Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what would happen. Those who say that they want a second referendum would actually be denying the will of the people, because people voted for us to leave the European Union. We are going to go out there and get the best possible deal.

Waiting to hold the next election in 2020, as scheduled, would mean that the negotiations would reach their most difficult and sensitive stage just as an election was looming on the horizon. A general election will provide the country with five years of strong and stable leadership to see us through the negotiations and ensure we are able to go on to make a success of the result. That is crucial. That is the test. It is not solely about how we leave the European Union; it is what we do with the opportunity that Brexit provides that counts.

Leaving the EU offers us a unique, once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape a brighter future for Britain. We need the leadership provided by a strong and stable Government to seize it: a Government who have a plan for a stronger Britain, a Government with the determination to see it through, and a Government who will take the right long-term decisions to deliver a more secure future for Britain. The Conservative party I lead is determined to be that Government.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that, having tried her best to build a reputation for political integrity both as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, she is now seen, after all the denials that there would be a snap election, simply as a political opportunist?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not denied the fact that when I came into this role as Prime Minister, I was clear that what the country needed was stability and a Government who would show that they would deliver on the vote people had made in the referendum on leaving the EU. We have provided that over the last nine months. Now it is clear to me that if we are to have the strongest possible hand in the negotiation, we should have an election now. As I have just said, leaving the election to 2020 would mean that we would be coming to the most sensitive and critical part of the negotiations in the run-up to a general election. That would be in nobody’s interests.

I have said that the Conservative party I lead is determined to be that Government who have the determination to see through our plan for a stronger Britain. We are determined to provide that leadership, and determined to bring stability to the United Kingdom for the long term. That is what the election will be about: leadership and stability.

Article 50

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In the negotiations, I want reciprocal rights for EU citizens and UK citizens. It is not just about what time we say should be allotted for that discussion; it will be for the remaining 27 member states of the EU to negotiate with us on that. We need reciprocity, but I believe that there is good will, so I am hopeful that we will be able to start this discussion at an early stage of negotiations.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Given the reference of some Members to the British people, is it not important to recognise that a large majority of this country’s people are not fanatically for or against the UK being in the European Union? If we want to bring the people together, as the Prime Minister says she does, that should very much be borne in mind. If, during the negotiations undertaken by her predecessor, we had seen some flexibility from the European Union over the free movement of labour, is it not quite likely that we would not be debating this issue now?

[The Prime Minister]

David Cameron put an enormous effort, as did others across Government, into the negotiations leading to the deal that he brought to the British people. The hon. Gentleman’s assumption is that the only issue on which people voted was free movement, but I do not think that is right. I think that wanting control over our borders was one key issue, but it was also about more than that, including control of our laws, control of our money and self-determination. That was what was driving the decision.

London Attack

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have been struck by the number of messages I have received from a number of foreign leaders to whom I have spoken in which they have been absolutely clear that we stand together in defiance, as he says, but also in ensuring that we will defeat this evil.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

We recognise the immense bravery of all concerned yesterday, but should we not also recognise that, unfortunately, terror attacks are likely to continue for years to come and, needless to say, this country is not unique in Europe, let alone elsewhere, in having such onslaughts against us. Arising from what the Prime Minister said, may I just tell her that, during all the years of sustained IRA bombing, I as a Member of Parliament did not receive any letters at all or have anyone come to my surgery telling me that we should change our policy in combating terrorism? I have to say that illustrates once again that our people are simply not appeasers.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe the British public stand with this Parliament in wanting to see us in defiance of terrorists, defeating the terrorists and showing that the values of democracy and the rule of law—the values of free people everywhere—underpin our way of life. I think people recognise that, and they want to see this House endorse it.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can honestly say to my hon. Friend that I did not detect any such support in the European Council.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The country is almost evenly divided about leaving the EU, so how will the Prime Minister try to resolve that? I have not known the country to be so divided since Suez in 1956.

[The Prime Minister]

This House chose to give a vote to the British people in the referendum on 23 June, and the people of the United Kingdom voted in that referendum. The majority voted for the UK to leave the European Union. When I talk to people who voted to leave and to those who voted to remain, the overwhelming message is that they now want the Government to get on with the job of delivering on that vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the whole team at Morley Academy on receiving the award, which I think shows the work that the GORSE Academies Trust is doing to drive up excellence and improve outcomes for pupils. We are determined to drive up standards in schools to ensure that more children have good school places—a good school place for every child—so that they can all reach the sort of level we see at Morley Academy.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Q14. How will the thousands of people who lost their jobs at British Home Stores feel about the fact that it may take years before the case of Philip Green, the totally discredited and disgraced businessperson, results in his knighthood being taken away or otherwise? Is it not remarkable? People lose their jobs and suffer all the consequences, but this man keeps his billions and his knighthood.

European Council 2016

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We want to see other countries step up to the plate. This country is spending 2% of its budget on defence; we think that others should be doing the same, and I have been encouraging them to do so.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is clear that there are many differences among Conservative Members over freedom of movement, but is it not also clear that if the free movement of labour continued, it would make a mockery of a majority decision made by the British people in a referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, I think one of the things that underlay the vote was people’s desire to see the British Government control immigration from the European Union. If the hon. Gentleman does not think freedom of movement should continue, I suggest that he talk to his own Front Benchers about it.

Prime Minister

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister

- Hansard -

As I mentioned earlier in response to a question, one aspect of the vote on 23 June was that people want us to control movement from the European Union into the UK, and, of course, we are already able to control movement from outside the European Union into the United Kingdom. The details of the system we will introduce for EU citizens are currently being worked on, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will have the ability to control movement from the EU and movement from outside the EU, and therefore bring that greater degree of fairness that I think people were looking for.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Q6. How can the Prime Minister try to justify reducing the House of Commons to 600 Members, while the House of Lords now has 820 Members and, certainly by 2020, will have even more? Is this her idea of democracy in the 21st century? (906344)

The Prime Minister

- Hansard -

Of course, the House of Commons voted for that reduction in the number of Members of Parliament—I think people wanted to see that. I would gently remind him that, when he refers to the House of Lords and changes in the House of Lords, it is actually this Government who have introduced the retirement procedures for the House of Lords that have seen a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I mentioned earlier in response to a question, one aspect of the vote on 23 June was that people want us to control movement from the European Union into the UK, and, of course, we are already able to control movement from outside the European Union into the United Kingdom. The details of the system we will introduce for EU citizens are currently being worked on, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will have the ability to control movement from the EU and movement from outside the EU, and therefore bring that greater degree of fairness that I think people were looking for.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Q6. How can the Prime Minister try to justify reducing the House of Commons to 600 Members, while the House of Lords now has 820 Members and, certainly by 2020, will have even more? Is this her idea of democracy in the 21st century?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, the House of Commons voted for that reduction in the number of Members of Parliament—I think people wanted to see that. I would gently remind him that, when he refers to the House of Lords and changes in the House of Lords, it is actually this Government who have introduced the retirement procedures for the House of Lords that have seen a reduction in the number of Members of the House of Lords.

