Debate on the Address

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to two entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am director and chair of the Global Commission for Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and I chair the Aldersgate Group, which brings businesses, non-governmental organisations, academics and others together to champion a prosperous, net zero emissions, environmentally-sustainable economy. Both of those roles are unpaid.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) is no longer in his seat. I wanted to take the opportunity to welcome him to the House, despite the fact that I worked to make sure he did not get here. The reason I wanted to welcome and congratulate him is that he is my first cousin once removed. I am not sure whether that connection will do more damage to his career or mine. In case hon. Members are wondering about the family, we share a relative who, I am told, toyed with communism in his youth and another relative—my cousin, the hon. Member’s uncle—who was the former Liberal Democrat leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, so we cover all bases.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on what I thought were witty, incisive, thoughtful and excellent speeches proposing and seconding the Humble Address.

There are things in the King’s Speech that I welcome, some of which may not have been spotted by other Members of the House. I welcome the fact that it is proposed to amend the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which was important groundbreaking legislation when it was brought through when I was Home Secretary. As things have developed, it is right that we look at it again, so we ensure we have the right legislation to keep us safe.

I also welcome the important references to taking more action on child sexual abuse, including grooming. Having seen T-levels introduced and having long thought we need to ensure an equivalent between academic and technical or vocational qualifications, I welcome the Government’s intention to do just that. Indeed, I welcome the long-term ambition that the Government have expressed. They need to take long-term decisions because good government is not about grabbing at short-term decisions to get a headline, but about doing what is in the national interest and the long-term interest of the country.

On that point, I was surprised to receive an email in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, sent out, I think, by the Conservative party, that read:

“From net zero to HS2, smoking to education, we are going to tackle the challenges that other politicians have been afraid to even talk about.”

Since I read that, I have been racking my brains as to which Prime Minister put net zero in 2050 into legislation. Answers on a postcard, please.

As I say, I welcome the long-term approach that has been taken by the Government, but some elements should have been in the King’s Speech and I am concerned that they are missing. The first is on modern slavery. Back in 2022, the legislative reform agenda published by the then Prime Minister’s Office for the late Queen’s Speech outlined plans to reform the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, in particular, to introduce stronger measures in relation to businesses and their supply chains. Businesses can be transformative if they really look into their supply chains and take action if they find forced labour and exploitation in those supply chains. So I am very sorry that we have not seen amendments to the Modern Slavery Act brought forward in this Gracious Speech.

I am also concerned about the lack of commitment to a new mental health Act. It was back in 2017 that the review into the Mental Health Act was announced. That was completed in 2018. There was a White Paper in 2021 and a draft Bill in 2022. The Joint Committee finished its legislative scrutiny of that draft Bill in January this year. Several months on, we have not seen a Government response to that report and, from 2017 to 2023—six years on—we have not seen a commitment to a new mental health Act. It is important that we do this. Many voters will want to see it being done. I hope that, in the other measures that the Government bring forward, they will consider including a mental health Bill.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right honourable Friend for making that powerful point about a mental health Act. Does she agree that ending the archaic elision of conditions such as autism and neurodiverse conditions with mental health would be another benefit of bringing that legislation forward? The legislation is needed now, not next year.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend has been a champion for those on the autistic spectrum. He has long raised the issues in relation to autism and neurodiversity. He is absolutely right that these changes are needed now—they should not be delayed further. I sincerely hope that, in the other measures, the Government will consider bringing that new mental health Bill forward.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to pupils at Cox Green School in my constituency. We talked about various issues. The teacher asked them to raise their hands if they were concerned about mental health—the majority did—and then to raise their hands if they were concerned about climate change and the environment. Again, the majority raised their hands. In relation to the King’s Speech and the Government’s programme on climate change and environmental degradation, the Government are missing an opportunity. What we need to do now is to press the accelerator on transition to a green economy, not try to draw back. The King’s Speech says that

“my Ministers will seek to attract record levels of investment in renewable energy sources,”

but I fear that that ambition is not sufficiently strong to make sure that the Government make that transition quickly enough to ensure that we reach net zero in 2050. It is no good waking up on 1 January 2045 and saying, “We have five years to do something, let’s do it now” because that will be even more costly for members of the public.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

Having been Home Secretary for six years I understand the pressures to deal with illegal migration. In my day, people were getting into the backs of lorries and the backs of cars of British tourists returning across the border at Calais. I did a deal with the French, and the numbers went down. I have to say that I suspect it is partly because of the success of that policy that we now see people coming in small boats. I welcome the new deal that has been done with France, because it will have an impact, but what should be clear from this situation is that whenever we close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way. Anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with illegal migration once and for all is wrong, not least because a significant number, if not the majority of people who are here illegally do not come on small boats; they come legally and overstay their visas.

As well as working to reduce illegal migration, I introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as has been mentioned. That world-leading legislation dealt with traffickers and people who were being enslaved here in the United Kingdom, including British citizens, but it was never just a Bill about slavery in the UK, as we saw with the prosecution under that Act of a British woman for trafficking women from Nigeria to Germany.

