Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Immigration law is important, but the problem is that, at the moment, a huge amount of immigration law is not even enforced. There has been an 80% drop in the number of people who have been unsuccessful in the asylum system and been returned—an 80% drop since the Conservatives came to office. At the same time, our asylum system, under the Tories, is in total chaos. Only 1% of last year’s cases have had even an initial decision. Home Office decision making has been cut by 40%, the backlog has trebled in the space of just a few years, and thousands of people are in costly and inappropriate hotels.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am also grateful for the kind comments that she made about me in an interview at the weekend regarding modern slavery work. She has just referred to the backlog in asylum cases. If she thinks that the current figure means that the system is in chaos, what is her description of the system under the Labour Government of which she was a member, which had a backlog in asylum cases of between 400,000 and 450,000?

[Yvette Cooper]

The former Prime Minister and former Home Secretary is experienced enough to know that that is not an accurate characterisation of what happened. By the time the Labour Government left office, the backlog of initial decisions was just a few thousand. Now it is 160,000, and in fact it has trebled in the past few years as a result of the complete failure of the Conservatives.

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the former Prime Minister; she and I have asked each other questions for so many years that I have to let her do so again.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but does she not accept that, between the late 1990s and the early 2000s, when Labour was in government, the number of asylum cases that were in the legacy—the backlog—rose to between 400,000 and 450,000?

[Yvette Cooper]

The important point that the former Prime Minister addresses is that in the late ’90s there was an issue about what had happened with the Bosnian refugee crisis and many others. In fact, it was the action that the last Labour Government took that got a grip of the system and addressed some of the challenges. We took action to make sure that we could have both border security and a system that provided for refugees and those in need of asylum. The former Home Secretary will also know, because she was responsible for introducing the modern slavery law, which I support, that the Bill rips up many of the provisions at the heart of that legislation. I hope that she and I would agree that it should be possible for our country to have strong border security, and to have strong, fast, and effective measures, which, at the moment, the Government do not have, to deal with asylum cases swiftly and speedily, but also to make provision for those who have fled persecution and conflict, and provide support for those who have been trafficked and those who are the victims of modern slavery. I hope that she agrees with me that the Bill does the total opposite.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the work being done—I shall refer to this later—to increase the economic development of the countries that people are coming from, and to deal with the criminal gangs, is so important.

I have set out three principles, which I am pleased to say underpin the Bill. First, we must help to ensure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The current trend, where refugees reach a safe country and then press on with their journey, can only benefit criminal gangs and expose refugees to grave danger. The refugee convention does not state that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. We were able to exercise that rule in the Dublin regulation as part of the European Union. Obviously that is not applicable to us now, and indeed the EU has since changed the Dublin regulation.

Secondly, we need to improve how we distinguish between refugees fleeing persecution and economic migrants, which will help to target support on those refugees who need it most, as well as encouraging people to support such a measure if they see that the people who are coming are genuinely refugees. Thirdly, we need a better approach to managing economic migration, which recognises that all countries have the right to control their borders. We must all commit to accepting the return of our own nationals when they have no right to remain elsewhere.

Sadly, as the Home Secretary said, the business of people trafficking has increased in recent years. To the criminal gangs, it does not matter whether they deal in drugs, weapons or desperate people—it is all the same; they want to make money. Breaking their business model is essential. That means stopping the routes available to them, but it also means catching and prosecuting them. That requires international co-operation. We have been very strong on international co-operation, and we must encourage more countries around the world to see this as an issue on which they should be working with us, and others.

I recognise that the Bill focuses on differentiating between those who came here legally and illegally, and I understand why the Government have gone down that route, but that in itself does not address the issue of better differentiating between refugees and economic migrants. I hope that the Government will give some thought to how they can work internationally to try to deal with that.

The concept that Britain could process asylum claims outside the UK came up when I was Home Secretary, and there was a lot of discussion on it in the European Union, but we did not go down that route because of practical concerns. It would not automatically remove the criminal gangs’ business model, because they would get people to the centre and still take those rejected by the centre and move them on across the Mediterranean, so there could be an increase in people being picked up and taken into slavery. There is also the problem of what we do with those people who are rejected for asylum but cannot be returned to their country of origin. The concept of allowing asylum to be granted outside the UK is also a major step, and it would have ramifications for any Royal Navy or Border Force vessel operating humanitarian missions in the Mediterranean, for example.

