Limits on Non-EU Economic Migration
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Immigration has enriched our culture and enhanced our society. Britain can benefit from immigration, but not uncontrolled immigration. The levels of net migration seen under the previous Government—an annual figure of almost a quarter of a million at its peak in 2004—were unprecedented in recent times. It is this Government’s aim to reduce the level of net migration back down to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands each year, not hundreds of thousands.
Of course, it is necessary to attract the world’s very best talent to come to the UK to drive strong economic growth, but unlimited migration has placed unacceptable pressure on public services and, worse, severely damaged public confidence in our immigration system. Our over-reliance on migrant labour has done nothing to help the millions of unemployed and low-skilled British citizens who deserve the Government’s help to get back to work and improve their skills. The coalition’s programme for government confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We have always said that we will consult on the implementation of that limit. It is important that the Government take full account of the views of business and other interested sectors. We want to ensure that we can properly weigh the economic considerations against the wider social and public service implications.
I am therefore launching a consultation today on the mechanisms for implementing that annual limit, including questions about the coverage of limits, as well as the mechanics of how they will work in practice. The consultation also recognises the need to attract more high net-worth individuals to the UK through the routes for investors and entrepreneurs, which will not be covered by limits, and we ask for views on how that can be achieved. At the same time, I have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Government on the levels at which limits should be set for the first full year of their operation, which I intend should be from April 2011.
I am sure that all Members of the House would agree with me that the Migration Advisory Committee has an excellent track record in this area, and I want to take this opportunity to record my thanks to David Metcalf and the rest of the committee for taking on this critical piece of work. The consultations will be complete by the end of September, and I intend to make final announcements about the first full annual limit before the end of the calendar year.
It is important that today’s announcement does not lead to a surge of applications during this interim period, which would lead to an increase in net migration, undermining the purpose of the limit and putting undue strain on the UK Border Agency. I am therefore also taking a number of interim measures, and I have laid a statement of changes to the immigration rules in support of those measures. First, I am introducing an interim limit on the number of out-of-country main applicants to tier 1 (general). For 2010-11, this route will be held flat from the equivalent period for 2009-10. The tier 1 routes for investors, entrepreneurs and the post-study route are not affected. Secondly, to ensure that those who do come through this route are the brightest and best, I am raising the tier 1 (general) pass mark by five points for all new applicants.
Thirdly, I am introducing an interim limit on the number of migrants who can be offered jobs by sponsor employers through tier 2 (general). This route will be reduced in the interim period by 1,300 migrants, the equivalent of a 5% reduction across the relevant routes of tiers 1 and 2. The tier 2 routes for intra-company transfers, ministers for religion and—I am not sure whether to say this, given the comments at the end of the Prime Minister’s statement—elite sportspeople are not affected. These interim measures will take effect from 19 July.
It is vital that we restore public confidence in our immigration system. Our plans to do that extend much further than the measures I am announcing today. We support e-borders and the re-introduction of exit checks. We have said that we will create a dedicated border police force to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We have committed to improving our asylum system to speed up the processing of applications. We have said that we will end the detention of children for immigration purposes, and the UK Border Agency has already launched a review engaging a wide range of experts and organisations on how to achieve this.
Our commitment to reduce net migration will require action, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) will indicate in a moment, beyond the economic routes. It may assist him if I tell the House now that I will be reviewing other immigration routes in due course and will be bringing forward further proposals for consideration by the House. And, of course, unlike the previous Government, we are committed to applying transitional controls for all new EU member states.
The commitment to introduce limits on non-EU economic migration is a major immigration commitment of the coalition Government. Today’s announcement is a key step towards the delivery of that commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for a copy of the statement. I am pleased that she has come to make the statement to the House. However, I had already seen the statement she has just made because it was handed to me by a journalist this morning at 11.15.
Obviously, the Home Secretary originally intended to lay a written ministerial statement today. Indeed, the title was laid last Friday. This morning I sought that written ministerial statement. I was told that the Home Office was having a press conference prior to issuing the written ministerial statement—something unknown in my time as a Minister. Therefore, I sought the written ministerial statement again. At 11.15 am a journalist who had been to the press conference handed to me a written ministerial statement that is almost precisely the statement that the right hon. Lady has just made.
I hope the Home Secretary takes the matter seriously. As I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have a right to see written ministerial statements before they are circulated to the media.
The Home Secretary’s announcement represents nothing more than a small adjustment to the points-based system. It was spun to the media over the weekend as a profound adjustment to net migration. Migration to this country has gone up. If the Prime Minister were talking to his French and German colleagues, he would know that there were 4 million migrants in Germany, 4 million in France and about 1.5 million in this country. Since the 1990s, the last time the Conservatives were in power, there has been a huge explosion of migration around the world, as the UN has detailed.
Yes, migration has gone up since the last time the Conservatives were in power, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that net migration has fallen substantially over the past three years? Will she confirm that tier 1 migration—the most highly skilled—fell by 44% in the first quarter of this year? What is the problem with skilled migration that she seeks to resolve? Will she also confirm that the number of asylum seekers has fallen to the levels last seen in the early 1990s—a third of their peak, and the same peak everywhere else in Europe? We are 15th in Europe regarding the number of asylum seekers per head of population.
Will the Home Secretary continue to support the points-based system that we introduced, which ensures that no unskilled worker can come to this country—the door has been closed on tier 3 for the past two years—and that skilled workers under tier 2 can come to this country only if their sponsoring employer has advertised that job in Jobcentre Plus for four weeks prior? Can she confirm that she intends to continue with those measures, which we introduced?
How many skilled workers will be denied entry to the UK under that temporary cap, and what percentage of total net migration will that represent? What makes the Home Secretary think that the UK can avoid the problems the US experienced when President Bush introduced a quota on skilled migrants, with disastrous consequences and a whole series of readjustments 10 years ago? Can she give an example of the problems caused to our society by skilled migrants coming to the UK under the current flexible arrangements?
What effect does the right hon. Lady think her announcement today will have on population growth? Over the weekend I heard Government Members speculate that this morning’s announcement—this trivial adjustment —will somehow ensure that our population avoids reaching 70 million. Does she believe that? If so, how does she think that that will happen?
Given that this measure has been Conservative policy since the less progressive “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” days of their 2005 manifesto, why have they as yet failed to come up with a figure for their pre-determined quota? Does the right hon. Lady intend to implement fully Labour’s tough measures to deal with the abuse of tier 4, the student route, which, along with spousal visas and EU migration, will be totally unaffected by the cap she has announced today?
Today’s announcement will affect fewer than one in seven migrants to this country, and those whom it will affect are the migrants our economy needs the most. If the cap is set too high, it will be meaningless; if it set too low, it will damage our economy. At best it is a gesture; at worst it is a deceit. The Home Secretary knows that a cut in her Department’s budget of one third, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—25%, according to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor—will have disastrous consequences for border control. Is that not the real reason for controlling immigration, rather than this artificial and unnecessary tinkering at the edges?