I must say there has been some loose talk about people smuggling and human trafficking, and using the two terms in the same breath as if they are the same—they are not; they are two separate crimes. Someone paying their own money to be smuggled across the border is not a victim of human trafficking, which includes coercion and exploitation. Nobody wants to see our world-leading legislation being abused, but the Government have to set out the clear evidence if they are saying that there is a link between that Act and the small boats, and so far I have not seen that evidence. Remember, nearly 90% of modern slavery claims are found to be valid. That does not include recent applications, but that figure should give cause for concern.

I am concerned that the Government have acted on Albania and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when neither has been in place long enough to be able to assess their impact. I do not expect Government to introduce legislation to supersede legislation recently made, the impact of which is not yet known.

Beyond those issues, I have three main concerns with the Bill. The first is the blanket dismissal of anyone who is facing persecution and finds their way to the UK, but illegally. Examples have been given, but a young woman fleeing persecution in Iran, for example, would have the door to the UK shut in her face. The UK has always welcomed those who are fleeing persecution, regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route. By definition, someone fleeing for their life will, more often than not, be unable to access a legal route. I do not think that it is enough to say that we will meet our requirements by sending people to claim asylum in Rwanda. That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do.

My second concern relates to the implications for modern slavery. I am grateful for the fact that No. 10 has offered to discuss that with me, and I hope that we can find some resolution, but as it stands, we are shutting the door on victims who are being trafficked into slavery here in the UK. If they had come here illegally, they would not be supported to escape their slavery.

The Home Office itself recognises the damage that the Bill would do, stating in the explanatory notes to clauses 21 to 28, on public order disqualification:

“These provisions are subject to a sunsetting mechanism so that they can be suspended should the current exceptional illegal migration situation no longer apply”—

in other words: “We know this isn’t ideal, but we’ve got lots of people coming illegally; we’ve got to do something, so the victims of modern slavery will be collateral damage.” I welcome the acknowledgment that this part of the Bill could be reversed, but it could also then be reinstated. The Home Office knows that the Bill means that genuine victims of modern slavery will be denied support.

My third concern is one that has been echoed by other former Home Secretaries of both major parties—namely, whether the policy will work. For it to work, a number of things have to fall into place. There has to be no possibility of successful legal challenge. It requires the provision of extra detention capabilities and the assurance that no one will be able to abscond. It requires the individual legal cases relating to deportation to Rwanda to be resolved in the Government’s favour. It requires Rwanda to process more than the fewer than 250 asylum claims that it currently processes every year, and to provide accommodation for and accept the many thousands of extra people. It requires returns agreements on returns with countries around the world, and the ability to ensure those returns.

Dealing with immigration is never easy. There is never a simple answer to any problem, and it is never possible to take one’s eye off the ball. It requires constant vigilance and also international co-operation.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning human trafficking. I conducted a Court of Appeal case on an unduly lenient sentence, and we got the sentence increased. It is vital that everybody understands the difference between human trafficking and people smuggling. If we do not get such basic terms right, how on earth will we get the policy right?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his work and his recognition of the difference between people smuggling and human trafficking. It is imperative that we use careful language in relation to these issues, and that we recognise that the Bill removes support from the victims of trafficking and modern slavery.

I know that the Government are working hard to find a solution to the problem of the small boats, but I think that a number of point shed doubt on the approach that is being taken. I look forward to working with them on this issue to ensure that we can deal with the problem of dangerous sea crossings and save people’s lives while maintaining our reputation as a country that welcomes people fleeing persecution and, crucially, our reputation as a world leader in dealing with modern slavery.

Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has acknowledged that the collapse of this trial has been the final blow to the Hillsborough families in their desperate search for justice over so many years. He has referenced the independent public advocate. In 2017, I pledged:

“To ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families…is not repeated, we will introduce an independent public advocate who will act for bereaved families after a public disaster and support them at public inquests.”

We are now four years on, so can I urge him to act swiftly in this matter? We have established our former colleague here in this House, Nick Hurd, as a ministerial representative working with the Grenfell families after that tragedy, but I would say to the Lord Chancellor that I see that role as quite different from the role of an independent public advocate. The independence of the public advocate is incredibly important. The Lord Chancellor wants to get it right, but please get it right quickly.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to her for the approach that she took not only as Prime Minister but as Home Secretary throughout those years, particularly after the first report by Bishop James Jones in 2012. I well remember being a Back Bencher in this House and raising the issue of potential criminal charges, and now here we are, nearly 10 years later. I take the point about time, but I know that she will appreciate that I want to get this absolutely right. I want to make sure that anything that we do chimes with the aspirations and needs of those who might use such independent advocates. Our work will be fruitless if it does not achieve those aims.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend he tempts me into new territory. As the Government and I develop a White Paper on sentencing reform that will be published later in the year, we will have ample opportunity to engage properly on such issues. My right hon. Friend knows that I come to this role with, shall we say, a little bit of form on the issue of sentencing and a long experience in it, and I want to use that White Paper as the opportunity to set something clear, firm and understandable that will only increase public confidence in the sentencing system in England and Wales.

