However, we will place a new salary threshold of £40,000 on any intra-company transfers of longer than 12 months. Recent figures show that 50% of intra-company transfers meet those criteria. That will ensure that those coming are only the senior managers and key specialists who international companies need to move within their organisations.

I should like to thank the Migration Advisory Committee for its advice and recommendations. Next year, I will ask it to review the limit in order to set new arrangements for 2012-13.

However, the majority of non-EU migrants are, in fact, students. They represent almost two thirds of the non-EU migrants entering the UK each year, and we cannot reduce net migration significantly without reforming student visas. Hon. Members and others might imagine that by students, we mean people who come here for a few years to study at university and then go home. However, nearly half of all students coming here from abroad are actually coming to study a course below degree level, and abuse is particularly common at those lower levels. A recent check of students studying at private institutions below degree level showed that a quarter could not be accounted for. Too many students at lower levels have been coming here with a view to living and working rather than studying, and we need to stop that abuse.

As with economic migration, we will therefore refocus student visas on the areas that add the greatest value, and in which evidence of abuse is limited. I will shortly launch a public consultation on student visas. I will consult on restricting entry to only those studying at degree level, but with some flexibility for highly trusted sponsors to offer courses at a lower level. I will also consult on closing the post-study route, which last year allowed some 38,000 foreign graduates to enter the UK labour market at a time when one in 10 UK graduates were unemployed.

Last year, the family route accounted for nearly 20% of non-EU immigration. Clearly, British nationals must be able to marry the person of their choice, but those who come to the UK must be able to participate in society. From next week, we will require all those applying for marriage visas to demonstrate a minimum standard of English. We are also cracking down on sham marriages, and will consult on extending the probationary period of settlement for spouses beyond the current two years.

Finally, we need to restrict settlement. It cannot be right that people coming to fill temporary skills gaps have open access to permanent settlement. Last year, 62,000 people settled in the UK on that basis. Settling in Britain should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in, so we will end the link between temporary and permanent migration.

I intend to introduce these changes to the work route and some of the settlement changes from April 2011. I will bring forward other changes soon after. This is a comprehensive package that will help us to meet our goal of reducing net migration, at the same time as attracting the brightest and the best, and those with the skills our country needs. This package will serve the needs of British business, it will respond to the wishes of the British public, and it will give us the sustainable immigration system that we so badly need.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me start by thanking the Home Secretary for the—rather late—advance sight of her statement, for coming to the House this afternoon in person, and for clarifying the confusion caused by the misleading leak of the contents of her statement to the BBC this morning. The Home Secretary is right to say that migration has made, and continues to make, a vital contribution to the economic vibrancy, business strength and vitality of our country. She is also right to say that it is essential for migration to be properly controlled, for reasons of economic well-being and social cohesion. But the question is: how? The Labour Government put in place transitional controls on EU migration, a suspension of unskilled work permits, a tough but flexible points system to manage skilled migration, and tighter regulation of overseas students. They closed 140 bogus colleges, and imposed new citizenship requirements on those seeking settlement.

At the general election, the leader of the Conservative party proposed to go further in two key respects. First, he proposed a new target to reduce net migration to the

“tens of thousands by 2015.”

To meet that target, he pledged a cap on immigration, which he said would be tougher than the points system. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party said:

“We can’t come up with promises like caps which don’t work”.

He then agreed to the cap in the coalition agreement. Since then, the Government have been in wholesale retreat, and today they are in wholesale confusion over this policy. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, universities, Nobel prize winners, and UK and foreign companies—large and small—have all highlighted the huge damage that the Government’s proposals would do to investment and jobs.

The Home Affairs Committee and the Migration Advisory Committee have said that the proposed cap applies to only 20% of non-EU migration. As a result, we have had the unedifying sight of the Prime Minister hinting at concession after concession—in the face, we read, of opposition from the Home Secretary, thanks to the excellent public lobbying and guerrilla tactics of the Business Secretary, who, sadly, is not in his place this afternoon. In his use of such tactics, he is less Stalin and more Trotsky—and certainly not Mr Bean.