Mrs May
Let me first address the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the written ministerial statement and my coming to the House. He is absolutely right: I had intended to make a written statement, and the title was indeed placed before the House so that Members could be made aware of it. Over the weekend I spoke to the Government Chief Whip about the possibility of changing that statement into an oral statement, because at the time I felt it more important to come to the House to make an oral statement, which is precisely what I have done. The right hon. Gentleman said, “Will I take this issue seriously?” Government Members have taken Parliament seriously over the past 13 years, so I shall take no lessons from him or any of his colleagues about taking it seriously, given how they bypassed Parliament for 13 years and reduced the House’s powers to hold the Executive to account.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about migration figures, but immigration actually tripled under the Labour Government. It is our desire to get the number down from the hundreds of thousands a year that it has reached under Labour to tens of thousands a year. If he wishes to look at numbers, he should look no further than the past comments of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who said that there was “no obvious upper limit” to immigration. It is this Government who are taking the issue seriously, who promised that they would do something about it and who are taking the action that is necessary.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle made a number of comments about technicalities and the issue of jobs being advertised for four weeks in a jobcentre. Currently, immigrants can come into the country if the resident labour market test or the shortage occupation list requirements are met. We are consulting on whether they should be combined so that a tier 2 migrant is able to come in if both tests are relevant and met. That would be a significant tightening of the current rules.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the wider social impact, as opposed to the economic impact. He has only to go out and talk to people about the pressure in some areas on public services, hospitals and schools. Another issue that his Government failed to get to grips with over the years is the significant number of unemployed people in this country. Some of those people do not have the necessary skills to get into the jobs that are available, but the job of the Government is to ensure that they do have those skills and to give them the support they need to get into those jobs, rather than simply thinking that the answer is to pull in migrant workers from elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to students. If, instead of commenting on the statement he thought I was going to make, he had listened to the statement that I made, he would have heard me say that we would indeed be looking at other immigration routes in due course and bringing further proposals to this House. I recognise that this is one part of the job that we are doing as regards immigration, and other measures will come forward in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not yet have a figure for the annual limit on immigration, despite the fact that this has been a Conservative policy for some time and was in the coalition agreement. I can tell him why not: because we have, for some time, been committed to going out there and consulting those who will be affected—businesses, public service providers and others—about what the limit should be. As I said, the Migration Advisory Committee will be advising the Government and recommending what that annual limit should be. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to the approach of the previous Government, who, in one consultation exercise after another, merely paid lip service to consultation because they had already decided what they were going to do. People then got fed up with being asked to give comments and finding that Government took no notice. We are genuinely consulting people and will be listening to the responses that we get.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although individual employers may benefit by importing cheap labour, as a nation we will get richer only if our existing employees are enabled and encouraged to acquire skills themselves so that they can produce more, and enrich themselves and the country, rather than have those incentives to acquire skills undermined by the importation of cheap labour from abroad?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. This is another area where frankly, yet again, the Labour Government failed over the course of 13 years: they failed to ensure that people in this country had the skills necessary to get the jobs that become available. This Government, through our welfare reform proposals and our work programme, will be helping people and giving them much more support to get into the workplace, whereas under the Labour Government economic inactivity in the UK rose significantly. Many migrant workers were being brought in from overseas, and limiting that number will be part of the process of ensuring that we are able to help people to get out of unemployment and into the workplace.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s cap, if I may call it that, is a departure from existing policy, because this is the first time we have had a definitive figure. How did she arrive at the figure of 24,100? What will we do about the 24,102nd person who applies and is turned down? Will we give them the right of appeal if they have the skills necessary to help our country? What resources does she propose to give to posts abroad, which will be overwhelmed by a stampede of applications over the next year? Will she come before my Committee as soon as possible to discuss these matters further?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those points. He mentioned the possibility of a stampede at posts overseas in relation to this matter. The whole point of having the interim limit set over the next nine months or so, until the permanent annual limit comes into place, is precisely to avoid that stampede. It will not be possible for people to say that they are going to try to apply to come here before that limit comes in, because we have the interim limit, which we have set at slightly below—5% below—the numbers for the past year.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a change in policy. It is indeed, because under the points-based system the impetus is with the individual migrant: if they have the right number of points, they can decide whether they want to try to come into the UK. Under our system, we are saying, “We do want to welcome the brightest and the best, but we recognise that it is necessary to have a limit because we want to ensure that we are able to control immigration.” I am sure that Members across the whole House will agree that that is the view of many members of the general public who have raised this issue with them.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s sensible and proportionate measure. There have already been representations about it on the radio this lunchtime from care home owners. Will she gently remind them that there are 1 million young people unemployed in this country, who would welcome the opportunity to have training and employment in the care homes sector? Is it not a shame that some employers, and the Opposition Front Benchers, seem to put a vote of no confidence in our young people?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible and wise point. Of course, there will be those whom businesses want to bring in from abroad, and as I have said, we will raise the number of tier 1 general points required to ensure that they genuinely bring in the brightest and best. However, there are indeed sectors of employment in which many unemployed people would be very happy to train, and to take up the job opportunities that would then be available to them. As I have said, it is a great sadness that so many young people are unemployed in this country today and have not been given such opportunities as a result of the failure of the previous Labour Government.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that her statement will be widely welcomed throughout most of our constituencies, but that during the election voters expressed another worry, which was that we are growing our population through immigration? At what stage will she consider the last Labour Government’s proposal to break the link between coming here to work and gaining citizenship? If we are to prevent our population from passing 70 million, we need to control both the number of people coming in and the number who can permanently settle here.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised that point. I said in my statement that what I have announced today is but one part of what we are doing about immigration into this country. We have already made a statement about tightening the English language requirements for people coming here to marry, and we will examine all immigration routes into this country across the board.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to carry on this important consultation in a measured and considered way, given that it is controversial but very important? We need to avoid unfair discrimination, particularly as most people coming from outside the EU are not white and not Christian. That must include discrimination against people who are skilled but not academically skilled—who come here to do skilled jobs in the catering trade, for example. Finally, will she ensure that we consult on having the best possible border police force, incorporating customs, police and immigration, thereby saving money and breaking down entrenched divides that are not working in the public interest?
Mrs May
On the last of my hon. Friend’s points, we will bring forward in due course more detailed proposals on the policing of our borders. On his earlier points, I draw his attention to the consultation document, which has fairness as one of its objectives, including fairness in ensuring that individuals have some understanding of the system and an expectation of whether they are likely to be able to come here under our proposals. The whole point of the consultation is to discuss with businesses and others what the best system would be and how it should operate to provide business with the flexibility that it requires, within the constraint of the annual limit.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Will these strictures apply to those usually immensely wealthy employers from the middle east who bring with them their own domestic servants, usually of nationalities not in the middle east? That practice has been deemed slavery, given the appalling treatment that is often meted out to those workers by their employers, not least having to work incredibly long hours, usually for no money. There have been allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and there is an almost invariable practice of the employer stealing the employee’s passport. Will the strictures apply to those individual employers, and will those practices be stopped?
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful and welcome statement, particularly in her points about skills. Does she agree that another key factor in our social problems today is a lack of adequate housing in many areas, and that in deciding on the future direction that immigration should take, the overall population factor mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is extremely important? We should consider the issue of housing in particular.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Housing is, indeed, one of those wider social issues that will be taken into account in the consultation, and I am sure that the Migration Advisory Committee will take it into account as it looks at wider social issues other than just the economic impact of immigration into this country.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
May I agree with the Home Secretary that immigration has enriched our culture and enhanced our society? I welcome the fact that she intends to consult business and other interested parties on the implementation of the new rules. May I ask for that to include further detailed discussions with the Scottish Government, particularly the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and Scotland’s universities, to make sure that the difficulties that we have had under the current regime in recruiting world-class academic and research staff are not made worse, and to make sure that the reputation of those universities is not weakened?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and for reminding me that I did not make it clear in my statement that we will, of course, be consulting the devolved Administrations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has written to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales today on exactly this point.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which I am sure will be welcomed by my constituents who have been concerned about uncontrolled immigration. She talked about migration within the European Union. Will she give some indication of the process and timetable in relation to agreeing transitional controls on migration from new EU partners?
Mrs May
The process is very clear and is set out in the treaty. What happened previously was that the previous Government—certainly for the first tranche of accession countries that we have seen in recent years—simply failed to put those transitional arrangements in place, whereas other EU member states such as Germany did. We are absolutely clear that, with any future new EU member state, we would put those transitional arrangements in place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
A certain someone, who is often described as a towering intellect of this House, said that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) was planning a cap on workers, not on dependent immigrants, students or asylum seekers, so it would not work. That someone is the Business Secretary; has he changed his mind?