Orlando Attack: UK Security Measures

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. He is absolutely right that dealing with that level of ignorance is crucial to ensuring that we do not see these sorts of attitudes and that we are able to deal with them.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On gun controls, are we not fortunate that legislation was brought in during the closing years of the last century, which has, to say the least, been very good for the country? I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned Bangladesh. Is it not the case that in recent weeks, gays, atheists and free thinkers have all been murdered? While deploring the terrible atrocity that happened in the US on Sunday, we should not forget for a moment what has been happening in Bangladesh and other places—people murdered by Islamists just because those Islamists disagree with their sexuality or lack of religion, as the case may be.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have some of the toughest, if not the toughest, gun controls in the world. Those, of course, were born out of tragedy here in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is also right that although the size of the attack in Orlando was significant—the biggest loss of life in a mass shooting in the US—atrocities are also being undertaken elsewhere in the world in the name of this terrible warped Islamist ideology. That is why it is so important for us to defeat that ideology.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend does well in speaking for his constituents who work at GCHQ, and indeed for all who work at GCHQ. Obviously, I have met and dealt with a number of them, and with our other security agencies such as the Secret Intelligence Service and MI5. I can confirm what my hon. Friend says—these people act with extreme professionalism in the work they do, and take extreme care with the powers they exercise. They are very conscious of the powers they hold and they are very careful in the exercise of them. As my hon. Friend says, the Bill provides the important strong oversight arrangements that will enable the people at GCHQ and our other agencies to get on with the job they do so well, day in and day out.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

However much we all agree that action is necessary to combat terrorism and other forms of criminality, I remain concerned, even if I am one of only a few who is, about the excessive powers that will be given to the security authorities in addition to what they already have, although judicial involvement is better than no judicial involvement. I hope the Home Secretary will bear in mind the fact that there is a good deal of concern outside this House. I certainly believe that if this measure were to be passed without substantial amendment, it would be unfortunate and a bitter blow for civil liberties.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman says that he thinks there are substantial new powers in the Bill, but I have to tell him that there are not. What the Bill primarily does is to bring together the powers that are spread across a number of pieces of legislation—mainly RIPA, but others too—into one single piece of legislation in a much clearer and more comprehensible form than has previously been the case. There is a new power in respect of the retention of the internet connection—with limited access to internet connection records—but the other powers in the Bill already exist. What it will do is strengthen safeguards and strengthen authorisation systems.

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, I am going to use the word “change”. The legislative framework in which these matters are dealt with has changed over the years—more than once, I suspect, but most recently in 2000, with the introduction of RIPA, which contained a number of safeguards in relation to these matters. As I have indicated, and as the IPT repeated, the draft code, which was published in February 2015, makes very clear that particular care has to be taken if it is proposed that certain communications of certain categories of people should be intercepted.

These matters touch on the wider debate about the balance between privacy and national security, and the first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens. I have repeatedly stated my determination to ensure that the police and security agencies have the powers, support and capabilities they need to keep us safe.

In recent years, however, we have seen many wild and inaccurate allegations about the extent of surveillance carried out by the agencies, the legality of the intelligence agencies’ actions and the effectiveness of the oversight of their actions. Recently, three independent reviews have considered the investigatory powers used by the police and security agencies.

In March, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its “Privacy and Security” report, which set out a comprehensive review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy frameworks that govern their use. In June, David Anderson published his report on the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and the separate issue of communications data. This summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), reported on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes and assessed how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

What the Home Secretary quoted from Harold Wilson’s response to a question from Tom Driberg was, of course, correct, but he also said, in the same answer:

“I am aware of all the considerations which I had to take into account and I felt that it was right to lay down the policy of no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]

Surely the point is that neither he nor successive Prime Ministers—nor, indeed, Ministers in any other Department—have made a statement changing what was said by Lord Wilson.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman refers to Lord Wilson’s statement, from which I correctly quoted with regard to changes.

The three reviews represent a substantial independent review of the frameworks and oversight governing the use of investigatory powers. As the three reports make clear, the use of investigatory powers by the police and the security and intelligence agencies is absolutely vital for national security, in the fight against crime, and if we are to protect the people of this country from harm.

In addition to those reports, I today welcome the fact that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found no suggestion of improper activity by our security and intelligence agencies. I am pleased to say, once again, that an independent tribunal has declared their activity lawful, and I am grateful for this opportunity to put on record our gratitude to the men and women who, necessarily out of the limelight, do so much to keep the people of this country safe.

The Wilson doctrine recognises the special nature of parliamentary communications and affords parliamentarians important protections. However, as I have said, it can never be the case that MPs can consider themselves above the law. That is a position I hope the whole House can well understand. It is right and proper that we are discussing these issues today, and I look forward to hearing the remaining contributions to this debate.

Anderson Report

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The overwhelming majority of the population at the time would no doubt have supported 90 days pre-charge detention. It is the job of the House of Commons to determine what is right—to get the right balance between the acute danger of terrorism and civil liberties, not to talk about what the large majority of the public may or may not want. We are elected to make the decision that we consider to be correct. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary intends to bring in a measure—rightly, in my view, described as the snoopers charter—which the previous Government could not introduce in the last Parliament because their coalition partner would not agree? As far as I am concerned—obviously, there will be a good deal of controversy about this—the snoopers charter is a greater affront to civil liberties than any measure that has been introduced or proposed in recent years.

[Mrs May]

The response I give on that misnomer of a piece of legislation is the same as I gave the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry): it is no such thing as it has been described. It is about ensuring merely that, as matters increasingly move into the digital age, the agencies are able to have access to the same sort of data as they have had access to in the past, which is used in the vast majority of serious crime cases—not just in investigation, but in bringing prosecutions of serious criminals—and in counter-terrorism investigations.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the 90 days of pre-charge detention. I point out to him that the Conservative party opposed that measure, and I remind him that it was his Labour Government who introduced 28 days of pre-charge detention, and the coalition Government who reduced it to 14 days.

Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course, we are reintroducing exit checks. A certain amount of advance passenger information is available from airlines. We are looking at other ports of departure and the information that can be available. As I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, exit checks will be in place in April of this year.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am not aware that the media have made a hero of the individual who has been mentioned today, but is it not important to make it absolutely clear from this Parliament, not just from the Government, that the person who is responsible for the beheading of kidnapped British citizens should be brought to justice in whatever form is necessary and however long it takes?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we wish to bring to justice the individual who is responsible for the beheading of British hostages. There is an ongoing police investigation into that case and that is why I am not commenting any further on it. However, he is absolutely right that that individual should be brought to justice.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him and a number of other MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is not in the Chamber—[Interruption.] He is in a different place from normal. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) have all been particularly active in dealing with this issue, and I commend them for their work.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is absolutely right. My intention, hope and expectation is that the inquiry will now be able to get up and running, and to undertake the work it needs to do to bring truth and justice to the people who, sadly, have suffered from these terrible crimes. As I said in my statement, what I am announcing today will not be supported 100% by everybody. I hope, however, that everybody accepts that we need to get the inquiry under way, and that we need to support those involved—Justice Goddard and the panel members, when they are selected—to ensure that they can do the job we all want them to do.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the chair, since I will be at the pre-appointment hearing next Tuesday. May I say to the Home Secretary that although the inquiry—I hope it will get under way very shortly—should obviously be as thorough as possible, it should not go on endlessly for years and become another Chilcot? The people who have suffered so much, about whom the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary spoke very eloquently, deserve a conclusion. That is why it is so essential for the inquiry to come to a conclusion well within, say, 12 months.

[Mrs May]

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the inquiry coming to a conclusion well within 12 months. I think that it will take longer than 12 months, but, as he said, it is important that it does not go on endlessly, seemingly being pushed ever and ever further into the future, with no report. This will of course be for the chairman of the inquiry to determine, but my own view is that it would be helpful to set a date by which a report will be made, even if at that point the inquiry says that it needs to do further work in certain areas. People need to see that there will be a report. Indeed, the inquiry will need to consider how to keep people updated on an ongoing basis during its work so that they do not feel that it is just going on behind closed doors.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The inquiry will be looking into significant issues and it will not be able to come to decisions in a short space of time. However, the panel members I have spoken to are clear—as am I—that they should recognise the need for striking a balance between getting to decisions and ensuring that they are doing the full job. This is not an inquiry that should simply be pushed into the long grass, and we need to have some answers for the survivors within a reasonable period of time. I have said before in the House that the inquiry panel, under the new chairman, will have to look into whether they report to survivors and survivors groups, to this House and more widely on a more ongoing basis than would normally be the case, because of the nature of the issues that they are dealing with.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I do not for one moment doubt the Home Secretary’s commitment to holding a thorough inquiry, but does she acknowledge that if someone had set out to wreck the whole process from the very beginning, that person could not have done a more effective job than this? I hope she recognises that this is a tragedy. It goes beyond Ministers or Back Benchers or anything of the kind. As far as the survivors are concerned, what has occurred is a tragedy—first, when they were abused, and now with what appears, to them at least, to have been a farce since the inquiry was established.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that survivors will rightly be concerned to ensure that the panel inquiry is established on the basis on which they wish it to be established, with a chairman, and that it gets on with its role. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, when the inquiry was first established, it was based on the model that we had used for the Hillsborough inquiry, which had been very successful. We felt that that was an appropriate model to use in the circumstances. In discussions with survivors and others, however, it became clear—particularly from the survivors—that they felt that statutory powers were needed, which is why I have indicated that when the inquiry continues under a new chairman, it will do so on a statutory basis.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

What makes some of us uneasy about temporary exclusion orders—I was certainly uneasy about them from the very beginning—is that excessive powers are being given without the individual having legal redress. I hope that one does not have to say that one is against terrorism and loathes every form of criminality, when we see what is happening with terrorism and what is happening in Australia. That does not alter the fact that these powers should be subject to some form of legal redress, and it is unfortunate that they will not be.

[Mrs May]

They are subject to a form of legal redress; it is called judicial review. The debate has not been about whether there is some form of legal redress available to individuals but about whether there should be an automatic court process after a decision has been made by the Secretary of State.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene again.

[Mr Winnick]

The judicial process comes afterwards, and it can be very complex for the individual concerned. What I am saying is that if the Secretary of State is going to take powers such as temporary exclusion orders, those powers should be subject to a court order, and the arguments should be put in court. There may be some obvious restrictions for reasons that have been stated, but at least they are all part of living under the rule of law.

[Mrs May]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the power to remove a passport from an individual—the royal prerogative power—is not subject to an automatic court process. This is more akin to that royal prerogative exercise in the removal of a passport than it is to the imposition of the sort of measures that can be within the terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating North Yorkshire police on the work they have done on this new street triage scheme in York, and indeed the other local parties who have made it possible. The changes the Government have introduced through the street triage pilots, which are now being taken up by a number of other forces, are having a significant impact on the way the police are dealing with people with mental health problems. That presence of a health care professional means that in many force areas we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of people who are being taken to a police cell as a place of safety. That is better for not only the police, but, crucially, the individuals themselves.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In condemning, like everybody else, the barbaric murder carried by out by the ISIS gangsters, would the Home Secretary consider that the various aspects of the counter-terrorism Bill the Prime Minister referred to in Australia should be examined by various Committees of this House, particularly the Home Affairs Committee? Does she accept that there must be concern about police officers, instead of her, having the right to take away passports and about the whole question of whether people should be rendered stateless? I do not minimise the danger of those returning from Syria, but I hope the Home Secretary will bear it in mind that there are implications that should be examined by the various Committees.