Today the Home Secretary has come to the House to confirm the details of the retreat. We will keep a close eye on her proposals to see how they affect business and science. None the less, we join business representatives in welcoming her decision to exempt intra-company transfers of workers. What has caused confusion is this morning’s briefing to the BBC that the total cap would be 42,700 work permits. Her officials then had to clarify the fact that there is no such cap on that scale. She has now said that she will allow 21,700 tier 1 and tier 2 work permits, but with no cap on migration caused by intra-company transfers. If the number of intra-company transfers goes up, will she put in place an offsetting cut in tier 1 and tier 2 work permits? If not, and I very much hope that she will not, will she confirm that her supposed cap is a con, a guess and a fig leaf—in fact, no cap at all?

The permanent secretary revealed today that 9,000 jobs will be lost from the Home Office, the bulk of which will be from the UK Border Agency. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she can implement the policy that she has outlined today, and keep our borders secure, with those cuts? On family reunification she had nothing new to say—no target—and on overseas students she announced no action, just another consultation.

I have learned in the past few weeks that it is a mistake to ask the right hon. Lady a long list of questions, but there is one question to which it is vital that she should give an answer this afternoon: is it still the objective of the Prime Minister and the Government to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015? In her statement she repeated the goal, but she omitted to put a date on it. Will she reaffirm the 2015 promise? In recent months—on VAT and tuition fees—the Deputy Prime Minister has got into a habit of breaking pre-election promises. Can the Home Secretary reassure us that the Prime Minister has not caught the same disease? This is a simple question. Is the “tens of thousands” pledge still binding by 2015—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response. During the Labour leadership campaign, he said:

“as many of us found in the election, our arguments on immigration were not good enough.”

Listening to him today, I realised that Labour’s arguments on immigration are still not good enough. He made a number of claims about what the Labour Government did on immigration, including the claim that they introduced transitional controls when new member states entered the EU. I seem to remember that when the first tranche of new member states entered the EU, that is precisely what they did not do, despite every blandishment from the Conservatives to encourage them.

The right hon. Gentleman then said that the previous Government took action on the points-based system limits. I accept that, but what happened? They closed tier 3 of the points-based system of entry into the UK, but nothing else, so when tier 3 shut down, the number of student visas went up by tens of thousands. That is why this Government know that when we deal with one part of the immigration system, we must act across the whole of it.

I made the figures for the tier 1 and tier 2 caps that we are introducing absolutely clear in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the UK Border Agency could manage the cuts and keep our borders secure with the changes in personnel that will be made, and the answer to that, unequivocally, is: yes, it can.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm what I said in my statement, which is that we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands—[Hon. Members: “When? By 2015?”] If he is to criticise the Government’s plans on immigration, the right hon. Gentleman must have a plan. So far he does not even have an immigration spokesman, let alone an immigration policy. The British people, who according to his own words felt that Labour was no longer on their side and no longer stood up for them on immigration, will not listen to him until he has an immigration plan.

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

If the cap is set too low—in other words, at a level that stops UK businesses creating wealth and jobs—or too high, how quickly can it be adjusted, and how will the adjustment process work?

[Mrs May]