Mrs May
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in relation to what we are proposing to do, it has always been our intention to look across the various immigration routes. I specifically mentioned, earlier, that we will look at the student route in relation to immigration, and we will do that in due course.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In welcoming the Home Secretary’s long overdue implementation of these measures, may I ask about her plans to crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs? In Dover, on Friday morning, 17 people of Afghan origin were found in the back of a lorry, of whom many were children and all were in a pretty bad way.
Charlie Elphicke
The lorry driver was Polish. It was a refrigerated lorry and many of the people were taken to hospital. It is important to have X-ray scanning on the French side of the border, for lorry cabs to be checked on the French side and for the French to be encouraged to do more as the first country of arrival. What measures might the Home Secretary take in that regard?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for reminding us of this problem as well as the number of people involved and the way that some of those being persuaded to come here are treated. We should all take human trafficking extremely seriously in this House, as, indeed, the Conservatives do. On our interaction with the French authorities, I am pleased to say that the Minister for Immigration and I have already held meetings with the French Minister for Immigration and that we are talking to the French on a regular basis about the processes that need to be in place to ensure that we can control our borders.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that any limit will have no impact on those seeking political asylum? May I also ask her to look into the case of Charles Atangana, who lives in Glasgow? He is a journalist in a trade union and is due to be deported to Cameroon tomorrow. He has previously been imprisoned there because of his activities, including writing articles that are critical of the state. Will she confirm that she, as Home Secretary, will have a compassionate approach to those seeking political asylum?
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that success in research and high-tech businesses in areas such as Cambridge is fuelled by many non-EU migrants who are sensitive both to rules and to how welcome they are made to feel? What steps will she take to ensure that it continues to be possible, or even easy, for us to attract the best and the brightest to this country to help our universities, industry and economy?
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend that it is indeed our intention to ensure that we can continue to attract the brightest and the best. That is why we are taking steps to ensure that we do so within tier 1 migrant workers. We will consult with business and others on how we can best operate the limit to ensure that that continues.
Mr MacShane
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but I heard it on the “Today” programme this morning. She was right to criticise the previous Government for such things, but frankly, she is repeating all the same errors.
The Prime Minister met Mr Harper of Canada, Mr Singh of India and Mr Uribe of Colombia, but the Prime Minister must now tell them that their skilled people are not welcome in this country. Does the Home Secretary accept that her policy is frankly protectionist? I do not know whether she understands the bureaucratic gobbledegook that she had to read out, but no business can. Some of us in the House are still liberal on this issue, and the fig leaves in the Liberal Democrats ought to be ashamed.
Mrs May
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the technical gobbledegook of which he speaks is the rules that have been applied and how we will change the rules. Businesses understand those rules very well. The idea that the statement somehow says to every other country in the world that their skilled workers will never be able to come into the UK is completely and utterly wrong, and he should frankly be ashamed of himself for standing up and suggesting that in the House. As I said, immigration has been good for the UK, but uncontrolled immigration is not. We are ensuring that we put an annual limit on immigration. I believe that that is what people are looking to this Government to do. They are looking for us to take action on the things that we promised prior to the election, but perhaps he finds it difficult to accept that we are actually delivering on our promise.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The new rules announced today will be warmly welcomed not least among the rather newer residents of the UK. How will the rules be applied to ensure that not only big firms but smaller, entrepreneurial firms, which are quite often run by people from immigrant families, can bring in the brightest and the best?
Mrs May
I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the consultation document. We are asking businesses about a number of ways in which we can apply the limit, be that a first-come-first-served system or a pool system such as New Zealand’s, so that his points are taken into account. I am sure he will want to make his own representations on the matter.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I recognise that this is a difficult matter for any Government to deal with and that there are no easy answers, but will the cap be flexible in any way with regard to those fleeing religious persecution, especially Christians from Iran, Iraq and parts of Africa?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but as I said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who raised the issue of political asylum, the limit does not apply to asylum seekers. The statement is about economic migrants coming in from outside the EU.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I put my question on behalf of the 4.5 million people who lived on out-of-work benefits during the past decade, when four out of five of the new jobs created in the boom years went to foreign nationals. That was unforgivable and we cannot let it happen again. We were elected on a clear platform significantly to reduce immigration. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will stand firm in the face of lobbying that seeks to defend unacceptably high levels of immigration again in the name of skills? The skills we do not have in this country, and indeed across the rest of the EU, cannot reasonably—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] I will give way now.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her points. She was making a valid point about the many unemployed people in the UK who have not had the skills to take advantage of the work opportunities that have become available. Our welfare reform proposals will provide extra support to help people get into work, and that is important. She is also right to say that people are looking to this Government to ensure that we control immigration into this country.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s exemption for ministers of religion from these provisions, but will she go further and set in place a protocol, such as the protocols that we have at present with universities and other certified institutes of higher education, so that those coming in from certified religious institutions can be fast-tracked and not have to go through the present process with the Home Office? Often, monks or sadhus who take a vow of poverty are asked to show what wealth they have before being allowed to come here.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which is an important first step in implementing the coalition’s proposals to get our immigration system under control. She talked about restoring public confidence in our immigration system. Does she agree that, in addition to the measures that she listed in her statement, doing a better job of removing those people who do not have a right to be in this country is a key element in that regard?
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I welcome both the statement and the direction of travel? I also welcome the direction of travel from those on my own Front Bench. Indeed, had we been clearer about our direction of travel, we might not be sitting on these Benches today.
I am, however, disappointed on two counts. First, the Home Secretary said nothing that she did not say to Radio Scotland this morning. I was not aware that it was the practice to make announcements to Radio Scotland first thing in the morning before coming to the House—[Interruption.] I never did that. Secondly, why does the statement address only non-EU immigration? Why do the Government not seek to repatriate powers over EU immigration? Would the Government not consider saying to their European neighbours that there will be no new accession until powers over immigration have been repatriated?
Mrs May
Yes, perhaps when the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) has just got up. He suggests that what we are doing is a natural progression from the direction of his Front-Bench colleagues, but they were not proposing to have an annual limit. In fact, they have consistently derided the concept of an annual limit. It is this coalition Government who are taking the steps necessary.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. In my short time as a Member of Parliament I have met people who are in this country as economic migrants and working for large, established employers who should be establishing training schemes, taking people on and equipping them with the relevant skills. Does she agree that those employers should put their efforts into setting up apprenticeships rather than recruiting low-skilled workers from abroad?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the need for employers to see what they can do to ensure that unemployed people in this country can take up job opportunities. The policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is bringing forward will ensure that we give the support necessary to help people get into the workplace.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In my constituency fishermen from the Philippines have been very welcome in the fish-catching sector, especially as they have kept jobs in the fish-processing sector. Will the Home Secretary listen to specific information such as that when deciding the basis for work entry?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary spoke powerfully about human trafficking and how the coalition Government were going to deal with the problem. Is she happy that the Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield has closed and is now part of the overall police effort, with the £1.8 million budget seeming to have disappeared?
Mrs May
I am so sorry; I am a little in advance of myself. If that does happen tomorrow, I congratulate my hon. Friend. Our honourable friend the former Member for Totnes had an excellent record during his time in this place on dealing with the issue and ensuring that it was discussed on the Floor of the House. Regardless of the result tomorrow, I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to do that, as he has in the past. Looking at how we deal with human trafficking is an important issue, and the response of the police is an issue that I am interested in looking at both as Home Secretary and, with my other hat on, as the Minister for Women and Equalities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Whenever we talk about net migration, we always tend to talk about the numbers coming in, forgetting the large numbers of people going out. Given that under the previous Government net migration reached record levels, it would have been even higher had hundreds of thousands of British skilled workers not got fed up with Brown’s Britain and left to go and work abroad. Will my right hon. Friend work with her colleagues across Government to ensure that Britain’s skilled workers are incentivised to stay in Britain?