Before I move on to the question of migrant victims, I pause to pay warm tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and, indeed, to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is part of my ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice. Together, they did not just do their duty, but did it with zeal, passion and a deep commitment to the issues. I know that that commitment is shared by Opposition spokesmen, too, and pay tribute to them for their assiduous work on this issue. True cross-party co-operation can move mountains, and this Bill is an emblematic example of that important principle.

Let me return to the important issue of migrant victims of domestic abuse and the review that has been conducted. We acknowledge that more needs to be done to support migrant victims who do not qualify under the destitute domestic violence concession or other mechanisms—that is very clear—but we do need to assess precisely that need, as outlined by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. That is why the £1.5 million pilot scheme that is to be launched later in the year will provide support additional to the mechanisms that have already been discussed. It will also provide the evidence necessary to help to inform decisions about a long-term solution.

The provision of better protection and support for victims of domestic abuse and their children is at the very heart of the Bill. In the first Second Reading debate —on the previous version of the Bill—I told my own story about being a young barrister dealing with a domestic abuse case, one of many that were dealt with somewhat differently, shall we say, in those days from how they are dealt with now. That does not necessarily mean that we should be complacent about where we have come to with regards to how we deal with domestic violence, but it is right to say that if the phrase “It’s only a domestic” has not previously been consigned to the history books, this Bill will make sure that it is. We owe it to the 2.4 million victims a year to ensure that the justice system and local support services work better for them.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the kind remarks he made earlier. He has just outlined the importance of this Bill. Will the Government do everything they can to ensure that, in timetabling it through the other place, it is given the priority it needs to ensure that we can get it on the statute book as soon as possible?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and with alacrity I give her that undertaking. I know that my colleagues in the other place will share the same ambition that we have here, and I will work with them to make sure that the Bill makes its proper passage through that House so that we can give it the Royal Assent that we all want it to attain.

Ultimately, we all just want the abuse to stop, but in the meantime we must, and we will, do everything we can to protect vulnerable people, to protect victims and their children, and to offer them the safety and support they so desperately need and deserve. I commend this Bill to the House.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The number of offenders, either terrorist offenders or offenders who have committed offences with a terrorist link, is about 50. That does not sound like a large cohort, but in this particular situation of extreme gravity, we cannot afford to allow any further incidents to happen. I have spoken about the need to minimise risk; that does not mean that we can eliminate risk. That is why this emergency measure is, in my judgment and the judgment of the Government, absolutely necessary if we are to meet the concerns of my right hon. Friend and other hon. and right hon. Members.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises the issue of risk. He and the Government are absolutely right to be addressing the question of the automatic early release of terrorist offenders, but terrorist offenders will still be released at some point. That is why rehabilitation—the work that is done both in prison and when they are out of prison—is so important. There have been many efforts at this over the years, but, as recent incidents have shown, not always with success. Does he agree that we will never deal with the issue of terrorism until we deal with the ideology that drives it? Will he reassure me that the Government are making extra efforts to find new paths to ensure that we can turn people away from the extremism and terrorism that takes other people’s lives?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend speaks with unparalleled experience of these issues, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister. I can assure her—I will develop these issues later in my speech—that there is a constant self-questioning among those responsible for these programmes to make sure that they are properly calibrated, that they understand the particular drivers that compel people to commit these acts, and that the distinctions between the different types of offender are fully understood; from her own case experience she will know of myriad motivations. Rather than taking a blanket approach, a case-by-case analysis is very much at the heart of how we approach these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

It is a bit rich to be lectured about ideology and an ideological approach by the hon. Gentleman. After nearly 20 years in practice and now over 30 years’ experience of the criminal justice system, the approach that I and my team will be taking will be a multi-layered approach that will emphasise the importance of protecting the public and making our streets safer, while at the same time increasing the sentencing options on community orders to deal with the drivers of less serious crimes such as drug addiction, alcohol addiction, family relationships and accommodation. We understand it, we absolutely get the point and that is what we are going to be getting on with.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

One of the areas of sentencing policy that has already been reviewed and consulted on is the whole question of death by dangerous driving, particularly when drugs are involved, such as in the tragic case of my constituent, Bryony Hollands. The previous Government committed to legislate on this issue to lengthen sentences in certain circumstances. This is not in the Queen’s Speech. Are this Government committed to legislate and, if so, when?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. I have met in this place families of victims of this appalling crime and worked with hon. Members across the House on the issue. I want to get on with it. The commitment remains absolutely crystal clear. I very much hope that we can have a vehicle to do that. I am going to be doing a sentencing Bill this year; that could be one vehicle. I want to get on with this as soon as possible. We will have the time and the support of the Government to change the law in the right direction.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. That is why I trust that we will pass this legislation. We will pass it in good shape, and it will make a difference, but it is only one step. It is about getting that recognition out there of what is right and what is wrong. It is very simple: it is not right to hit somebody in a relationship. But it is more than that, which I will come on to in a minute—conscious as I am of the number of Members who wish to speak, I will touch on a small number of issues very briefly.