We are confident in the work that we have done, and in the fact that we have got the cap—and, crucially, the changes to policy—right. The announcement is about not just the figure, but the change in policy. The Migration Advisory Committee will undertake an annual review, so it will be able to advise the Government on what the figure should be in future, after considering how behaviour has adapted to the policy changes that we are introducing.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says, “We will end the link between temporary and permanent migration.” How can temporary migrants, whether spouses or workers, earn permanent settlement?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she gives me the opportunity to say that we will be making initial changes to the settlement proposals, but that we also intend to consult more fully on exactly how we will introduce changes to settlement more widely. The initial changes will relate to the language requirements, but we will also look at the salary levels required for a sponsor to bring somebody in for settlement, and at the criminality thresholds. Those are the immediate issues that we will consider. I also intend to ask the Migration Advisory Committee to do some more work on changing the settlement requirements in the longer term.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration on this admirable programme and the excellent start made. May I press her a little further on the breaking of the link between settlement and people coming here to work temporarily? At what stage does she expect to introduce the measures necessary to achieve that?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and echo his thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for his sterling work. We are keen to look at these other routes, particularly the settlement route, as well as at the other aspects, and over the coming months, as I indicated in response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), we will be asking the Migration Advisory Committee to consider the matter so that we can introduce the changes. I hesitate to put an absolute date on that, but I hope that we will be able to announce something next year.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is more famous for her footwear than her headgear, but may I welcome the exemptions to the cap that she has announced today? The Home Affairs Committee made recommendations on intra-company transfers and elite scientists, and this is the right approach for the immigration policy that the Government have decided to pursue. On students, however, she will not be able to tackle the issue of bogus colleges unless she accepts a previous recommendation by the Committee to restrict the use of the word “college”. It is because this word continues to be used that people enter this country and pursue non-educational courses. Will she please look into that? Will she also examine how the whole administration of the immigration system operates in relation to illegal immigration?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. His turn of phrase encourages me to enjoy my time in front of the Home Affairs Committee when that happy occasion next comes around. He also made a serious point about his Committee’s past recommendations on this issue. We will certainly look at his specific suggestion. We need to consider a number of ways of ensuring that students coming to the UK are genuinely coming as students and to institutions properly offering an education and providing a qualification. This is not just about the immigration system, but about the reputation of the UK, because we do not want people to come here thinking they are coming to a college on an educational course, but then find that they have come to something quite different.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I generally welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement—but on EU migration, are we not in danger of ignoring the lessons of the past six years, when we imported more than 1 million low-wage and low-skilled workers, despite having 5 million of our own citizens on out-of-work benefits? Will she also explain why importing highly skilled workers is practical, when we have record numbers of UK and British graduates who could and should do those jobs?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right about the need to ensure that people in the UK are skilled enough to take up the work available. The figures show that EU-UK immigration and emigration numbers have broadly balanced out, and that net migration is coming predominantly from outside the EU. Our immigration policy has to fit in closely with the skills agenda that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary announced last week. On occasions, however, there will be highly skilled workers with a specialism that a British company needs—in areas such as the energy sector, for example—and it is right for Britain to be open for business, and for us to allow companies to grow by introducing those workers into the UK.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Given the views that were so robustly expressed during the general election campaign, I welcome, on behalf of many of my constituents, the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she bear in mind another of their views, which is that they are now aware that the population of this country is primarily pushed by immigration? Will she tell us more certainly when she will return to the House to give a statement on breaking the link between coming here to work, which is often welcome, and almost automatically getting the right to citizenship?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and for his work, with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), on settlement in the UK. They have both done a lot of important work in highlighting the issue. I am afraid that I will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman in not being able to give him a date when I will come to the House, but I assure him that I will do so in due course, to show how we will be able to change that route. As he said, the British public were absolutely clear that the Government should do something about this matter. They saw a Labour Government who did not do anything about immigration. We are a Government who will deliver for the British people.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. She correctly mentioned student visas, and then mentioned consultation. Given that we have had 10 years of almost mass immigration, will she assure the House that that consultation will be swift?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will issue that consultation very shortly, and that we want to be in a position to make changes to student visas next spring.

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

The immigration cap may be designed for the south of England, but it definitely does not fit Scotland. Does the right hon. Lady not even start to understand and appreciate that Scotland has a different range of population and demographic issues? How can immigration caps possibly help Scotland, which is suffering from structural depopulation?

[Mrs May]

This proposal will help all parts of the United Kingdom, because it does two crucial things. It meets the British people’s need to see us controlling our immigration system, but it does so in a way that will enable business to bring in skilled workers. Many businesses in Scotland have spoken to us about the need to bring in skilled workers—in the energy sector, for example—and I believe that they will welcome our decision today.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

Specifically on the energy industries, on which so many jobs in my constituency depend, I welcome the flexibility and movement. Will the Home Secretary assure those industries that small companies in the supply chain will not face too bureaucratic a process for tier 2 applications, and that intra-company transfers will not be so time-limited as to make projects impossible to deliver?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give the comfort that my hon. Friend asks for. Indeed, we will look at the administrative process for tier 2 applications to ensure that they involve as little bureaucracy as possible, with small companies particularly in mind. I hope that he will see some benefits from that.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I wonder how many of us would be sitting here today, if in the 20th century our parents and grandparents had had to go through the sieve that the Home Secretary is putting in place to slow down the number of people coming to the UK. Does she agree, and will she say so more strongly, that the arrival of 10% of the English population in the form of Huguenots enriched Britain, that Jews who came here enriched Britain, and that Muslims and Pakistanis in my constituency have enriched Britain, and will she be very careful before she gives any comfort to Migrationwatch, the British National party and the United Kingdom Independence party, and their horrible anti-immigrant line?