[Mrs May]

When we publish the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see the details of our proposals, including on the temporary seizure of passports, which I have spoken about, as has the Prime Minister. The Bill will, of course, receive proper scrutiny in this House and in another place as it goes through its various stages. I do not think it is the job of the Home Secretary to suggest to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee whether or not he should have an inquiry into this Bill. I have noticed that the Home Affairs Committee is not backward in coming forward on looking at matters the Government propose.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We will consider a variety of names for the chair. He and others have suggested that we should look at taking someone from within the panel itself, but as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has said, there may be other suggestions that Members wish to make. It is a fine judgment, and I want to ensure that the person who is appointed has our full confidence and can carry on the work of the inquiry. But, as my hon. Friend has also said, that process must not take so long that it becomes difficult for the individual to pick up the work of the inquiry. We will be operating in the knowledge of both those aspects.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Whatever the distinguished legal experience was of the two people originally chosen, why did the Home Secretary decide to restrict her choice to a very small part of Westminster? On reflection, would it not have been better for her to have consulted on this serious issue—as she intends to do now, which I very much welcome—from the very start?

[Mrs May]

I did not restrict my choice, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to a very small part of Westminster. As I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), we also looked outside the United Kingdom, and I am willing to do that again.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

What this Government are doing is putting into legislation the powers that we believe it is important for us to have so that we can protect the British public. I know that my right hon. Friend has some difficulties with some aspects of what the Government are doing. I think it is right that we continue with the powers that we have had to enable us to protect the public, keep people safe and ensure that we catch criminals, terrorists and paedophiles.

Action is needed to ensure that we maintain the capabilities that protect us from those who would do us harm. The Bill provides the legal clarity needed to ensure that the use of those capabilities can be maintained by doing two things: first, by providing the legal basis for us to oblige domestic companies to continue to retain communications data; and secondly, by putting beyond doubt the application of the law of interception to all companies that provide communication services to people in the UK, regardless of where they are based.

When I made my statement to the House last Thursday, I received considerable support from Members on both sides of the House. I am extremely grateful for that support and would like to pay tribute to everyone who has shown willingness to work together on an issue as important as the protection of the public. In doing so, let me also thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which I gave evidence to yesterday and which wrote last night to say that it supported the legislation. He indicated that he was sure that a successor Committee would want to look carefully at any legislation that was brought forward, but I am grateful to the Committee for its support on this particular matter.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, so I will allow him to intervene.

[Mr Winnick]

That was, of course, on a majority vote, and I was reminded that in the last Parliament the Home Affairs Committee endorsed 42 days’ pre-charge detention, which obviously I voted against. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) was the Chair at the time and, if I may say so, he is a very good chap indeed, but he knows where the wind blows.

[Mrs May]

That sounds to me like something that is best left between the hon. Gentleman and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. Prudence suggests that I should move on rather than respond to that.

We have just had a debate on the business motion, in which my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration set out the reason for the timing of this legislation, so I will not go into that in detail, but I will talk about the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is short and narrowly focused and provides a limited response to a set of specific challenges. Clause 1 provides the clear legal basis for us to oblige domestic companies to retain certain types of communications data. Currently, those communications data are retained by communication service providers under the data retention regulations passed by Parliament in 2009, which implemented the EU data retention directive in the UK.

Although we are confident that those regulations remain in force, following the ECJ judgment, we must put beyond doubt the need for CSPs to continue to retain communications data, as they have been doing until now. If we do not do so, we run the risk of losing access to those data, which, as I have said, are vital for day-to-day policing. Our very strong data protection laws mean that, in the absence of a legal duty to retain specific data, companies must delete data that are not required beyond their strict business uses. The loss of those data would be potentially devastating. As I said earlier, it would impact seriously on the ability of the police, law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, solve kidnappings, find vulnerable people in danger, uncover terrorist links and protect children.

Communications Data and Interception

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right and, as he says, he has the experience of membership of the Home Affairs Committee and of sitting on the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill. We are maintaining a capability, and as I indicated in reference to cases in my statement, and as the shadow Home Secretary indicated in reference to cases in her response, we have seen murders and serious crimes where the access to communications data has been vital in order to solve those and bring the perpetrators to justice.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite what she has said, there are great misgivings, which I share, about the legislation being rushed through next week? I will not support it, and I think it is quite wrong that such important legislation affecting criminality, terrorism and civil liberties should be rushed through in a single day. Those on the Front Benches agree, but that does not mean that all of us have to agree as well. Does she accept—

HM Passport Office

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am sure that every Member wants to help the constituents who have come to them with concerns, and they should indeed be doing that. We have increased the number of people who are available on the general helpline to individuals who wish to make inquiries about their passports, as I said, by some 650 members of staff. Previously, the figure was 350. Of course, all Members of Parliament recognise that people get in touch with their MPs about this issue because they have a genuine concern about what is happening to their passports. That is why we are addressing the issue and why the Passport Office has been addressing it over the past weeks.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that none of her feeble excuses today can explain away the sheer incompetence and shambles that have again occurred on her watch?

[Mrs May]

I fear that I will repeat what I have been saying, which is that demand is at its highest level for 12 years and the Passport Office has taken action over recent weeks to meet that demand. There is still an issue with demand. We recognise the concerns that individuals who are applying for new passports or renewals have about timing. That is why further action is being taken.

Stop-and-Search

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend and I have had discussions on these matters in the past and we take a slightly different approach to drugs and dealing with them. The Government have a very clear drugs strategy. Where he is right is that when there is a stop-and-search of somebody who is innocent and there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion or purpose behind it, it engenders exactly that distrust and lack of confidence. That is why targeting it more carefully, and changing and making absolutely clear what reasonable grounds for suspicion are, will help to address the issue.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is not the crux of the matter that a law-abiding white person is unlikely to feel that he will be subject to stop-and-search, but that that is not likely to be the position of a law-abiding black person? May I also tell the Home Secretary that in my first Parliament, which was a long time ago, Labour passed legislation to ban for the first time any form of racial discrimination? I was very proud to support that law.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has more experience in this House than me in terms of the number of years served. The first issue he raised is absolutely one of the problems. I attended a public meeting held by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in the House of Commons, when she brought people from black and ethnic minority communities to the House to talk about their experience, and they very forcefully made clear to me what that experience was. I more recently met a group of young students from a school in Wandsworth who were very clear about the impact stop-and-search has on their attitude towards the police. Their assumption is that it will happen to them, whereas, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) says, the figures show that the assumption of a young white male is that it will not happen to him.