Points of Order
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I have a sense that, dissatisfied with the responses that she heard earlier, she is, in a sense, seeking to continue the debate. To the best of my knowledge, responsibility for the issue of domestic violence remains where it has always been. If Ministers feel otherwise, they might wish to respond to the serious point of order that she has just raised. However, I see that the Home Secretary is in her place, so it might help the House if she would care to respond to that point of order.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am happy to confirm that the Home Office does indeed continue to have responsibility in matters relating to domestic violence, although there will be aspects of dealing with domestic violence that require the intervention and consideration of the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Speaker
Whether that response satisfies the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) I cannot be sure, but it will have to do for now.
Non-EU Economic Migration Limits
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
This afternoon I will make an oral statement to the House on the Government’s plans to introduce annual limits on economic migrants from outside of the EU from April 2011; and interim measures being taken to prevent a surge in applications during the interim period.
Pre-charge Detention
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am announcing today our intention to renew the current maximum period for pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects for a period of six months, and I have laid a draft order to that effect.
Section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2006 extended the maximum period of detention of terrorist suspects before charge from 14 days to 28 days. Section 25 of that Act says that the 28-day period of detention must be renewed by order if it is to remain in place.
It is vital that we support the police and other agencies in their work to keep us safe from terrorism. We face a serious threat, and the nature of modern international terrorism means that police investigations can be longer and more complex than they have been in the past. At the same time, as a Government we are also committed to safeguarding the rights and liberties of the public.
To ensure this balance is appropriately set, the Government have made clear their commitment to review counter-terrorism legislation, and pre-charge detention will form part of that review. That review is due to report to Parliament in the autumn, but in the meantime the current, and exceptional, 28-day maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects will expire on 24 July.
However, while we would not wish to pre-judge the outcome of the review, both parties in the coalition are clear that the 28-day maximum period should be a temporary measure and one that we will be looking to reduce over time.
Control Order Powers Report
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The future of the control order regime
The document “The Coalition: A. Programme for Government” released on 20 May 2010 and available to view at: http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk sets out the Government’s plan for the next five years. In that statement the Government stated that
“We will urgently review control orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes”.
This review is now being taken forward as a priority. We will report the outcome of the review to Parliament in due course.
The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
As explained in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of options for bringing each control order to an end while managing the risk to the public. During this reporting period, two CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period 11 March 2010 to 10 June 2010, two non-derogating control orders were made with the permission of the court and served. Three control orders were renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period. In this reporting period there was one revocation of a control order on the direction of the court on the basis that the court considered that the order was not necessary.
At the end of the reporting period 12 control orders were in force, 10 of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Four of the individuals subject to a control order were living in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas. During this reporting period, one individual has been charged with breaching his control order obligations; and one set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order were concluded following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest.
During this reporting period, 43 modifications of control order obligations were made. Ten requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Three appeals under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation under the order. During this reporting period two appeals have been lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
One judgment has been handed down in relation to substantive judicial review proceedings under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AN, handed down on 12 March 2010, the court directed the Secretary of State to revoke the control order on the basis that the court considered that the order was not necessary. No further detail can be given for legal reasons.
One judgment has been handed down in relation to proceedings under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BX, handed down on 10 May 2010, the court upheld the decision to relocate BX on the grounds that his removal from his extremist associates was properly regarded as necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting BX’s involvement in terrorism-related activity and proportionate.
Another judgment was handed down in relation to BX by the Court of Appeal, on 4 May 2010. The court dismissed BX’s appeal, holding that the High Court had reached a proper decision in concluding on the material that there were strong grounds for an urgent relocation and in setting early hearings for disclosure and for the appeal. The court found that (other than in a rare case not so far identified) the proper and appropriate route of challenging a modification decision is by way of a statutory appeal under the 2005 Act and that an interlocutory application for an injunction can be made under section 10 of the Act.
One further individual previously subject to a control order has been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Most full judgments are available at: http://www. bailii.org/.
Vetting and Barring Scheme
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am announcing today that the commencement of voluntary registration with the new vetting and barring scheme (VBS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which was due to begin on 26 July, will be brought to a halt as of today.
The Government have made clear their intention to bring the criminal records and vetting and barring regimes back to common-sense levels. Until this remodelling has taken place, we have decided to maintain those aspects of the new scheme which are already in place, but not to introduce further elements.
The safety of children and vulnerable adults is of paramount importance to the new Government. We will therefore maintain the current arrangements under which the Independent Safeguarding Authority is able to bar from “regulated activities” those considered unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults, and appropriate cases must be referred to them. Criminal records checks will also remain available for those eligible to receive them, and will continue to be required for certain posts where regulations are already in place.
However it is vital that we take a measured approach in these matters. Vulnerable groups must be properly protected in a way that is proportionate and sensible. The remodelling of the VBS will ensure this happens.
The terms of reference for the remodelling of the VBS and of the criminal records regime are currently being considered and a further announcement will be made in due course.
Identity Documents Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am very pleased to introduce the first piece of legislation that the new Administration are putting before Parliament. It signals a profound change in the way in which Government will interact with the people they serve.
The national identity card scheme represents the worst of government. It is intrusive and bullying, ineffective and expensive. It is an assault on individual liberty which does not promise a greater good. The Bill is, therefore, partly symbolic. It sends a message that the Government are going to do business in a different way. We are the servants of the people, not their masters, and every action that we take must be considered in that context.
Of course our first duty is to keep people safe. That truism cannot be repeated often enough. We will do whatever it takes to honour that covenant. Sometimes, respecting the rights of the few while protecting the many will be a delicate balancing act. Not on this occasion. We have no hesitation in making the national identity card scheme an unfortunate footnote in history. There it should remain—a reminder of a less happy time when the Government allowed hubris to trump civil liberties.
Last month, the coalition set out its plans to abolish ID cards and the national identity register. The register contains the biographic and biometric fingerprint data of cardholders. In bringing forward this stand-alone Bill, we are now seeking swift approval to enable us to abolish both.
The Government are of course also bringing forward a freedom Bill, and will launch a consultation on the laws that the British people want to see repealed. So the Identity Documents Bill is just our first measure as we begin to restore the balance between national security and civil liberties—the crucial, delicate balance which was so carelessly abandoned during Labour’s years in office.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I opposed identity cards from the very beginning and I have not changed my views, but will the Home Secretary bear in mind that in 1996 the Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard, announced that the Conservative Government intended to bring in an identity card scheme? It was described as voluntary—whatever that meant. It was not possible to do so for obvious reasons: because of what happened in 1997.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of what was done in 1996 by a former Conservative Home Secretary and what was proposed. That Conservative Government did indeed look at the possibility. We have looked at the idea brought forward by the Labour Government and we do not think that it is right. We take a different view, which is that we should abolish the identity card scheme. The hon. Gentleman referred to his opposition and indeed a number of Labour Members objected to the proposals of their Front-Bench colleagues.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is talking about the abolition of the scheme. Is she telling the House, and the wider country, that the abolition of the scheme will include foreign nationals coming to this country?
Mrs May
No. I shall come to that point later. There are biometric residency permits for foreign nationals and they are completely separate from the identity card scheme. They were rolled into the ID scheme only because the Labour Government were trying desperately to bolster it; they claimed that the residency permits were somehow part of the ID card scheme, which they are not. Those biometric residency permits will continue to exist.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
As one of the Labour Members who opposed identity cards from the beginning, I am delighted that the Bill is one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government are putting through. Will the Home Secretary say something about people who went ahead and rather stupidly bought an identity card? Does she feel that they should be recompensed or does she think they should have listened to those of us on both sides of the House who said, “This is the wrong scheme and you shouldn’t be doing that”?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She does indeed have an honourable record of maintaining opposition to identity cards. I will make reference to this point later, but I can tell her now that we will not be offering refunds to all those who chose to get an identity card. [Hon. Members: “Outrageous!”] Labour Front Benchers shout “Outrageous”, but we made it clear that we were opposed to identity cards. The Liberal Democrat party made it absolutely clear that it was opposed to identity cards. People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary recall that the Labour party’s manifesto in 2005 had a commitment to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme? Does she recollect that it was the Labour party that won that general election? In what way was it illegitimate—or, indeed, “stupid”, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—for people then to buy a card that was legitimate and had been set out in the manifesto of the winning party?