[Mrs May]

I have to say that several of the groups that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned came here as refugees, and we are not talking about the asylum system today. We do need to examine the operation of our asylum system to ensure that it operates swiftly in the interests not only of the UK, but of those who are seeking asylum. However, that is not what we are debating today.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Hon. Members will be delighted that the Home Secretary has announced this policy to the House first, and that the BBC was so wonderfully misinformed this morning. In Wellingborough, immigration is the No. 1 issue, but my constituents are more concerned about people coming from the European Union. I wonder how that question is going to be addressed.

[Mrs May]

Unlike the last Labour Government, we have been absolutely clear that, for any new member states entering the European Union, we would apply transitional controls.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Are not these proposals a damp squib that will have no real impact on the number of people coming to Britain? Bearing in mind that the Government have already ruled out EU migrants, intra-company transfers, students, sportsmen and women and anyone in the arts, who is left?

[Mrs May]

Labour Members really are going to have to get their story in order as to exactly what they want to do on immigration. We want to ensure that Britain is open for business and that we can bring in skilled workers, which we will be doing, but that we can put in a cap that enables us to reduce net migration into this country. That is what the British people want, and it is what this coalition Government will deliver.

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

May I welcome the statement as representing a constructive way forward? Does the Minister agree that foreign students should leave the country and reapply if they want to change their course or apply for a work permit?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. One of the issues around students relates to those who come here to study one course and then move from course to course in order to be able to stay here. We will be looking at that issue in the consultation, and I can assure him that the proposal he has just made is exactly the kind of thing that will be in the consultation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary has suggested that there might be some concessions for those involved in the fishing industry. By and large, I welcome the proposals put forward today, but she has mentioned a concession of a year until September 2011 in regard to work permits for Filipino fisherman. Would she be prepared to consider extending that arrangement for another year, given that the fishing industry feels that it cannot do without it?

[Mrs May]

I think that we will have to look at that matter again closer to the September 2011 deadline. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the more exceptions to the rules that people claim, the less effective the overall rules will be. We are absolutely clear that, within the rules that we have set, there are groups of very specialist workers. A number of issues have been raised with me about people with very particular skills who are needed by certain industries, and who we believe can come in, within the routes that we are setting out.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Tony Blair’s adviser once said that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to

“a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

Can the Home Secretary confirm today that so-called social objectives are no longer acceptable as a reason for immigration, and that it should be based instead on the economic benefits that immigrants can bring to this country?

[Mrs May]

As I said at the beginning of my statement, controlled migration can benefit this country economically, socially and culturally, but we are absolutely clear, in looking at the routes into the country for economic migrants, that the people who are coming in will bring a genuine economic benefit to the UK.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the £40,000 figure for intra-company transfers refer only to salaries or to salaries plus benefits?

[Mrs May]

In line with current arrangements, there will be some allowance for allowances.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Immigration from Ireland to the UK has doubled from 7,000 to 14,000 as the euro crisis has developed. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, as well as having a legal right to come, those young people will be welcomed to our shores, and that we will continue to create the jobs that they need?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that will be in many people’s minds, given the situation in Ireland at the moment. Of course, movement is available within the European Union area, and movement from Ireland into the UK has been long standing.

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

What procedures and resources will be available for enforcing these proposals, given that one of the problems, under successive Governments, has been people overstaying when their visa has expired?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

One of the issues that we will look at among specific groups, such as students, is the number of people who overstay. That is one of the problems and abuses of the system, but, unlike the previous Labour Government, the current Government are committed—in addition to what we are doing on immigration—to proper UK border controls, through our work to ensure a UK border force.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the sensible decisions that my right hon. Friend has taken? Does she agree that, although the economic migration that she intends to permit is clearly of benefit to the nation, a population pushed up to 70 million is not? That is the inheritance she faced, on official figures, from the policies of the Labour party.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that, if we take no action, the numbers of net migrants to the UK are likely to continue to be about 200,000 a year. We think that we need to do something about that, which is why we are introducing the package today and will be introducing further measures on other routes of entry.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

English language schools in my constituency contribute more than £100 million to the local economy, yet they face real difficulties because of the uncertainty surrounding the student visa system. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a cost-benefit analysis to the UK economy of overseas students who study at our schools is carried out? What words of reassurance can she give to bona fide language schools that there will be a swift resolution to the issue?