Ellison Review

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I have said, I am considering whether any further steps are necessary in relation to the IPCC. The step I am taking, which goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend says, is asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to look at the current capability of police forces to identify and deal with corruption inside their forces. Today, we are talking about events that took place in the past, but people need to know that they can have every confidence that the police will identify and root out corruption in the future.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Since the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993—as we know, he was murdered for only one reason: the colour of his skin; that is why he was put to death—is not the very strong and justified impression that much more time was spent investigating the Lawrence family and Mr Brooks than in bringing those responsible to justice? May I simply say that a society based on the rule of law should feel thoroughly ashamed of what has been revealed in the Ellison review and of what the Home Secretary has said today? A thorough investigation into undercover policing is absolutely essential, and I welcome the public inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Since the Home Secretary has accepted that there is much understandable concern across the House about the Syrian situation, would it not be far better for the House to reach a unanimous agreement on Wednesday, instead of dividing, given that we all basically want the same outcome, which is to assist as far as possible victims of violence and terror in Syria?

[Mrs May]

Indeed, it would be good if the House could come together and send a clear message, which is why I have said we will put before the House, and ensure it is aware of, our proposal on this matter. The Foreign Secretary and I continue to work on that.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend knows, the TPIM legislation did not contain relocation provisions. As I indicated in a couple of earlier responses, gradually, over time, the courts were reducing the ability to use various measures within the control orders, and they made it clear that they were not orders on which people should be left indefinitely.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Can we work on the reasonable assumption that the Home Secretary’s spin doctors will not shortly be telling us that this happened because of that wicked man Edward Snowden or that somehow The Guardian was responsible for what occurred?

[Mrs May]

No.

Undercover Policing

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The investigation is, of course, looking into allegations that attempts were made to smear the Lawrence family, is looking widely at the operation and tasking of the special demonstration squad, and is looking at how reporting was undertaken, which I assume will include the question of who was aware of what was being done. It is clear that a number of cases are already under the supervision of the IPCC because they relate to the conduct of officers, which it is appropriate for the IPCC to consider, but I am clear, as are those involved in the investigation, that they should follow the evidence, and we must ensure that those who are guilty of wrongdoing will be brought to justice.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of the latest allegations of disgraceful conduct, as well as the names of dead children being used by police agents, and previous misconduct relating to Hillsborough—for which the Prime Minister has apologised—the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, was there not something rotten at the heart of policing for many years?

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Obviously, the mutual legal assistance agreement, which when ratified will become a treaty, provides for people other than Abu Qatada. It is a general agreement on fair trial arrangements, the exchange of information and other issues. It provides that in all cases, whether for somebody being deported to Jordan from the UK who is not Abu Qatada or for deportations the other way round.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it not obvious that this saga will continue for some time and that all the Home Secretary’s efforts have so far failed miserably to get this preacher of hatred out of Britain? Following on from an earlier question and some of the questions I have asked previously, why cannot the appropriate authorities look at prosecution in this country not just for breach of bail conditions but for some of the remarks he is alleged to have made that clearly incite race hatred? Like me, many people must find it difficult to understand why no attempt is being made to prosecute him in the United Kingdom.

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear on a number of occasions that prosecution has always been alongside the other activities that the Government are undertaking. It is looked at. At the moment, we have an active police investigation, on which it is not appropriate for me to comment. It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman’s question seems to imply, that prosecution has never previously been considered. I remind him that, as he well knows, prosecution is not a matter for the Home Secretary; it is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary found it at all embarrassing to be the centre of so much speculation about going for the top job in politics?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House, so he knows that that is not a matter relevant to the remit of the Home Office.

Police Integrity

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, I have sat down with Dame Anne Owers and talked about this issue. We must do more detailed work on exactly what resources will be required to enable the IPCC to do what we are asking, but we have started those discussions.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

These reforms are welcome; they could go further, but let us give praise for what is to be done.

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the IPCC? One factor in that is undoubtedly the number of former police officers, some of whom have held senior ranks, investigating the police. That gives the impression that the complaints body is not as genuine as it should be. Should that be looked into?

[Mrs May]

It will be for the IPCC, in discussion with the Department, to decide on the sort of people it wishes to employ in increasing its investigative capacity. In a sense, there is a slight Catch-22 situation because the very people in this country who are used to investigation, and have the skills and experience in that regard, are police officers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I welcome the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced into undercover agents. Would it not be appropriate, at this stage at least, for the Home Secretary herself to give an apology to the parents of the dead children whose names were taken for undercover policing? What happened was absolutely disgraceful; such an apology is absolutely appropriate.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that if it is indeed the case that this has happened, it is absolutely disgraceful. The investigation to establish the facts in relation to this is still ongoing. It is important that we say anything we wish to say about the facts of what has taken place following that investigation.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the good work that SOCA does, and I recognise that there is a brand issue. SOCA is being brought into the National Crime Agency and there will be a serious organised crime command within that agency. What the international parts of the NCA are called, and how they are configured with other commands in the NCA, are currently under discussion.

The National Crime Agency will be a visible, operational crime-fighting agency. It will have four commands—I have just referred to that issue—that will allow it to lead the national response on organised crime, border policing, economic crime and child exploitation. It will fulfil the coalition commitment to create a dedicated border policing command, ensuring a joined-up response to those who seek to enter the UK illegally or in order to do harm. It will be home to the national cybercrime unit, bringing together existing capabilities to keep the public safe from online threats.

The NCA will hold the single authoritative intelligence picture of organised crime affecting the United Kingdom, underpinned by strong powers and duties to ensure it can share relevant information across law enforcement bodies. Part 1 of the Bill will give the National Crime Agency the ability to task and co-ordinate the law enforcement response to organised crime. Individual police forces will continue to play an important role in tackling criminal gangs, but the NCA will ensure its resources are used in the most effective way.

To ensure the right operational response at the right level, the Bill also provides for co-operation and tasking between the NCA and police forces. I would expect agreement to be reached locally about which agency is best placed to take action against a given criminal group. Where—exceptionally—agreement cannot be reached, the Bill provides the necessary backstop powers for the NCA to direct the provision of assistance or that a particular task be undertaken.

The NCA will be operationally focused with an experienced crime fighter at its head. The Bill provides for clear governance arrangements, with an operationally independent director general answering directly to the Home Secretary for delivering the agency’s strategic priorities. Keith Bristow, the NCA’s first director general, has made it clear that to undertake his role effectively he will need an open and responsive relationship with police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Bill will ensure this by requiring that the devolved Administrations and key figures in law enforcement are consulted on the NCA’s annual plan and its strategic priorities. From the director general downwards, NCA officers will need to be equipped with the necessary powers to do their job, so the Bill provides for NCA officers to be designated with the powers of a constable, customs officer and immigration officer.