The first issue is one that many people looking at this legislation might feel was insignificant, but it is hugely significant—the inclusion in statute of a definition of domestic abuse. Not that long ago, a number of Government Departments were working to different definitions of domestic violence and abuse. I recall that, as Home Secretary, I tried to ensure that we could at least try to get an agreement among Departments as to what a definition might be. Having it in statute is hugely important, as is having a definition that goes beyond what most people would answer if you asked them what domestic abuse or domestic violence was, which is physical violence, and recognises all the other types of abuse that take place.

It is chilling to sit and hear a woman who has been controlled by her other half for a period of time—often for years—say how it happened slowly, and that it was difficult to recognise when it started. Little by little, however, that control was exercised until that individual’s rights as an individual human being were taken away from them. That is what we are talking about when we talk about domestic abuse, so getting that definition right are incredibly important. As the Lord Chancellor said, I hope that others will use the definition in the Bill. It is referred to as the underpinning of this Bill, but I hope that others will use that definition and recognise it.

The second issue I will touch on was referred to earlier, and that is the courts. I am sure that every Member is aware of cases—indeed, the Lord Chancellor started his speech with a reference to his case 25 years ago—in which a victim of domestic abuse has not felt able to pursue, to give evidence and to go through the steps necessary to see the perpetrator brought to justice. Fear of what will happen in court often drives people, and there is also the fact that the perpetrator might well use and manipulate them to ensure that they do not give evidence in court.

I remember when I was Home Secretary talking about one case in the west midlands. An independent domestic violence advocate was describing how a woman almost did not turn up at court, even though they had done a lot of work for her to turn up. The IDVA had gone to the home to see what the problem was, and it was very simple: the perpetrator had locked the woman in a cupboard, so that she physically could not get to court to give evidence. We have to recognise the problems that victims face.

Another issue, which has been referred to by the president of the family division of the High Court, is the question of cross-examination by perpetrators. That can be an extension—in some cases, deliberately so—of the abuse that the victim has suffered. Having the prohibition of that on the face of the Bill is incredibly important.

I want to touch on the issue of children. For far too long in this country, we thought that if a child was in the room next door when someone was being hit or coerced, that child would not be affected. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the figure for children who have been in a home where there has been domestic abuse is that they are 50% more likely to endure such abuse in a relationship later in their lives. That is why I said earlier that domestic abuse does not just blight or destroy the life of the victim, but does so for those around the victim too.

This is important. I recognise the pros and cons when looking at the issue, but I do not want us to miss this opportunity to ensure that we properly look after the needs of children in a home where domestic violence is being experienced. I ask the Government to look very seriously at recommendations to do with children, to ensure that we do not pass a Bill into statute only for people to ask, six months down the line, “Why didn’t you?” It is imperative to look at that.

I will touch briefly on two other issues, one of which is the question of perpetrators. This is a hugely difficult topic to talk about. I am sure that we would all prefer not to have the necessity of talking about domestic abuse legislation, because we want to eradicate domestic abuse—we are very far from doing that—but, if we are to get to that point, we have to deal with perpetrators. We talk a lot about supporting victims, and that is absolutely right, but finding a way to ensure that people do not become perpetrators in the first place or, where they are perpetrators, that they cannot continue to perpetrate domestic abuse, is hugely important too. It is difficult. From talking to organisations that work with perpetrators, I know that finding the interventions that will have the best impact is hard.

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point about perpetrator programmes. I think she would agree that we have to be careful to ensure that programmes are tested and are the right ones, because we do not want to make the problem worse.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend has made a very valid and important point. That is why I say this is a difficult topic. Sometimes it seems hard to talk about working with the perpetrators, but it is important that we identify the programmes that work, and that will not be one size fits all. I think the Joint Committee made that point when they looked at this issue, which was very welcome. It has to be done carefully, but we should not shy away from it, because if we wish to see an end to domestic abuse, we have to deal with perpetrators. That goes alongside issues such as education on what a good relationship is, so that we see those sorts of behaviours being stopped at the first sign, rather than being allowed to continue.

Some might say that the last point I want to make is slightly tangential to the Bill, but I want to talk about the police. A huge amount of work has been done with the police to train them to deal with domestic violence. Many developments are very helpful. For example, body-worn video cameras can ensure that film is taken when the police turn up to a reported incident, so that someone cannot say later, “Well, no, it was okay, nothing happened.” Such evidence is hugely important. The ability through the use of technology for a police officer attending an incident to know in advance whether there have been reports of domestic violence or abuse there in the past is another important element. Also—I am sure that others have had this experience—domestic abuse victims talk about the fact that if they get a police officer who has been well trained, it works well, but when someone reports an incident, it is the police officer who is on duty who comes, and they will hand on to the response unit that comes out, and such officers often do not have the same experience. We need to look at that very carefully.