[Mrs May]

A number of hon. Members from all parts of the House with English language schools in their constituencies have raised the question of such schools. We take the issue very seriously, and one aspect of the student visas consultation will be aimed specifically at such schools and how we can introduce to the system some changes that will benefit them.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which will be welcomed in my constituency by people of all backgrounds and political persuasions. In particular, I welcome the exemption for wealth creators and the re-focusing of tier 1 on eminent scientists. Will she tell the House a little more about how the 1,000 limit will work?

[Mrs May]

We are finalising the details of exactly how the 1,000 limit will work. We are also considering a role for bodies, such as research councils, in confirming those people who would be of benefit. We want to include not just those who are at a point in their career when they are known to be great scientists, artists and so forth, but also exceptionally talented people who are at the beginning of their careers.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary says that the aim is to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. Will she specify when she intends to do so? I thought I heard her say 2015, but doing that while slashing the border agency staff who need to do the job of policing is not going to wash with the British public.

[Mrs May]

I had answered the point about what I said in relation to tens of thousands, and I answered the shadow Home Secretary’s point about the UK Border Agency. As I said, we will be able to deliver the policy through the agency, and we will be able to ensure that the agency can deliver on its requirements, and we as a Government are committed to reinforcing our border security by introducing a border police command in the new national crime agency.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

There are many approved, well-established and highly reputable English language schools in my constituency. I support much of the statement’s content, but I am profoundly concerned about any further delay in sorting the problem with people coming to the UK to study English at such schools. I urge the Home Secretary to agree to meet me, a cross-party delegation of MPs and the Immigration Minister as soon as possible, because many companies and businesses in Eastbourne and throughout the UK are suffering badly. I urge her to grant me that opportunity.

[Mrs May]

I am well aware that my hon. Friend has made significant representations on that point, as have other Members. Indeed, I believe he has already met the Immigration Minister. I would be happy to meet a group of MPs to discuss the matter, and, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we are very well aware of the point, which has been well made by many Members. We are conscious of the economic benefits of English language schools and some of their very specific issues with particular students from particular countries. We are looking at how we can address that issue in our student visa proposals, but I would be happy to meet a group of MPs.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I agree entirely with the need to take swift removal action against people who overstay their work or student visa entitlement, but this country has a problem with people who have overstayed for many decades and have given birth to children who are now adults. Can anything be done to regularise their situation so that they can go into legitimate employment without having to go through all the same hurdles and costs of applying for citizenship that others do? This represents a real barrier for those people.

[Mrs May]

We inherited the legacy programme from the last Government and had to deal with a significant backlog of cases, some of which related to people who have lived here for many years. Their cases had simply not been tackled with the right and proper degree of speediness. As the chief executive of the UK Border Agency confirmed to the Home Affairs Select Committee, we aim to finish that legacy programme by next summer. Looking to the future, we need to ensure that we do not get into the situation again of allowing people to come here and making them wait many years for an answer from the Government as to whether or not they can stay.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a disgrace that last year 1,600 visas were granted to people who wanted to work in care homes when there are 33,000 care workers claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a kick in the teeth for those unemployed care workers, proving that her proposals are exactly the right policy to introduce?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is the right policy for us to introduce. Many people, not just care workers, are unemployed, yet they have to see care workers being brought in from overseas. Of the many graduates in the UK, one in 10 are unemployed six months after their graduation. Last year, however, I believe that 38,000 overseas students stayed here after their graduation to work in the UK. We need to deal with that and we also need to ensure that we get the skills training right for people in the UK. The action we have taken on immigration today is not just an indictment of the last Labour Government’s failure to do something about the problem, but is also a very sad commentary on their failure to deliver a proper skills agenda for the UK.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

May I press the Home Secretary on the issue of language courses? I am thinking particularly of Sheffield International college in my constituency. With its 1,000 students, it plays an important role in the local economy and as a feeder institution helping students to proceed on to our two universities. All that makes an enormous economic contribution.

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for echoing the importance of this issue, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). As I said, I am happy to meet a group of MPs to discuss English language schools. We know how important that issue is and we are looking to address it through consultation.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and tell her that my constituents will welcome the move away from expressing rhetoric about British jobs for British workers towards taking substantive action? Nevertheless, many people in Harlow will be concerned that their jobs are being given away, particularly by big companies like the major supermarkets, to temporary migrant workers. Will my right hon. Friend set out how her measures will help this situation?