Given the vital crime-fighting role that NCA officers will have, it is inconceivable to me that their work should be disrupted through industrial action. Although my preference is to reach a no-strike agreement with the relevant unions, the Bill includes a back-stop statutory prohibition on industrial action. Few would wish to contemplate the police being able to strike, and I am pleased that in the other place no one argued against applying the same restrictions to operational NCA officers.

Before moving on to other aspects of the Bill, I want to touch on a possible future role for the NCA in respect of counter-terrorism policing. The House will be aware that the other place voted to remove what was clause 2 of the Bill, which enabled counter-terrorism policing functions to be conferred on the NCA by order. The debate in the other place was about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should be given to such a decision, not whether the NCA should take on counter-terrorism policing in the future.

I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing. I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.

I also recognise the points raised in the other place about possible future decisions on counter-terrorism policing and sensitivities in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the original clause, as drafted, provided strong protection for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to counter-terrorism policing in Northern Ireland. I will continue to reflect on the debate in the other place before deciding how best to proceed, and I am sure that the House will want to come back to this issue during the later stages of the Bill’s consideration.

As well as establishing the NCA, we need to ensure that both the NCA and its law enforcement partners have the powers they need to fight organised crime in all its manifestations. In combating fraud and other economic crimes, the Bill confers on the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service the ability to enter into deferred prosecution agreements with organisations alleged to have committed economic wrongdoing. These agreements will enable prosecutors to impose tough financial penalties and other sanctions on organisations for wrongdoing as an alternative to protracted court proceedings with uncertain outcomes.

To support the fight against immigration crime, part 3 of the Bill extends to the UK Border Agency’s financial investigation teams certain surveillance and property interference powers available under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Police Act 1997, as well as asset seizure powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under the law as it stands, there is an artificial distinction whereby these powers are available to Border Agency staff investigating customs offences, but not to those investigating immigration offences.

On the Proceeds of Crime Act, we need to ensure that our ability to seize money and assets derived from criminal conduct is not undermined by legal loopholes. I can therefore announce that we will table amendments to the Bill that will restore the civil recovery scheme to the position it was commonly understood to be in prior to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the case of Perry. In its judgment, the Court held that the scheme only applied to property within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This judgment significantly weakened the reach of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it is right that we should take action to prevent those who engage in criminal conduct here from being able to put their ill-gotten gains beyond the reach of the UK courts.

As well as strengthening enforcement at the border through the NCA and UKBA, the Bill will ensure that we can make the most effective use of resources by closing a long-standing loophole in the immigration system. Part 3 of the Bill removes the full right of appeal against refusal of an application for a visa as a family visitor. I know this provision has caused a number of hon. Members some disquiet.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It has indeed caused a great deal of disquiet and is a repeat of what happened when the Conservatives were last in office. Is it right and proper that someone refused permission to come here for a family visit is denied the right of appeal? In effect, that means that the immigration officer would decide on the application and be the jury. As I understand the position, at least 50% of such appeals are successful. Is that why they are being abolished?

[Mrs May]

No. What I say to the hon. Gentleman and others who have concerns is that this is the only visitor category that retains a full right of appeal. As a result, I think we see some abuse in this system. It is better to focus the resources available for the immigration appeals systems on those appeals, such as on the refusal of asylum, that could have a far greater impact on the lives of the individuals concerned.

Hillsborough

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report.

The Hillsborough independent panel published its report on 12 September. Alongside the report, it launched an archive consisting of hundreds of thousands of pages of records. The report and the archive reveal the truth about the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath. What the panel has uncovered is shocking and disturbing, and it was right for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, having read the report, to apologise to the families of the victims. In addition to that apology, however, there must be accountability. The bereaved families deserve a proper response to what is a comprehensive report. So today I want to set out the shape of that response and how we can, in the words of some of the families, move from truth to justice.

Before I do so, however, I want to remind the House of some of the panel’s findings. First, it found that the safety of the crowd entering Hillsborough’s Leppings Lane terrace was “compromised at every level”. The capacity of the terrace had been significantly over-calculated, meaning that hundreds more tickets were sold than the area could safely accommodate. Crush barriers were lower than set out in safety rules. Their layout was also inadequate. The small number of turnstiles meant that delays were always likely at a capacity match. There were three times more people per turnstile at Leppings Lane than at the opposite end of the ground.

Previous instances of crushing had not been recognised or acted on. Lessons had not been learned. When the disaster happened, neither the police nor the ambulance service properly activated their major incident procedure, which meant that command and control roles were not properly filled. The panel found

“repeated evidence of failures in leadership and emergency response coordination”.

There was no systematic triage of casualties and a lack of basic equipment. None of this takes away from the heroic work of spectators and individual members of the emergency services who fought to save lives, but the panel is clear that a swifter, better-equipped and better-focused emergency response could have saved more people.

The original inquests heard that the victims of Hillsborough suffered traumatic asphyxia leading to unconsciousness within seconds and death within a few minutes, but the detailed medical analysis produced by the panel tells a different story. The panel considered that there was definite evidence in 41 cases, and possibly in a further 17 others, that those who died did so after having survived for a longer period. In these cases, their condition was potentially recoverable, and they might have survived had there been a more effective emergency response. It is difficult to imagine how the families of those who died must feel hearing that fact after 23 years.

The truth, however hard to bear, should not have taken so long to be told. The panel’s report shows that the coroner at the original inquest acted on the medical advice of pathologists and after seeking the views of colleagues, but it also shows very clearly that the structure of the inquest and the imposition of a 3.15 pm cut-off of evidence meant that a false picture was presented and accepted as fact.

The panel’s report makes it clear that South Yorkshire police in the last couple of years have set an example in terms of the process of disclosure to the panel. However, its findings about South Yorkshire police in 1989 are stark. The panel’s report lays bare the reaction of the police in attempting to shift blame for the disaster on to the fans. Lord Justice Taylor’s report into Hillsborough found that the disaster’s main cause was

“the failure of police control”.

Inadequate crowd management and poor provision of turnstiles led to an unmanageable crush outside the ground. Taylor found that the police were right to respond by opening exit gate C but wrong to fail to consider where fans entering through that gate would go next. Most went straight ahead, down a tunnel marked “Standing”, into the already-full central pens. Failure to block that tunnel was, according to Lord Taylor’s report,

“a blunder of the first magnitude”.