Mrs May
I must make a confession; I did not study the 2005 Labour party manifesto in any great detail because I was too busy promoting the 2005 Conservative party manifesto—[Interruption.] I am not trying to rewrite history; the right hon. Gentleman and his party won the 2005 election and introduced the identity card scheme. Let us remember; the scheme was not introduced in the very early stages of the Government’s term, but we made it clear from an early stage that if the Conservative party came into government, ID cards would be scrapped. That was clear to people, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I agree with the Home Secretary. Has there been any estimate of the cost of continuing the system for those few people who already have identity cards?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
No, I said that I was going to make some progress. I have been quite generous already in taking interventions.
Much of the Identity Cards Act 2006 will be undone but the Bill will re-enact certain provisions in the 2006 Act that do not relate solely to ID cards. Those provisions on offences and passport verification make available powers in relation to the detection and prevention of fraud, and the consular fees provision makes it possible to issue passports at subsidised rates. It will remain an offence to carry an identity document that a person knows or believes to be false or to hold a genuine document that relates to someone else, or that has been improperly obtained. Also it will remain illegal to possess equipment for falsifying documents. Under the Bill, ID cards will be invalidated. Holders will not be able to use them either to prove their identity or as a travel document in Europe. On the passing of the Bill, I will not issue any more cards. Following Royal Assent, cards will remain valid for just one more month.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way? I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for doing so. [Laughter.]
Mr Blunkett
The right hon. Lady paused and I believed she had given way. My apologies for that.
I have an ID card here. Is the right hon. Lady saying that from now on any use of the document to reinforce my identity would be illegal?
Mrs May
I have not said that that is the case from today. I have a rather greater belief in the value of Parliament than the last Labour Government showed. Any provisions will come into force only once the Bill has been approved by Parliament and has received Royal Assent. It is after Royal Assent that cards will remain valid for one more month only. I will be writing to all those who already have a card to inform them of the change, so the right hon. Gentleman can look forward in due course to receiving a letter from me. Let us get this in proportion: fewer than 15,000 people already have a card.
Mr Blunkett
I am sorry for intervening again, but as the House will appreciate, the subject is rather close to my heart. I understand entirely that the document will not be useable for travel purposes once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but I understood the right hon. Lady to say that it would not be valid in offering any proof of identity. Just before that, she said that it would be illegal. I am trying to ascertain whether using this document, which has my fingerprints and photo and is more authentic than my passport, would make me a criminal were I to use it for other purposes, such as opening a bank account.
Mrs May
I followed the right hon. Gentleman’s argument quite carefully and perhaps I can reprise what I actually said earlier. Under the Bill, the cards will be invalidated. Holders will not be able to use them either to prove their identity or as a travel document in Europe. On Royal Assent, they will remain valid for only one more month. I did not use the word “illegal”, except in relation to those who possess equipment for falsifying documents. I trust that, as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is not intending to hold equipment for the falsification of documents.
Mrs May
For the record, the right hon. Gentleman nodded at that point.
The post of Identity Commissioner will be abolished. The public panels and experts groups that were established by the Identity and Passport Service have already been disbanded, and 60 temporary staff in Durham have already been released early.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am very grateful. The Home Secretary has just announced that 67 people in my constituency were made redundant last week because the Government are not continuing identity cards. What efforts will her Government make to get jobs for those people who lost them this week, and for those who are likely to lose their jobs because the Government are not going ahead with the second generation biometric passports?
Mrs May
If I can just correct a slight inaccuracy of terminology in the way in which the hon. Lady referred to the job losses in Durham, the people concerned were temporary staff on short-term contracts and they have been released early from those contracts. There are implications to abolishing the previous Labour Government’s scheme but, as the hon. Lady may know, we as a Government have considerable proposals for helping people who are unemployed to get into work. Our single work programme, which will replace the previous Government’s proposals for helping people into work, will give people much more focused individual help on getting them into the workplace and ensuring that they are retrained and given the skills that they need.
Mrs May
No, I am going to make some progress.
The Bill also places a duty on me to destroy all information recorded in the national identity register within two months of Royal Assent. Photographs and fingerprint biometrics will be securely destroyed. This will not be a literal bonfire of the last Government's vanities, but it will none the less be deeply satisfying. The national identity register will then cease to exist entirely.
The Government will always defend the security and integrity of the British passport, in order to safeguard the free movement of its citizens abroad and protect our borders from illegal immigration.
Mrs May
That will be for me to judge in due course.
We will continue to work to ensure the free movement of citizens abroad. We are halting work on fingerprint passports—the so-called second generation biometric passports—because we believe, in common with the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, that we can maintain the integrity of our passports by other security measures. Already a combination of physical and electronic security features makes the British passport very hard to counterfeit and forge. A new design with improved physical security features will be issued from 5 October, and we are considering ways to strengthen further the electronic security features.
In November 2008 the previous Administration began issuing to non-EEA nationals the biometric residency permits mentioned in an intervention. I want to reiterate the point that I made in response to that intervention. For purely political reasons those permits were referred to by the previous Government as identity cards for foreign nationals. Let no one in the House be in any doubt. They are not ID cards, and they will continue.
We anticipate that the net cost of the Bill will amount to about £5 million this year, which includes termination of contracts, writing off equipment, contacting cardholders and others to inform them that the project is over, exit costs for staff who cannot be redeployed elsewhere, and payments to contractors for secure destruction of identity information. I regret that another unavoidable cost is maintaining the ability to issue new cards before our statutory obligation to do so is removed. This is yet another example of why we want to act as quickly as possible.
The good news, however, is that the taxpayer, as I said in answer to a previous intervention, will be saved some £86 million over the next four years. Moreover, the public will not be hit with the roughly £800 million of ongoing costs over the next 10 years. To put that in perspective, that is a millennium dome’s worth of savings. At any time it is utterly wrong for Government to waste taxpayers’ money on a folly. In the current climate, it is obscene.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), she said that the staff were on short-term contracts. I should remind her that she, too, is on a short-term contract, as are all of us. How does she intend to use the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Consular Fees Act 1980?
Mrs May
I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman by saying that I will not give him a precise answer in response to that point. We are ensuring that we still have those abilities in the Act to allow discounts on applications for passports under the consular fees permission in the Bill. The Bill enables us to retain the ability to do that, should we at some stage choose to do so, but I shall not give the hon. Gentleman a more detailed answer at present. I am sure he can make his points known during the debate if he chooses to catch the Speaker’s eye.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
No. I shall go a little further in my speech. I return to the subject of savings. The Bill is not just about saving money. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I be the first to congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman of Ways and Means? I look forward to many debates in the Chamber under your wise rule in the Chair.
If an overwhelming case could be made that ID cards would keep us safe without intruding on civil liberties, we would find the funding. But that is not the case. First, if databases are compromised, so too is security. The Labour Government’s track record on this was appalling. We all remember the moment the House was told that HMRC had lost data for 25 million people, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank accounts and national insurance numbers, and that was just one example of many. We recognise that some data storage is essential, but these events do not point in the direction of a massive expansion of the surveillance state, which ID cards would necessarily involve.
Moreover, ID cards would not make us safer or beat benefit fraud. Benefit fraud usually involves people lying about their personal circumstances rather than their identity. Turkish and Spanish ID cards stopped neither the Istanbul bombers in 2003 nor the Madrid bombers in 2004; nor did German ID cards prevent terrorists plotting 9/11 in Hamburg. As Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, said after the 7/7 attacks here in London:
“I doubt”—
that ID cards—
“would have made a difference. I’ve never argued . . . that ID cards would prevent any particular act.”
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is right that ID cards did not stop the bombing in Madrid, but does she accept that ID cards in Spain allowed the bombers to be traced from the fingerprints on the Atocha bombs?