[Mrs May]

I believe that our measures will help because they will tighten up the provisions to ensure that the people who come into this country under either tier 1 or tier 2 are the skilled workers that companies need, not those coming here to do low-skill jobs. We will also tighten up on the intra-company transfers route through the salary threshold so that that route is available, as it was always intended to be, for senior managers and people with specialist skills rather than for people doing low-skill jobs.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I concur with what has already been said about the position facing English language schools? It is a difficult position and it needs to be addressed urgently. This country is already losing custom as it goes to other countries—we are not the only country where English is spoken—so I urge the Home Secretary to do something about the problem quickly. Otherwise, areas like mine, where English language schools contribute significantly to the local economy, will suffer.

[Mrs May]

There may be other hon. Members who wish to raise the issue of English language schools from their constituency viewpoint. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have to others, that we are well aware of this issue and we are looking to address it as we deal with student visas. Although many English language schools offer a very good product and are of significant economic benefit to the UK, I also need to point out that this sector of the economy is not completely free from abuse. Sadly, some schools do damage to others by setting themselves up as English language schools and then not offering the right services.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but does she agree that as well as controlling immigration, we should do more to ensure that those who settle here and integrate with us respect our culture, traditions and values, and make greater efforts to learn our language?

[Mrs May]

I think it is important for people who come to live here in the United Kingdom to be able to participate in society. That is why next week we are introducing an English language test for those who wish to come here to join a spousal partner. I think it only sensible for someone who is coming to live here to be able to speak English, and thence to participate in society.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the statement in general terms, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. There is still uncontrolled migration from the European Union, certainly to my constituency, into which have come a substantial number of unskilled and semi-skilled European workers who are undercutting the unemployed work force. What steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure that some curbs are placed on those people?

[Mrs May]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He has a record of having taken a rather different view from the Front Bench Members of his party when it was in government. As I have made clear and as the figures show, the vast majority of net migration is from outside the European Union. The flows into and out of the country of British and EU citizens balance out, and have done so for the past few years. As for the future, the Government have made it absolutely clear that if there are any new member states, we will exercise transitional controls.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many British workers in the IT industry are very concerned about losing their jobs as a result of intra-company transfers? Can she reassure them that she will crack down on the abuse of the system that has been witnessed by some IT companies?

[Mrs May]

As I said in my statement and have said in response to a number of questions, we are tightening the rules relating to tier 2 entry to the United Kingdom, as well as those relating to intra-company transfers. We will ensure that those who come here really are the skilled and highly skilled workers who are needed. However, my hon. Friend’s point echoes one made by a number of other Members about the need to ensure that businesses in the United Kingdom seek the skills that are available here.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I should hate to misrepresent the Home Secretary. To avoid confusion, will she tell us whether she will reduce net migration to tens of thousands by 2015—or has she just dropped the Government’s specific commitment to that date?

[Mrs May]

We have been absolutely clear about our aim in regard to net migration, and we made it absolutely clear in the coalition agreement that we were committed to introducing an annual limit on non-EU economic migration. That is what we are doing today. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I call Paul Uppal. [Interruption.] Order. I am quite worried about Opposition Front Benchers. They are in a state of quite extraordinary excitement, but I want to hear Mr Uppal.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Immigration cases take up most of the case load at my weekly surgery, particularly during the summer months, when the wedding season and many other family occasions take place. Will the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), consider pinning down responsibility for sponsorship when people come here to visit their families on such occasions? That would tackle head-on the problem of absconding, fraud and overstaying. The last Labour Government examined the matter when immigration was an issue, but they ducked it and chose not to do anything about it.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. When we consider the issue of family visas, we will be happy to accept representations from him on that and any other ideas that he may have.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Home Secretary say more about how she believes that the needs of particular sectors of the economy, and the pressures on them, can be properly respected and responded to within the new annual limits? Is a regional dimension built into any of the Government’s proposals? We know that before the election the Liberal Democrats spoke of huge regional issues relating to immigration. Does the new regime take any account of the needs of, and the pressures on, particular regions?