The police, however, attempted to create a different story—one in which drunken Liverpool fans arrived in their thousands at the last minute and caused the disaster. Their late arrival, it was claimed, overwhelmed the police. Officers presented unfounded stories of vile behaviour to the press. The intention, according to the panel, was to

“develop and publicise a version of events that focused on…allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence”.

In seeking to make its case, South Yorkshire police went so far as to vet the written statements made by its officers. Once vetted, changes were made. The panel found that 164 statements were altered significantly. Of those, 116 were amended so as to remove content that was unfavourable to the police, including on its lack of leadership.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

At the meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs last Tuesday, the present chief constable of South Yorkshire police was asked whether he accepted without qualification the panel’s report. He said yes.

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right: the current chief constable has accepted what was in the report unconditionally. That is an important step for South Yorkshire police, but obviously we have to look at what the report says about South Yorkshire police.

Extradition

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I think I am grateful, Mr Speaker, that you allowed both Members with the surname Davis or Davies on our Benches to speak.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Despite the comments of my right hon. and respected Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), a former Home Secretary, is the Home Secretary aware that the decision that she has made on this individual case will be widely and warmly welcomed, not only in the House but outside? It is a very good decision and she should be proud of it. However, on the extradition treaty with the United States, may I remind her how critical she and the Liberal Democrats were in opposition? Like a number of Members, I remain of the view that the treaty needs to be looked at again.

[Mrs May]

I had a hopeful moment there when the hon. Gentleman was speaking! I thank him for his earlier remarks. I am well aware that this was a matter on which there was considerable discussion when it went through the House. I am also aware that the forum bar arrangements that are in the Police and Justice Act 2006 were moved by the then shadow Home Affairs team, led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is now the Attorney-General, so we are well aware of the issues that were raised at the time. I believe that the introduction of the forum bar will ensure that people see that justice is being done in relation to the decision whether extradition should take place and where prosecution should take place. Other changes that we will introduce on the extradition proceedings will ensure that people can see that this is a process in which they can take comfort and have confidence.

Olympics (Security)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Obviously, there is a contract between the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and G4S. There are penalties in it, and it is for LOCOG to deal with, but G4S is on record as saying that it will cover the extra costs of the military and the police.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Could it be the unanimous wish of this House that the British participants in the games do far, far better than the shambles we are now discussing?

[Mrs May]

I am sure it is the unanimous wish of this House that British participants in the games are going to do extremely well, that we will have a good medal haul and that Members like myself will have constituents who are medal hopefuls—and I wish them every good luck in their competitive events.

Olympics (Security)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend, as a London Member of Parliament, has made her point very appropriately and very well. I say to the Opposition that what Londoners and people across the country want is for us all to be behind the Olympics and to do what we need to do to ensure that it is a great event for the United Kingdom.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Despite all the excuses that are being made, does the Home Secretary recognise that people will see what The Daily Telegraph has written about a security farce as perfectly justified? What is so difficult to understand is that, with all the time that has been available to prepare for the Olympics, we now have this near-crisis with just 15 days to go. Why should the country be let down by the Home Secretary and by the failure to plan properly? Why should Britain become an international embarrassment as a result of her incompetence?

[Mrs May]

The aspect of the hon. Gentleman’s question that most strikes me is the fact that he reads The Daily Telegraph. The Home Office has ensured that contingency arrangements are in place throughout this period. We have monitored the progress and looked for reassurances from LOCOG, whose contract it is with G4S, and from G4S. As I said in answer to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the gap in numbers that has been identified, which requires us to employ these 3,500 troops on venue security, crystallised only yesterday.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Extradition cases will continue to be looked at in line with the legislation that applies to extradition cases.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Following the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I should like some clarification. As has been emphasised several times this afternoon, the immigration rules are being changed, presumably arising from the Home Secretary’s statement last week. Will Parliament have the opportunity to debate those changes?

[Mrs May]

The immigration rules have been laid and it is open to any Member of the House to pray against them and see whether they can initiate a debate on them in the House. [Interruption.] It is open to anybody to pray against the immigration rules if they wish to debate the detail of them. I will refer to the changes that are being made. What we are saying today is that article 8 should be qualified in line with the immigration rules. I think I have repeated the motion several times.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely valuable point. I have found that many people here in the UK consider it astonishing that there is no simple mechanism for setting a clear deadline and then striking out any applications that fall outside that deadline. What is absolutely clear is that the panel of the Grand Chamber has discretion to accept applications made outside the deadline, and to determine what that deadline was.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of the xenophobia and hysteria on the Tory Benches, why does the Home Secretary not have the courage to say that it is a lie that the European Court of Human Rights is in the business of trying to protect terrorists—last week’s decision contradicts that—and is it not a great advance for Europe that there is such a court in the first place?

[Mrs May]

We have made it clear that we are abiding by the rule of law. We have abided by the decisions made by the European Court. We now believe that we have the assurances that we need in order to be able to challenge the Court’s decision in relation to article 6, which was the ground on which it prevented the deportation of Abu Qatada. We believe that the right way of dealing with the issue of his deportation was to gain those assurances from the Jordanian Government. Obviously we will await the European Court’s decision on whether to accept the application for a referral.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am clear that we need to make some reforms. We all value human rights and we want to ensure that we uphold them, but we need to ensure that we have legal structures that will enable us to do so in a way that is proper and appropriate. That is why it is entirely right that the Government have been looking, in conjunction with others, at how the European Court works.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Observing the rule of law is even more important when we are dealing with an individual like this, but I want to ask the Home Secretary the same question as I have asked on previous occasions. This individual has been here for a very long time; he came here in the early 1990s. If there is evidence against him, why cannot he be charged with any crimes that he is alleged to have committed? If there is evidence against him—and there might well be—it is puzzling that he is not being tried in the United Kingdom.

[Mrs May]

The Government have looked at every aspect of the case of Abu Qatada, as I assume the previous Government did. Of course, decisions on whether to prosecute are a matter not for the Government but for others.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course we are always in the business of considering what measures we can take to ensure that we can strengthen our ability to deal with potential terrorists. As for the issue of intercept evidence, we are still pursuing it, the advisory council of Privy Counsellors is considering it again, and it has been considered by successive Governments. It is a complex issue, but that work continues while we try to establish whether there is a way in which it would be possible to introduce intercept as evidence.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

This person is clearly motivated by murderous hatred—there is no doubt about that—but can the Home Secretary answer this question? He has been here for some 16 or 17 years. If there is evidence that he was inciting murder, why was he not charged? Would that not have been the most appropriate way of dealing with this fanatic?