Mrs May
The point that I am making is a simple one. The last Labour Government claimed that this would be—[Interruption.] A shadow Minister on the Front Bench says, “No. we didn’t.” As I had not said what I was going to say the Government had claimed, I suggest that she is being a little premature, or perhaps she is learning the ways of opposition rather earlier than some of her colleagues.
Many claims were made at various times about what the Government said. One of them was that the purpose of ID cards was to keep this country safe. The examples that I gave show that ID cards do not keep this country safe and are an intrusion into civil liberties. The imposition of an enormously expensive system, which will be a target for computer hackers, might result in greater identity fraud and would not make us safer, cannot be justified.
There is one other objection to such an extension of the state’s surveillance powers, and it is one that Labour never understood: it is unBritish. We are a freedom-loving people, and we recognise that intrusive government does not enhance our well-being or safety. In 2004 the Mayor of London promised to eat his ID card in front of
“whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”
I will not endorse civil disobedience, but Boris Johnson was expressing in his own inimitable way a discomfort even stronger than the discomfort to be had from eating an ID card. It is a discomfort born of a very healthy and British revulsion towards bossy, interfering, prying, wasteful and bullying Government. The coalition Government are determined to do things differently.
I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so vigorously for the abolition of ID cards. They include N02ID, Liberty, and the parties that make up the coalition Government. I am also grateful that Members in other parts of the House, including Labour Members, as indicated earlier, have had the integrity to speak out and vote against the issue and, in the case of Labour Members, against those on their Front Bench. Indeed, Labour Members may even find that voting for the abolition of ID cards curries favour with the next leader of their party although, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), none of the leadership candidates appears to have taken an interest in civil liberties.
Let me read to the House what the hon. Lady said during her impassioned speech against the Identity Cards Bill in 2005:
“As the evening has worn on, the Government Whips have subjected several of my colleagues to their usual rough-hew methods of persuasion. However, I say to colleagues in the closing minutes of the debate that voting against the Bill would be far from betraying our Government or going against Labour principles, because we would be doing the Government a great service. The more the public hear of the Bill, the less they like it, so the sooner it is stopped in its tracks, the better.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1248-9.]
I could not agree more.
I urge Members in all parts of the House to vote with their conscience, and to show their constituents that they stand for freedom, sound expenditure and common sense. The case for ID cards has not been made and will not be. It is an extension of state power that we cannot, in any sense, afford. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alan Johnson
I will not give way because I am about to conclude.
My final point is that the Government intend not only to stop issuing cards, but to make the 15,000 already in circulation illegal. I find that despicable, and I do not think that that is too strong a word. How can any Government seek to punish hundreds of thousands of its citizens for having the temerity to take advantage of a scheme that was pledged in a manifesto, supported in law and introduced in an entirely legitimate way? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering from the Front Bench, but I will gladly take an intervention.
Alan Johnson
Fifteen thousand is a significant number of people—[Interruption.] On Monday, the Deputy Prime said that he had made a slip of the tongue when he told one of my hon. Friends that the Government will certainly campaign for a yes vote in a Welsh referendum to devolve powers to Wales, and I think I am entitled to make a similar slip of the tongue. Of course I am talking not about hundreds of thousands of people—it would have been if the scheme had gone on a few months longer—but thousands, and 15,000 is a significant number of people.
Those in possession of identity cards ought to be able to continue to use them as a legitimate form of identification, and to travel in Europe and access services. At the very least, they should receive a refund, or the Government should take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and offer a discount off future purchases. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking that they could treat people with such off-hand arrogance, and they must look again at that aspect of the Bill.
The Opposition remain unconvinced by the Government’s arguments for scrapping ID cards. The money saved will not pay for 3,000 extra police officers, as the Lib Dems claimed. In the long term, the proposals will cost us more money, hamper the efforts of the police to tackle identity fraud, and weaken rather than defend civil liberties. Illegalising cards that have already been issued will penalise those who bought them in good faith, including pensioners and students. Scrapping second generation biometric passports will threaten our borders and encourage illegal immigration, because our passport technology will lag behind that of our European neighbours. I urge the Government to rethink this expensive, misguided and spiteful little Bill.
G6 Meeting
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK held their most recent meeting in Varese, Italy on 28 to 29 May. Italy currently holds the presidency of the G6 group and the meeting was chaired by the Italian Minister for the Interior, Roberto Maroni.
The meeting was divided into three working sessions over two days, all of which were attended by G6 Ministers of the Interior, with the additional guest attendance of the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, the US Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security, David Heyman, the French Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, and the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström.
The first working session considered Europe’s approach to the management of migration from outside the EEA. Ministers also considered factors driving illegal immigration and the importance of international co-operation in combating criminal groups involved in illegal immigration and human trafficking. There was a discussion around ensuring that an increased focus on tackling illegal immigration should not come at the expense of vulnerable groups’ human rights, and of the importance of raising awareness of the positive contribution of legal immigration to society. The Home Secretary underlined the importance of evidence-based practical co-operation between EU member states and of work with source and transit countries upstream, rather than a reliance on new EU legislation.
The second session focused on the issue of organised crime. Ministers considered the increasing flexibility and diversification of organised criminals who take advantage of global trends and opportunities. The Italian Minister for the Interior gave a presentation on Italian methods for targeting illegal assets. Ministers discussed the promotion of a more joined-up approach between European States, EU Agencies and third countries in order to tackle this trans-national threat. In addition, Ministers considered methods of tackling money laundering and ensuring online child protection.
At the third session Ministers considered counter-terrorism. The importance of strengthening international co-operation was discussed, with particular focus on the relationship between Europe and the US. Discussion also centred upon the value of dialogue with third countries and the benefit of engaging and supporting countries in tackling violent extremism. At an operational level, discussion focused on the strengthening of aviation security, including the sharing of air passenger information, and on work into the threat posed by radicalisation.
In addition to the three plenary sessions, Italy gave a video presentation of its arrangements for handling serious road traffic accidents. The Home Secretary also held separate bilateral meetings with all of the other heads of delegation.
The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in Poland in the second half of this year.
English Language Requirement
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I wish to inform the House that I am today announcing the introduction of a new English language requirement for migrants applying to come to or stay in the UK as a spouse. Changes to the immigration rules will be laid before Parliament to bring this policy into effect in the autumn.
Non-European migrants joining a British citizen or non-European national settled in the UK will have to demonstrate a basic command of English in order to be considered for a visa. The rules will apply to spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, same sex partners, fiancés and proposed civil partners, and will be compulsory for people applying from within the UK, as well as visa applicants overseas.
The Government believe that speaking English should be a pre-requisite for those wishing to settle here. This new English requirement for spouses will help promote the economic well-being of the UK, for example by encouraging integration and protecting public services. It will assist in removing cultural barriers, broaden opportunities for migrants and help to ensure that they are equipped to play a full part in British life.
This is only the first step. We are reviewing English language requirements across the immigration system with a view to tightening the rules further in the future. We will inform the House of our conclusions in due course.
Today’s announcement is one of a range of new measures the Government will be taking to ensure that immigration is properly controlled for the benefit of the UK. These include an annual limit on non-EEA migrants coming to the UK to live and work and measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes.
Cumbrian Shooting Incident
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the shootings that took place yesterday in Cumbria. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones will make this statement in the other place.
I know that the whole House will want to join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to everybody touched by yesterday’s tragic events. In particular, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who were so senselessly killed and injured in the shootings. We also send our thoughts to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is in Cumbria today, in his constituency. He represents communities that have been touched by tragedy too many times in recent months—but they are strong communities and I know they will bear these sad events with dignity and fortitude.
I would also like to pay tribute to the police and emergency services. In my short time as Home Secretary I have been struck by the bravery, professionalism and sense of duty that police officers demonstrate every single day. Yesterday, the men and women of Cumbria constabulary—aided by the civil nuclear constabulary, neighbouring police forces and the other emergency services—showed these qualities in abundance. They have the support and admiration of the whole House as they go about rebuilding the lives of the people of Cumbria.