[Mrs May]

The proposals I am setting out today apply to immigration policy across the United Kingdom. To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I am confident that the needs of particular sectors will be met through our changes to tier 1, tier 2 and the intra-company transfer route. We have listened very carefully to business, and the CBI recently said it thought that

“a workable...solution would encompass…protection of sponsored work permit numbers as a priority ahead of those without a job offer”,

which we have done. The CBI also said that by

“prioritising the demand-led part of the system—Tier 2—in this manner the government will be able to deliver on its goal of reducing net migration without damaging business”,

which, again, is exactly what we have done.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. Does the Home Secretary agree that the UK economy’s dependence on skilled labour from abroad highlights two of the starkest failures under the last Government: the promotion of welfare dependency, and the failure to improve skills and training?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is important that we see the policies announced in the statement in the context of our welfare reform policy, the Work programme to be brought in next year, and the Business Secretary’s proposed skills agenda, which he introduced in a White Paper last week.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

During last Thursday’s immigration debate, the Home Secretary’s departmental colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said:

“We therefore aim to reduce net migration to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, each year by the end of this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 1120.]

The end of this Parliament will, of course, be in 2015. May I offer the Home Secretary another opportunity to confirm categorically that that is still her Government’s policy this week?

[Mrs May]

I say to the hon. Lady that it is the position—[Interruption.] Listen very carefully. I will say this only once: we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Returning to the issue of student visas, we have quite a few boarding schools in West Worcestershire, such as Malvern college, St Michael’s college in Tenbury Wells and Malvern St James college, which attract students from all around the world. They are highly trusted sponsors, but they are already finding that the system is slowing them down. Can the Home Secretary reassure these colleges that the process will become faster?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While we are consulting on focusing the student visa route on universities, further education colleges and degree level courses, highly trusted sponsors will be able to offer courses at below degree level, and I would expect that the schools to which my hon. Friend has referred would be able to continue to offer courses because, as she says, they are highly trusted sponsors.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Two months ago, UK executives at Toyota told me of the benefits for their company and the wider British economy of the transfer of knowledge and skills through intra-company transfers. Will the Home Secretary publish the economic analysis that I am sure she has performed of the impact on growth and output of restricting intra-company transfers of longer than 12 months to those on salaries of more £40,000?

[Mrs May]

I gave some figures in my statement, and I am also happy to be able to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration met representatives from Toyota to discuss their particular needs, and I understand that they were comfortable with our proposals.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on having the grit and determination to introduce this important proposal. She rightly pointed out the kinds of abuse we saw under the previous Government in respect of programmes such as the student visa scheme, which meant that many people were here who should not have been. What measures are her Department taking to ensure that those who are here illegally are removed—and removed quickly?

[Mrs May]

We are considering the measures that could be taken against those colleges or so-called colleges that just enable students to come here to work and then stay on, rather than be removed. As I said in answer to a number of other hon. Members who raised this or similar issues, this Government are committed to strengthening our borders through the border police command within the national crime agency.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I just hope that the consultations do not take too long and that the whole House will have an opportunity to debate all these issues in detail, probably with an immigration Bill. Given the rampant abuse of tourist, student, work and family visas, is it not time that an incentive is provided for those tempted to overstay or those who have overstayed by saying that they can return to their country of origin voluntarily or be barred from re-entering this country for at least 20 years? That would be an incentive that would work.

[Mrs May]

I think I will take that as my hon. Friend’s contribution to our consultation exercise on student visas.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on this statement. The shadow Home Secretary has apparently admitted in the media that the Labour party, when in government, made a mistake in 2004 by not applying transitional controls to enlargement of the European Union then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment on any future new member states entering the European Union. I am fascinated that the shadow Home Secretary stood up in response to my statement and claimed that the previous Government had introduced all these transitional controls, yet now we hear that he says they made a mistake in not doing this properly.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which will go a long way towards assuaging the concerns of my constituents. They are not so worried about business people being here for two or three years; they are worried about the permanent settlement that automatically seems to be granted when someone has lived here for four years. Can she give further assurances about the criminality aspect, because that is another great concern in my constituency?

[Mrs May]

We are indeed looking at the criminality criteria for entering in order to tighten them up; we want to look at people’s records when considering who can enter the UK. We think that that is an important element that we should be looking at, and I know that the issue has concerned a number of people.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Has the Home Secretary made an estimate of the number of sham marriages, particularly those to EU migrants to the UK? What further measures will she take to deter this and punish those responsible?