We also need to do something else—this point was made to me by one of the people involved in one of the charities dealing with victims of domestic abuse. Police forces need to look at how they deal with domestic violence and domestic abuse within the force when police officers themselves are subject to such domestic abuse. If they turn a blind eye, that gives a message to their officers about how they should treat people outside the force who are reporting abuse. That aspect has not really been focused on previously, but we should focus on it. We should be encouraging police forces to ensure that they have, within their forces, the means to support such officers properly. There will be police officers who themselves are the victims of domestic abuse, and we need to ensure that forces have the ability to support those police officers.

As I say, this is a hugely important Bill. It will, I know, be subject to very close scrutiny during the Committee stage. There is so much that is good in this Bill. There are obviously issues that the Government are being asked to look at again to make sure that we get this into the best shape that it can be. However, as I said earlier, I say to everybody across this Chamber that passing this legislation is but one move. It is up to all of us to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make clear to our society and to the public the horrific nature of domestic abuse, the impact it has on people’s lives and the need for us as a society to say, “Stop it.”

Communications Data and Interception

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Our proposals have broad application and there will be no separate statement in relation to Northern Ireland. I think that the statement I have made today stands.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the principles of proportionality set out in the ECJ judgment will be adhered to in the draft legislation, and will the new privacy and civil liberties board be able, among other things, to consider the need for a properly codified law of privacy and data protection in this country?

[Mrs May]

On the second point, we are still looking at the exact form that that board will take and its terms of reference. It would be premature for me to suggest that it went down a particular route on an issue that it was looking at.

On the question of proportionality raised in the ECJ judgment, we have addressed that in two regards. One of its arguments was that the scope of the data retention directive was too broad, so we are explicitly limiting data retention to a strict list of data types—those that were specified in our data retention regulations of 2009. It also raised the issue of an absolute period of time for which data needed were retained and the possibility that no consideration was being given to whether all data needed to be retained for the same length of time. The new Bill therefore makes the data retention period not 12 months but a maximum of 12 months to provide for some flexibility if appropriate.

Child Abuse

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is, of course, right that the Home Office is establishing the inquiry panel, and we will be discussing with the inquiry panel what it considers will be necessary for it to be able to ensure it can undertake its investigations and review in the best possible way.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

As someone who called for an overarching review, may I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement? Does she agree that one of the possible causes of the seeming culture of impunity that existed in the ’70s and ’80s was the fact that the courts made no adjustment whatsoever for the evidence of children and young people and there was a statutory requirement that juries in England and Wales had to be warned about the absence of corroborative evidence in sexual complaints?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s experience of matters relating to the courts is, of course, greater than mine, but I think he is absolutely right that one of the things that has developed over the years has been a willingness of the criminal justice system as a whole to recognise the need to put in place more specific support for those vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they are able to bring their evidence forward. Of course justice requires that the evidence that people give is appropriately challenged, but it is important that over the years—not just in issues relating to child abuse, but in some other matters as well—the courts have recognised the need to make sure that witnesses are not put off coming forward by what is going to be their experience at trial.

Stop-and-Search

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I want all forces in England and Wales to sign up to the code, and I hope that Members of the House will do what they can to encourage their local police and crime commissioners and chief constables to do just that. As I indicated earlier, I will not set a timetable for introducing legislation, partly for the reasons I set out in response to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I have long advocated intelligence-led policing, and this is a significant step along that road. Does she agree that the amendments to PACE code A—which are statutory because PACE code A is a statutory instrument—will represent real change for the vast majority of stop-and-searches, and that her approach on section 60 stop-and-searches replicates what has happened with stop-and-searches under the Terrorism Act 2000, where we have seen a reduction to nought without primary legislative change?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and it is a pity that everybody seems to have ignored or missed the point about the importance of PACE code A and the impact that it has on forces. That is why it is so important that, as I said, we will be amending that code in a number of ways, particularly to make it absolutely clear what are reasonable grounds of suspicion.

Hillsborough

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I do not know why they were not made available, but the IPCC has them now, and will be looking at all of them as part of its investigation. Obviously, it will have had contact with the police officers who provided them.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and for her work on this most sensitive and troubling of issues. I also pay tribute to the Hillsborough families for their steadfast campaigning. They are about to enter a very difficult phase in the process.

I make no apology for returning to the issue—the shocking issue—of the disclosure of 2,500 police notebooks. May I ask two questions? First, the IPCC now has those notebooks, but will those involved in Operation Resolve have copies of them? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a thorough review of the storage of police notebooks, given that the issue has implications for all historical investigations, criminal and civil?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the point of concern about the police pocket notebooks. Although the two investigations are concerned with slightly different aspects of the Hillsborough tragedy, it has been made clear that information that is relevant to both should be available to both.

As for my hon. Friend’s wider question, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), it is important for us to look at the issue of documents that are acquired by police officers in relation to investigations or to incidents that they attend and are required in the course of their duty, but which, in the cases that we are discussing, were treated as if they were personal possessions that officers could take home and deal with as they wished. That is an issue to which I shall want to return.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Victims of serious crime will be reassured that the Government are minded to opt back into the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much support across the EU for adopting the sort of proportionality tests that the Government are minded to introduce in amendments to legislation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right; a number of other member states have expressed concern about proportionality, and indeed some already operate, in various forms, a proportionality test. I think that the Government’s decision to table amendments in order to introduce a proportionality test in the UK will ensure that we do not see the European arrest warrant being used for the minor and trivial crimes that have led to much concern about its operation.