[Mrs May]

In all cases relating to terrorists, potential terrorists or those who are inciting others, our preference is always to be able to prosecute, and for those people to be behind bars. That is why all cases are looked at very carefully, and, obviously, the appropriate judgments are made.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what has been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am not necessarily opposed to restoring the position to what it was before the court judgment, but I am always anxious about our rushing through all the stages of a Bill, as we are doing today. The Home Secretary has been very dismissive of critics, but my view is that if there was more time, those critics, who may or may not have a very reasonable case, would be able to put their case to Members and there would be further deliberations before we rushed into making law. I have many hesitations in my mind because, as the Home Secretary herself has admitted, when we have previously rushed through legislation, it has not always proved to be useful.

[Mrs May]

I understand the point that there have in the past been occasions when emergency legislation has been felt to have had consequences other than what was intended. This is a different kind of emergency legislation however, in that it simply reinstates the situation to what it was understood to be for the past 25 years in terms of the operation of PACE and detention and bail. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done what we can to ensure that there has been an opportunity for the Bill to be considered. I made the draft Bill available to Members and others on Monday, and it was formally introduced on Tuesday. We therefore made it available early so that people would have an opportunity to look at it. It is a very short Bill, and it does not need to be more than a short Bill because, I repeat, it is simply reinstating the situation to what it has been for the past 25 years.

The judgment in the Hookway case significantly impairs the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. I am not prepared to stand by and ask the police to fight crime with one arm tied behind their back. The Bill will restore vital powers to the police that they have operated under, without complaint from the courts, for the past 25 years. I commend this Bill to the House.

Counter-terrorism Review

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. This is just one part of our ongoing work to ensure that the Government provide for the security and intelligence agencies and the police the necessary powers and tools that they need to keep us safe. We made it absolutely clear in the strategic defence and security review that we will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communications data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework. That work is ongoing; we are ensuring that that capability is retained.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I welcome the reduction of the period of detention from 28 to 14 days—although I wish it were without the reserve powers announced last week and again today—but is the Home Secretary aware that her statement on control orders will be very disappointing to many of us? It would be far better if the due process of law—ordinary law—were used in the fight against terrorism. No one in this House underestimates for one moment the terrorist danger, but we should be very careful about making intrusions into civil liberties—hence the disappointment on control orders.

[Mrs May]

It has been clear from the responses to my statement that there are differing views across the House. We all want to see terrorists investigated, prosecuted and brought to judgment. As I said, the best place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. We want to make every effort to ensure that the processes of investigation and prosecution can be successful, but in a small number of cases prosecution has not been possible and deportation is not possible, so the Government need to act in order to protect the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that in last Thursday’s exchanges on counter-terrorism there was criticism from those on her side, as well as those on our side, about the leaks to the media? Is it not important that the House of Commons should learn first of these things? That certainly has not happened in this case. Why on earth can we not have a statement today, instead of waiting until Wednesday or some other time?

[Mrs May]

We made absolutely clear to the House the procedure that we were going to follow on announcing the results of the counter-terrorism legislation review. On 13 January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained that a statement would be made this week, and last Thursday, in my absence abroad, the Minister for Immigration said that a statement will be made on Wednesday. Not only will that statement set out clearly the results of the review, but it will be accompanied by the publication of the review and the report of the independent reviewer, Lord Macdonald.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Prime Minister made it clear at Prime Minister’s questions, and I have made it clear separately, that we need to ensure that we can clear Parliament square for the royal wedding on 29 April.

The Bill addresses another important area of law that is not currently working—the whole issue of how we apply universal jurisdiction, which is a key principle of international justice that enables some of the gravest offences to be prosecuted here, regardless of the state in which the offences were committed.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that there are already adequate safeguards in this respect? It is not a question of someone simply going to the magistrates court alleging that a war criminal is on British soil. There is a feeling—she obviously does not share it—that this law is being changed as a result of the pressure that Israel put on the previous Government and is clearly putting on this Government. It does seem unfortunate that we are going to change the law because a foreign country has put such pressure on us.

[Mrs May]

We are not changing the law because a foreign country has put pressure on us. In relation to this law, the evidential requirement that is needed in order for somebody to go and get an arrest warrant is significantly less than that required for a successful prosecution. We are saying that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be able to look at any such application that is made and give consent to it or otherwise.

Public Order Policing

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

No one here—I include myself in that—wants to condone any act of hooliganism, but does the Home Secretary accept that the large majority of people protesting on Thursday did so peacefully and lawfully? In my view, they had every justification for protesting. Will she let us know as quickly as possible why apparently—I repeat, apparently—attempts were made to prevent Alfie Meadows from being admitted to the hospital where he was later operated on for some three hours?

[Mrs May]

In response to the latter question, I can say, as I did in my statement, that the IPCC is investigating what happened to Alfie Meadows, who had serious head injuries. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that matter; it is for the IPCC to investigate it fully and properly. Of course a large number of people came to protest peacefully on Thursday. However, unlike in the previous demonstrations, the violent protesters were not a small minority—there was a significant number of violent demonstrators.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

We all look forward to the review anti-terrorism legislation, but is it not important that murderous fanatics—another indication of what they are like was given last week—and the enemies of all humanity do not force us to give up long-held, traditional liberties in this country? The sort of changes that the Home Secretary mentioned earlier will hopefully come about despite the current terrorist danger.

[Mrs May]

The coalition Government are very aware of the need to rebalance our national security requirements and our civil liberties. That is precisely why we have undertaken the review of counter-terrorism legislation. As I indicated in a previous answer, the results of that review will be brought to the House when they are available, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware that we need to ensure that we keep the country safe so that people can exercise those ancient freedoms and civil liberties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course, my right hon. Friend has a distinguished record of fighting for these civil liberties issues. I can assure him that one of the key reasons for introducing the 28-days order for six months was that it would enable us to look at the pre-charge detention period alongside a number of other issues relating to counter-terrorism legislation that we wish to consider. These include control orders, and stop-and-search procedures under section 44. We want to review the various measures and look at them in the round.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As one who proposed the period of 28 days, may I remind the Home Secretary that it was the alternative to 90 days or 42 days? If it were possible, despite the acute terrorist danger, for the 28 days to be reduced to 14 days, I would certainly be very happy.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and David Winnick

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

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

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.