I spoke yesterday to Chief Constable Craig Mackey, and we talked again this morning. He has told me that his force is now conducting a full and thorough investigation to find out exactly what happened, how and why. More than 100 detectives have been assigned to the task. Their investigation will look into Derrick Bird’s history, his access to firearms and the motivations for his actions.
As I said yesterday, while the police investigation is ongoing, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any details beyond what has been released by Cumbria constabulary, but I would like to tell the House what I can.
Twelve people were killed yesterday, in addition to Derrick Bird. There were 11 casualties who were being or have been treated in hospitals in Whitehaven, Carlisle and Newcastle. Of those, four are stable, four are comfortable and three have been discharged. The police are confirming the identity of those who died, and names are being released by Cumbria constabulary as and when formal identification is confirmed and immediate family have been informed. More than 30 family liaison officers have been working throughout the night to identify formally the 12 people who were killed and notify their relatives. The police investigation is being led by a major incident group from the police headquarters in Penrith, and there are 30 different crime scenes.
Derrick Bird’s body was located in woodland near Boot at around 1.40 pm yesterday. No shots were fired by police officers. At this stage, the police believe that he took his own life. Two weapons were recovered by police and are being examined by forensic experts. They are a shotgun and a .22 inch rifle fitted with a telescopic sight. Derrick Bird was a licensed firearms holder. He had held a shotgun licence since 1995 and a firearms licence for a .22 inch rifle since 2007. I can now tell the House that the police have confirmed to me that his licences covered the firearms seized yesterday.
I will visit Cumbria tomorrow, together with the Prime Minister, so that I can meet Chief Constable Mackey and other senior officers in person and make sure that they have all the support that they need to complete their important work. I can also announce today that I will, if necessary, provide additional funding for Cumbria constabulary through the police special grant facility.
I spoke this morning to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has asked his Department’s emergencies management team to contact the local authorities involved to see what support and assistance they need. The Minister with responsibility for civil society, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), will talk to charities working in Cumbria and is looking at ways to provide them with extra support at a time when their work will be vital in helping the community to recover.
Undoubtedly, yesterday’s killings will prompt a debate about our country’s gun laws. That is understandable and, indeed, right and proper, but it would be wrong to react before we know the full facts. Today we must remember the innocent people who were taken from us as they went about their lives. Then we must allow the police time to complete their investigations. When the police have reported, the Government will enter into, and lead, that debate. We will engage with all interested parties and consider all the options, and we will make sure that hon. Members have the opportunity to contribute. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the best way to ensure that Members have such an opportunity before the summer recess.
Mass killings such as those that we saw yesterday are fortunately extremely rare in our country, but that does not make them any less painful, and it does not mean that we should not do everything that we can to stop them happening again, so where there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them, and where there are changes to be made, we will make them. But for now, let us wish the injured victims a speedy recovery, remember the 12 innocent lives that were taken, and pray for the families and friends left behind.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It seems perverse to welcome the Home Secretary to her first outing at the Dispatch Box, given the awful and tragic circumstances that have led to this unscheduled appearance, but we wish her well in her demanding job, and I thank her for providing me with a copy of her statement in advance. I join her in sending condolences to the families and friends of those killed yesterday, and we send our heartfelt hope that those who have been wounded recover from their injuries. As she says, the police and the emergency services have performed magnificently, and on behalf of those on the Labour Benches, I, too, pay tribute to the dedication and skill of those involved.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary’s ability to answer questions at this stage will be limited, given the ongoing police inquiries, so I will limit my remarks to a few areas on which I believe it may be fruitful to concentrate attention. As the Home Secretary said, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) is quite rightly with his constituents and cannot be with us in the House. I spoke to him yesterday and again this morning, and he makes the point that while we should not rush to change firearm laws, we should at least review them in the light of this case. Does the Home Secretary agree?
In particular, we may need to focus on the question of follow-up checks. Does the Home Secretary think that they are adequate, and does she agree that there may be a need for a greater role for GPs and the NHS? She will know that while there is a role for the applicant’s family doctor before a firearms certificate is issued, there seems to be little involvement thereafter to ensure that the certificate holder’s mental health, in particular, is not deteriorating.
Cumbria constabulary is, I know, an excellent force achieving excellent results. I am sure that it will be examining the whole question of response times and whether there was anything more that it could have done in the dreadful circumstances with which it was presented yesterday. As the Home Secretary says, such incidents are thankfully rare, but she will know that since the Mumbai massacre, our counter-terrorism capability has put in place strategies to deal with such an eventuality. Is she happy that the expertise and knowledge being assembled in this area is being disseminated across all forces, so that it can apply equally in a non-terrorist related incident, which is what the incident in west Cumbria appears to be? Does she think that a small, rural force such as Cumbria is properly equipped to deal with events that are more often predicted to happen in urban areas?
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday about doing anything that he could to help Cumbria police, who have had to deal with a series of tragic events. The House will recall the death of PC Bill Barker last year in the dreadful floods that badly hit the area. I am pleased to hear about the help that the Home Secretary will provide through the special grant facility; that is indeed good news. Presumably, she is confident that it will cover all that Cumbria police need for the ongoing investigations, and indeed what they may need for counselling for those officers directly affected.
The Prime Minister also rightly praised the work of the NHS, and in particular West Cumberland hospital. My hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington (Tony Cunningham) have today written to the Secretary of State for Health—who, I am pleased to see, is present—about the uncertainty over future funding for that hospital. That needs to be resolved quickly; the hospital’s work is difficult enough at this time without those continuing problems.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has asked me to express his thanks, on behalf of the community that he represents, for all the expressions of support that he has received from across the House. These are dark times for a strong and close-knit community, renowned for the beauty of its surroundings and the warmth and friendliness of its people. They will recover from these recent tragedies, but the help and support of everyone in this House and of those whom we represent will be essential to that process. The Home Secretary can certainly be assured of our support as she seeks to find answers to the questions raised by these tragic events.
Mrs May
May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome to me in my new position, and for his closing remarks about the willingness of the Opposition to provide support as we take these difficult matters through the House? We will all be searching for answers that will help to ensure that such incidents cannot happen again, but as I said, and as he acknowledged, in the current circumstances there is a limit to the extent to which I can answer questions, and the extent to which any of us should jump to conclusions about what is necessary. However, as I said, that does not mean that once the full facts are available to us, we should not look at them and see what action can be taken. That covers a number of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about follow-up checks. As he acknowledged, there is involvement of GPs and, further, there is the issue of individuals who have particular medical conditions applying for a firearms licence. He raised a number of other issues, and asked about ensuring that police forces learn from the expertise that is being built up in the centre as a result of counter-terrorism work. Of course, there is always room for ensuring that good practice is spread across our police forces and for ensuring that they learn from experiences elsewhere.
As regards the proper equipment for the Cumbria force, I spoke to the chief constable on a number of occasions yesterday and this morning, and he has assured me that although there were issues with the force not having equipment available—it did not have a helicopter, for example—it was able to use a helicopter from the Lancashire force that was made available to it. It had offers of help from a number of forces, including Lancashire, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, and Dumfries and Galloway, and from the civil nuclear constabulary, to which I referred in my statement, and which is based at Sellafield. From what I have heard from the chief constable, I am confident that the force has had resources available to it, and indeed other forces are continuing to make resources available to it for the ongoing investigation.
This is, of course, an event the like of which Cumbria force has never seen before. The force has very low levels of crime and, obviously, a largely rural area to police, but I am confident that support has been provided by neighbouring forces, where they are able to help, and that will be ongoing.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned West Cumberland hospital, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who is present, has heard the points that were made, and is indeed aware of that hospital, having visited it himself.