Police Integrity

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I have explained in response to another hon. Member who was questioning me on that issue, what I have announced today is that we will be transferring certain pieces of work from police forces to the IPCC, so there will be less work in that area for professional standards departments and others to do in police forces. We will be talking about how resources should appropriately transfer to the IPCC to ensure that it covers the work that it, rather than police forces, will now do.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments, and I support the move to transfer serious and sensitive cases to the IPCC. Will she ensure that the definition of “serious and sensitive” is as crystal clear as possible, so that the work of the IPCC can be enhanced and we can avoid potential ambiguities in determining what is serious and what is less serious?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is, of course, currently a working definition of “serious and sensitive”, but we need to ensure that in the new arrangements the definition is as clear as possible, so that there is no confusion between forces and the IPCC.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I really think I have answered questions about this issue, which I am sure will continue to be a matter for debate during the Bill’s progress.

Just as we are bringing the law enforcement response into the 21st century, so this Bill will ensure that our courts and our laws can meet the challenges of today’s society. Part 2 will enable the courts to deal robustly with wrongdoing and will ensure confidence in the system of non-custodial sentencing. For serious offenders —particularly those who use violence—a prison sentence will usually be the appropriate punishment, but where a custodial sentence might not be appropriate, the public must have confidence in the alternatives. A community order that is not perceived as a credible sanction or a fine that is not paid simply brings the criminal justice system into disrepute.

The provisions in part 2 will change that. For the first time, the courts will be required to include a punitive element in every community order. They will also be able to impose a new electronic monitoring requirement, which makes use of global positioning system technology to monitor an offender’s whereabouts. This will protect the public by deterring crime and assisting with detection. Alongside that, the Bill provides for courts to defer sentencing after conviction to allow time for restorative justice. We know that around 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice conferences are satisfied.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the provisions relating to restorative justice. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that restorative justice will work properly only if the victim is involved and consents to it? In many serious cases, restorative justice will not be the right option.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is essential that the victims are comfortable with going through the restorative justice process. The figures show that around 85% of victims who participate are satisfied with the response, but it is important that no victim should feel that restorative justice is being in any sense imposed on them. It must be something that they are willing to go through—he is indeed right about that. Restorative justice can also support rehabilitation by helping offenders to realise the consequences of their wrongdoing. This provision will help to put victims at the heart of justice.

At the same time, we are strengthening the ability of the Courts Service to exchange information with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, so that the courts have the income and benefits data they need to set fines at a level that properly reflects the means of the offender and supports the enforcement of those fines. We are also making it clear that the courts can take account of an offender’s assets when determining the level of a fine, which will ensure that criminals who seek to disguise their wealth are made to pay their dues.

Finally, the provisions in part 2 will bring the judiciary into this century by ensuring that it reflects the communities it serves. Progress has been made in recent years, but it has been slow. Just over one in five judges in our courts are female, and the proportion of black and ethnic minority judges hovers at around just 5%. We need to do better, particularly at the upper echelons of the judiciary. The Bill therefore includes a number of provisions to encourage progress in this area, including provision for part-time and flexible working in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. At the same time, we are providing that where there are two candidates of equal merit, preference may be given to a candidate from an under-represented group.

Ibrahim Magag

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The situation that the hon. Gentleman portrays in the whole of his question is not the situation that pertains. I made it clear in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) that for any individual on TPIMs a range of measures can be applied, including, for example, listing those with whom they may not associate. Those measures are put in place for each individual. They are carefully considered and regularly reassessed.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue is not about relocation orders but about the extra resources that were given to the police and security services when TPIMs were introduced? Can she reassure me that those extra resources are being used with specific reference to this person so that he can be apprehended as soon as possible?

[Mrs May]

The extra resources that were available were to be used on the introduction of the TPIMs and for a period of time in terms of the individuals who were on TPIMs and the TPIM regime that had been introduced. In relation to resources for the potential apprehension of Ibrahim Magag, I am assured by the police and others that they have the resources that they consider necessary to be able to conduct the inquiries and the search they are conducting.

Extradition

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We will be exploring a number of options for that primary legislation to come before the House. Obviously, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I cannot say at this moment when that will be. It will be when parliamentary time allows.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision today. Will she make sure that her Department redoubles its efforts to ensure that all people with autism, Asperger’s syndrome and related conditions are treated properly and their needs addressed when they are detained and arrested prior to any charge?