[Mrs May]

I do not have an estimate of the number of sham marriages, but I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that the UK Border Agency was very active in stopping sham marriages over the summer; we had a very big crackdown on them. Many people were concerned and surprised to see that a Church of England vicar was caught and arrested for helping sham marriages to take place.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Last and most certainly least, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that, although the large-scale import of cheap labour may keep the lid on wage price inflation, it also keeps a lid on productivity because business men who feel that they can import cheap labour are less incentivised to be productive? Does she agree that that is not a competitive model and that the Government should not turn a blind eye to businesses that try to import cheap labour?

[Mrs May]

I have said in some of my conversations with businesses that it is important that they look to ensure that they encourage and provide the training for skills growth and development here in the UK. That is important, as it is in the UK’s interests, the individual’s interests and the interests of those businesses.

[Mr Speaker]

I must thank the Home Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation, as a result of which in 40 minutes of Back-Bench time we managed to get through 44 Back-Bench questions and answers. It shows what can be done when we put our minds to it.

Points of Order

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I sometimes wonder whether these generous initial remarks are a ruse by Members to get me on their side, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was not contacted by the Home Secretary about the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but he makes his point with force and clarity. I am always concerned that the House should hear key announcements first. However, I would say that when different numbers are being bandied around that is sometimes a sign of a matter for debate rather than a point of order. However, I shall keep my eyes and ears focused firmly on these matters because the House must hear first.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have more or less indicated, I think that the Home Secretary—

[Ed Balls]

Shadow.

[Mrs May]

After 13 years in opposition, as the right hon. Gentleman will discover, one sometimes makes these mistakes. The information that the BBC had was wrong and I am happy to say to the House that any information on the BBC first thing this morning was nothing to do with the Home Office.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and I am glad that we are not going to suffer an identity crisis for any length of time. I would simply say to the House that I think we will leave it there. We have had an exchange, concerns have been expressed and the Home Secretary has made her position clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

In so far as I could fully hear the hon. Gentleman—I apologise if I failed to hear him, but there was quite a lot of noise in the Chamber—I would simply reiterate that there are certain requirements of courtesy on Ministers. Generally speaking, the requirements are complied with and I know that it is always the intention of Ministers to do so. Generally speaking, that happens and if it did not in this case, that was a mistake.

[Mrs May]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Home Secretary nods assent to that proposition. I hope that such a mistake will not happen again.

Prevent Review/New Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce today that the Government are formally reviewing the Prevent strand of Contest, the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy.

That we need a preventative approach to terrorism is not in question: we have to deal with the causes of terrorism as well as its symptoms. But we want to avoid the mistakes of the previous Government. The new Prevent strategy will follow the principles of our counter-terrorism legislation. It will be proportionate to the specific challenge we face; it will only do what is necessary to achieve its specific aims; and it will be more effective. It will be separate from work to tackle wider forms of extremism and to promote integration, which is being led by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The review will, among other things:

look at the purpose and scope of the Prevent strategy, its overlap and links with other areas of Government policy and its delivery at local level;

examine the role of institutions—such as prisons, higher and further education institutions, schools and mosques—in the delivery of Prevent;

consider the role of other Prevent delivery partners, including the police and other statutory bodies;

consider how activity on Prevent in the UK can be more joined up with work overseas;

examine monitoring and evaluation structures to ensure effectiveness and value-for-money; and;

make recommendations for a revised Prevent strategy.

I am also announcing today a period of public consultation to enable delivery partners, front-line service providers and all other interested parties to participate in the review of Prevent. Contributions can be submitted by e-mail ([e-mail]) or online at: (http://preventreview.homeoffice.gov.uk).

I am pleased to announce that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the current reviewer of terrorism legislation, will provide expert, independent oversight of the Prevent review. His role is essential in ensuring that the review takes into consideration all the relevant information and looks at all the options.

I am also pleased to announce that I intend to appoint Mr David Anderson QC as the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Mr Anderson QC is a specialist in European Union and public law and human rights and has been a QC for over 10 years. He is a Recorder and visiting professor at King’s College London. I expect him to take up this role early in the new year. Until then, I have extended the period of appointment of Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, as the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. During this period. Lord Carlile will also conduct a brief review of the arrests (and subsequent release) of six individuals under the Terrorism Act 2000 during the recent state visit to the United Kingdom by the Pope.

I am extremely grateful to Lord Carlile for his willingness to continue in his role, one he has performed with distinction.