I spoke to the hon. Member for Copeland yesterday. He has obviously been considerably shaken by the events in his constituency, as any Member would be, particularly in a tight-knit rural community such as he represents—and we should all pay tribute to the calm and measured way in which he has dealt with the incidents in interviews and in the other remarks that he has made.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), with whom I have been in touch, is of course in his constituency, but speaking on behalf of a neighbouring Cumbrian constituency, may I tell my right hon. Friend that we here in the House and elsewhere quite rightly express shock, but that in Cumbria this is something that touches every life? I also thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that she is taking. She speaks and acts for all of us.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. That part of the country has been sorely hit by incidents in the past few months, but its people are people of fortitude who will, I am sure, come through, with their strength. However, they will need support, and we stand ready, through various Departments, to provide that support. Our thoughts are with all the people of Cumbria, who will have been deeply touched by those events.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
After what has been described as the blackest day in Cumbria’s history, now is the time for people to grieve. However, will the Home Secretary assure me that everything that can be done will be done to help and support those communities affected, and that in time there will be the fullest inquiry?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is correct about the impact on Cumbria. As I indicated in my statement, a number of Departments stand ready to provide extra support to Cumbria constabulary, local authorities and local charities, because the police investigation is not the only necessary process in this incident; many people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said, have been touched by the incident will require and look for support and help. We are making every effort to ensure that that is available through local authorities and other bodies that can be of genuine assistance to people.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
The Labour Government in 2005 rather clumsily tried to force police forces together. However, Lancashire and Cumbria constabularies were willing to work together, in particular because of the difficulties in delivering protective services throughout the vast spaces of Cumbria and north Lancashire. Will the Home Secretary look again at merging protective services, or offer some support to allow that to happen, so that in future Cumbria and Lancashire can ensure that they get the best value and deliver the right policing to the right parts of the country?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am currently looking into those matters, and there is considerable benefit in greater collaboration between forces on protective services. As I said earlier, forces have been willing to support Cumbria constabulary, but there is a longer-term issue concerning protective services. My hon. Friend spoke of force mergers, and we were quite clear about opposing the attempts to merge forces. Some forces might look for voluntary mergers, and I would be willing to look at that, provided that it is the will of the local community. That is absolutely crucial.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her tribute to the Cumbrian people. Speaking as a new Cumbrian MP, and as a constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), I must say that her words will be very much appreciated up there. I also associate myself with her tribute, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), to the work of emergency services.
At a time like this, and after seeing the tragedy that unfolded, we in the House feel the acute limitations of government, and the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that there must be a period of reflection, and indeed grief. However, will she assure us that in the Government’s consideration of the issue they will look not only at firearms legislation but at the capacity, such as there is, to review community mental health services in order to understand how an apparently reserved member of the community suddenly snapped and became capable of such evil deeds?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The issue of mental health capacity might come out more fully as a result of the investigation, but as yet we cannot say exactly what caused that individual to undertake those actions. We must ensure that we know the full facts before we jump to conclusions. All I would say is that all parts of the House have for some time recognised the necessity for a wider debate about mental health in our society. As for the actions that could or should be taken as a result of what has happened, when we know the full facts we will genuinely look at this issue with a view to taking what action is necessary.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
May I, on behalf of my party and all elected representatives from the north-west, associate myself with all the condolences and expressions of support for all those affected by these tragic events? That beautiful part of the country has been disfigured by inexplicable, senseless and horrible violence. Death has rarely seemed so arbitrary. I welcome the assurances and positive help from the Secretary of State, and I praise the actions of the emergency services and the many formal and informal networks that will surely be needed—but will the Secretary of State explain how a simple taxi driver could possibly justify the apparently lawful possession of such a formidable and devastating arsenal for such a time? What, if anything, can prevent such things from happening again?
Mrs May
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he invites me to go into details, and down a road, that at this stage I do not feel able to embark on. Indeed, it would not be right for me to do so. He raises a question that will doubtlessly be in the minds of many people who look at those events, but it is right for us to wait for the police investigation and for their presentation of the full facts. Then it will be possible for us to debate the issues that he raised in his question.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House so soon to give us her statement, and I, like the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), other local MPs and the right hon. Lady, acknowledge how vital it is to establish the facts before we rush to judgment. However, while the police investigation is ongoing, will she look at one particular aspect of the matter, which may be unrelated to the circumstances but is related to firearms—the recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament on minimum sentences for those who possess firearms? I am sure that she will look at all the legislation and review everything, but in the meantime can she assure us that when we have the full facts she will return to the House with a full statement?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I do intend to keep the House informed as further information becomes available and we have the full facts. As part of the coalition agreement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice will undertake a review of sentencing policy, and I am sure that in that review the Committee’s report will be brought to his attention.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, should lessons need to be learned from this terrible tragedy about the adequate response times of armed rapid-reaction forces, they will be learned and implemented forthwith, not only in Cumbria but throughout the country?
Mrs May
I assure my right hon. Friend that when we have had an opportunity to look at the full facts of this case, we intend to learn any lessons that come out of it. On the issue to which he alludes, I have spoken to the chief constable about the reaction times that were available. My right hon. Friend, and others, will be aware that there are particular circumstances in Cumbria involving its geography, and the knowledge of the local area of the individual concerned in this incident, Derrick Bird. Of course operational matters are for the police, but I assure my right hon. Friend that if there are any lessons to be learned, they will be.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her very measured statement. I do not think that words can really describe the horror of what happened yesterday. Does she agree that we already have the most stringent gun control laws in Europe, and that before making any changes, or doing anything that she thinks may be done, we should consider this in the widest and most measured way possible so that we do not stop people who legitimately use weapons for sport and in other legitimate ways, and do not have an automatic knee-jerk response? I very much welcome the fact that she wants to see all the facts before we make any decisions or even start to discuss this.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady is right that we have among the most stringent gun regulations in Europe. We must not respond immediately by taking a decision as to what is necessary, but wait until we know the full facts and then take the opportunity to look at the results of the police investigation, to consider what has happened in this incident and to ask ourselves whether there are lessons to be learned and whether we need to take further action. I am very clear that we must not have a knee-jerk reaction to this incident, but it is right to look at it properly in due course and take any decisions that are necessary. As I say, it would be my intention, subject to others, to provide an opportunity for Members of this House to debate these issues before the summer recess.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of those in this country who enjoy shooting will share her dismay at the events in Cumbria and will want to send their condolences, too? I very much welcome her statement that she will resist calls for a knee-jerk response to these incidents and will bear in mind the interests of the many thoroughly responsible shooters who wish to continue to enjoy their sport.
Mrs May
I do indeed accept that, as my hon. Friend says, there are many responsible shooters in the UK who will have been as appalled by these events in Cumbria yesterday as everybody else was. As I indicated in my previous answer, it is right that we should have an opportunity to consider these issues, but we should do so only when we have the full facts—when the police have been able to investigate and we know as much as we can about the events that took place in Cumbria. We must not leap to conclusions before we have those facts.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that today is a day for remembering the innocent victims. May I, on behalf of my party colleagues, extend our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who have been murdered, and to the wider community in Cumbria as well? May I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), and other local Members, about the need for continuing help for the area to assist the police, statutory agencies and charities as they continue with their important work in helping the communities through this awful time?
Mrs May
Indeed. I think we all recognise in this House that there are two jobs to be done: one is the police investigation, but the other is the need to provide support to the local communities in Cumbria so that they can recover from the terrible tragedy that has occurred. It is right that we recognise that there is a role for central Government and for local government in that, but there is also a role for others, including charities, many of which will be best positioned and best able to offer the sort of support, counselling, advice and practical help that people will need.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the strong legislation surrounding firearms at the moment, will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that she will not rule out the possibility of the complete prohibition of the private ownership of firearms as the best way of preventing such atrocities in future?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do precisely what I have said that I will not do, and leap to conclusions. As I said, we will aim to give the House an opportunity to debate these issues, and I am sure that when that time comes the hon. Gentleman will want to make his views known to the House in rather fuller detail. At the moment, however, it is right, before we jump to conclusions, to wait until we know the full facts and can learn from what has happened.