[Mrs May]

I note my hon. Friend’s point, which echoes that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). I will take it away and consider it.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am rather more optimistic than my hon. Friend is about the Brighton conference, because I know of the considerable work put in by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, and by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others across government, to work with the other 46 member states—remember, 47 countries will be around the table to discuss this. I am confident that the areas of change the Prime Minister has set out will indeed be addressed.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

At the Brighton conference, what steps will we take to ensure that cases such as this, which raise important and serious issues of national security, can be expedited and take their place over and above the thousands of cases heard by the European Court that raise no new issues of law whatsoever?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. On the length of time taken, there are two issues, one of which relates to the European Court. As I have said, the question of its efficiency will be addressed at the Brighton conference, as I understand it. The other issue is the time that proceedings here in the United Kingdom take, which is why I am looking at the systems and legal structures that apply in countries such as France and Italy, to see whether there is something we should be learning and changes we should be making.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is normal practice when introducing offences to have a lower level and a higher level offence, and training for the criminal justice system agencies will look at identifying the sort of behaviour that might come under one or the other. Again, in these circumstances it is always difficult, and I think inappropriate, to try to state absolutely what behaviour would come under one offence and what behaviour would come under another, because the context of behaviour might be significant; behaviour that might be considered lower level in one context might be considered higher level in another. It is important that we do not try to set out absolute definitions and that discretion is available to the police in interpreting the offences and looking at the context in which they are committed. I know that the hon. Lady’s view is different from mine, but the point is similar to the previous one: the more we try to define the offence in legislation or on the Floor of the House, the less we can offer the discretion and flexibility that might be necessary to an individual officer or the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with such cases. I fear that we might end up in a situation that is not so good if the terminology we use is too rigid.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow also tabled amendment (c) to Lords amendment 51, which would make the lower-level section 2A offence triable either way. It is currently a summary-only offence, reflecting the fact that it is a lower level offence and should be properly tried in the magistrates court. More serious behaviour should be captured by the higher level section 4A offence of stalking involving fear of violence. Amendments (d) to (f) seek to capture the emotional distress suffered by victims of stalking. I have already set out how we intend to address this point, and our approach is supported by NAPO and Protection Against Stalking. She referred to the need for clarity in the criminal justice system, yet her proposals attempt to blur the distinction between the two offences and, I think, would lead to less clarity rather than more.

The Opposition’s other amendment in this group, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52, would remove the requirement to obtain a warrant before searching a potential stalker’s property or possessions under the new section 2A offence. As the offence is a summary-only offence, which is by definition a lower level offence, I think that requiring a warrant for a search represents an appropriate balance between protecting the vulnerable in society from stalkers and respecting the rights of those who are innocent until proven guilty. The higher level offence, as I said earlier, automatically allows the power of entry, which is appropriate, given that it is a more serious offence. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Opposition’s amendments.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her clear exposition of the position. May I seek some clarification on the position regarding persistent offenders, who quite properly should be dealt with in the Crown court? Will guidelines be issued to prosecutors to deal with the particular issue of persistent offenders—in essence to ensure that they are dealt with by the either-way mechanism and can then be sent to the Crown court either for trial or for sentencing?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The persistency of an offence is a factor that should be taken into account when looking at the seriousness of it. Perhaps I can attempt to give the hon. Member for Walthamstow some indication on these matters. My hon. Friend raises the issue of someone persistently undertaking the offence of stalking, and we hope to reach a situation in which early examples, or early behaviour, of stalking can be identified, captured and therefore dealt with through the lower level offence before it moves on to stalking behaviour—the more serious offence that is set out in proposed section 4A.

We do take stalking very seriously, however, and we are determined to do all we can to stamp it out. We have created the two new offences, explicitly putting stalking on the statute book for the first time; we are giving the police the powers of entry that they need to disrupt stalkers at an early stage; and we have responded to the concerns of victims and of victims’ organisations by making it clear that behaviour which ruins lives will be properly punished. I think that those changes will make a real difference to the lives of victims, and I commend the Lords amendments and the Government’s amendments to those amendments to the House.

Public Disorder

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No. We are leaving police forces, as is appropriate, together with their police authorities, to decide in relation to budget what will happen. We are leaving chief constables to make operational decisions about how they do that. What is absolutely clear in relation to the Metropolitan police is that under the leadership of the previous Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police increased the availability of police in terms of the number of hours that would be spent and the amount of ground that could be covered by moving to the single patrols. They said, “There is a different way of doing this.” That is a good example of how such an innovative approach can improve the presence on the ground.

I shall now move on to the question of gang culture in many of our towns and cities. Six per cent. of young people are thought to belong to a gang of one kind or another. Gangs are inherently criminal. On average, entrenched gang members have 11 criminal convictions, and the average age for the first conviction of a gang member is just 15. They are also inherently violent. Gangs across the country are involved in the use and supply of drugs, firearms and knives. From talking to chief constables who have dealt with the violence of the past few days, it is clear that many of the perpetrators, but by no means all of them, are known gang members. So we have to do more to tackle gang culture.

We have already announced plans to provide £4 million in funding to London, Greater Manchester and the west midlands over the course of this year and next to tackle their gang, guns and knives problem. We are providing a further £4 million over two years to community organisations working to stop young people becoming involved in gangs, help young people get out of gangs and support parents to help their children, and we are working with the Prince’s Trust to support young people who want to prevent gang violence, through the new Ben Kinsella fund.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is clear that many of the perpetrators of these appalling crimes have been very young children indeed, and we know the limitations of the criminal law in relation to detention for young offenders who are under 14. Does my right hon. Friend agree that efforts to use restorative justice principles with young offenders, making them face up to the victims of their crimes and making them play their part in restoring the damage that they have done would be a good way to divert those young children from further involvement in the gang culture and in the crimes that we have seen?

[Mrs May]

I have long been a supporter of restorative justice where it is going to work. That is one of the key issues that we need to look at when we consider what is an appropriate way of dealing with individuals. Restorative justice has a record of dealing particularly well with those who are young and first offenders. However, sadly, it may be the case that even at a very young age, some of the people we are looking at who have been involved in the violence are not simply first offenders. It is a sad comment on our society that there may be those who have been involved as gang members in criminal activity previously. But we need to do more.

Sex Offenders Register

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I am certainly willing to take it away and consider it.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s approach to this as being purely a police matter. There has been a common misapprehension that requirements to sign on the sex register are somehow court orders. They are not. They are not part of the sentence or the judicial process, and I therefore welcome the commitment to keep the matter firmly within the realms of police discretion.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend, who brings his experience in the law to that point. It is absolutely right that the police will deal with the matter and make the decision.

Crime and Policing

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He makes particular reference to his constituency, and there will be others who will share his concern. That is why, as I said, we are reducing the reporting requirements for stop and search. We fully recognise that we need to do that in a sensitive way that notes and deals with the issue that he has raised.

In addition to dealing with bureaucracy, we will introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners—single, named individuals who will be democratically accountable to their communities. That accountability will be real and will be provided not by invisible police authorities—surveys show that only 7% of people know that there is a police authority they can go to if they have a problem with the police—and not by Ministers hundreds of miles away in London, but by people themselves. The police commissioner will be somebody whom people have heard of, whom they have voted for, whom they can hold to account and whom they can get rid of if they do not cut crime. So we will leave local crime fighting to local crime fighters, but we will not forget cross-border, national and international crime. It is an irony that for years the Home Office has tried to micro-manage local policing from the centre while it has neglected policing at the national level. That is why we will establish a national crime agency with a proper command structure to fight serious organised crime and to control our borders.

I understand that it was only yesterday that the Opposition added antisocial behaviour to their motion. The shadow Home Secretary spent quite a bit of time on it in his speech, but he forgot to mention his own quote about the last Government’s record on antisocial behaviour, when he said:

“We became a bit complacent…we…dragged our feet by not making it a priority.”

He claimed that the police have the powers they need to deal with antisocial behaviour and that there is a range of 15 options that they can use, but the fact that there are so many options is precisely the problem. We have individual support orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, antisocial behaviour injunctions, antisocial behaviour orders and criminal antisocial behaviour orders. There is a whole list of options that increases the bureaucracy and complexity and means that in many areas, the police, councils and local people find it very difficult to decide what is appropriate, and that all too often things are not applied.

The shadow Home Secretary should also know that three quarters of incidents of antisocial behaviour are not reported and that more than half of ASBOs are breached. Again, that is not a record of which to be proud or on which to be complacent. That is why we need to look at the whole toolkit that is available to the police in dealing with antisocial behaviour. No number of sanctions is a match for local policing that is responsive to local needs. That is what this Government’s police reform agenda will deliver—simpler, smarter sanctions that are faster to obtain, easier to enforce and that provide a strong deterrent and a real punishment.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

One of the main problems encountered by those dealing with ASBOs has been the inordinate length of time it can take for applications to succeed, only for people then to find that the problem that they were dealing with has gone away or has transmogrified into something else. Secondly, CRASBOs, or criminal ASBOs—I am sorry about using that acronym, or euphemism; it does not matter—are totally ineffective. They are afterthoughts that are bolted on to convictions and their enforcement has been nothing short of lamentable.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point about the panoply of ASBO powers that are available. The important point is that the bureaucracy involved in getting an ASBO means that, all too often, nothing is done, because it takes so long to get something enforced. That is why so many communities up and down the country find that the orders are not working and why they continue to suffer from antisocial behaviour.

Policing in the 21st Century

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Robert Buckland

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, for the work that the Home Affairs Committee has done under his chairmanship and for the issues that it has identified, to which I referred in my statement. I can confirm to him—and it is clear in the document—that our work on counter-terrorism is a good example of forces coming together and working together, and we have no plans to change the arrangements that are in place. In relation to front-line policing, this Government want to strengthen it. We want to slash the bureaucracy and get the police where they should be—out on the streets.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In setting up the new national crime agency, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it does not make the same mistakes as its predecessor bodies in setting artificial targets for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, which have often led to inappropriate and wasteful proceedings?

[Mrs May]

It is one of the characteristics of the previous Government that they set more store by setting targets than by ensuring outcomes and giving bodies the freedom to do what was necessary to get on with the job and fight crime.