On seeking protection but entering illegally without a valid entry clearance becoming a new criminal offence, we must not send the message that somebody genuinely fleeing persecution whose only route out of that persecution is to the UK will automatically be seen as a criminal. I also echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

[Yvette Cooper]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that part of the concern is about ensuring that the modern slavery provisions do not end up being drawn too tightly?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, because I am coming on to that point. I am sure that across the House we are sickened to know that some are abusing our world-leading modern slavery legislation in trafficking people into this country. We need to deal with the problem, but I have two concerns with the Bill. The first is about timing and the issue that the Secretary of State can require information to be provided within a specified period. It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that. I would like reassurance about how that power will be exercised.

Secondly, I would like an explanation about the change from needing reasonable grounds that a person may be a victim of modern slavery to reasonable grounds that a person is a victim of modern slavery. I know we need to toughen up to ensure that the law is not being abused, but again this relates to the degree of information that an individual may be able to provide at an early stage in consideration of their case.

I understand the complexity of the issues with which the Government are dealing in this area of policy. There always seems to be a need for a new immigration Bill because people are always trying to find loopholes that they can use to get here, so we must have legislation that not only strengthens the Government’s ability to deal with illegal immigration but continues to show that the UK is a country that welcomes those who are genuinely fleeing from persecution.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

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

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would also say that some of the local health trusts in my area in Berkshire have put together small videos getting out important messages about the support that is available and the fact that that support is there for people who are the victims of domestic abuse.

I hope the Government are going to publicise this Bill. It is important that victims and perpetrators know the implications of the Bill, particularly the fact that for domestic violence protection orders and notices, for example, it is not up to the victim to apply—others and third parties can apply for those things. Perpetrators need to know that.

Overall, this is a very important Bill. I welcome the cross-party support for it. I hope it will have a swift passage through the other place, because the sooner this Bill is on the statute book, the sooner we can provide extra support and help to the victims of domestic abuse. We will be able to say to them, “We are on your side. We understand. We want to help. It is not your fault”. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner we can say to perpetrators, “This has got to stop.”

[Yvette Cooper]

May I begin by welcoming the work that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has done on domestic abuse over many years, the personal interest that she has taken in the issue, and her work on coercive control and on getting this Bill started in the first place?

I welcome the Bill and the amendments that the Government have tabled, particularly those around strengthening protections for children, strengthening protections in court and ending the appalling rough sex defence. I welcome the Government’s response to Members right across the House, who have been campaigning so powerfully for added measures and for changes to protect people from this awful crime—this torture in the home. The importance of this Bill and these measures has only grown during the coronavirus crisis, as perpetrators have exploited lockdown to increase their control and abuse, and calls to helplines and concerns have increased. Since the beginning of lockdown, 35 women and children have been murdered by a partner or ex.

I particularly want to speak to new clauses 32 and 33, which have cross-party support. I pay tribute to Laura Richards at Paladin who was behind a lot of this work, and encourage the Government to look at the report that she has published today which shows that there is a serious gap in the way our system responds to the risk from serial perpetrators of abuse. There are systems in place, such as multi-agency risk assessment conferences, to manage the risks to repeat victims, but there are no proper systematic approaches in place to monitor or tackle repeat perpetrators. These are dangerous people—predominantly dangerous men—who may go on to become ever more dangerous.

We need to make sure that when the call comes in about domestic abuse by someone who has been convicted before for abuse against someone else, it is not just treated as a new or one-off offence. We need to ensure that there are systems in place to join up the dots to link police, probation and support services together and to monitor people who have a series of previous domestic abuse or stalking convictions so that if they start a new relationship, the police and local services know that a new family are at risk and can take action. Too often, that does not happen. Clare’s law does not solve the problem because it relies on an individual asking about an offender’s history. What if they do not know to ask? What if they are too scared? Why is it still left to victims to ask for help, rather than having a proper system in place to monitor serial abusers and offenders? As Laura Richards points out,

“professionals load the victim up with actions and a safety plan and rarely do any multi-agency problem solving and risk management regarding the perpetrator.”

New clause 32 calls on the Government properly to review the way in which serial abusers are monitored and managed, and to publish that review swiftly. New clause 33 sets out a stronger way to respond to serial abusers, by bringing them into the process for managing serious offenders—the multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPAs—so that serial domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers can be properly addressed. So far, the Government have resisted this.

In response to the recommendation in our Home Affairs Committee report on this subject a few years ago, they said, “Well, we will work with the police and with existing information systems.” Those information systems are not working. The police national database is far too sporadic and patchy with regards to the way in which police officers respond to this issue across the country. The Government have said that they do not want a stand-alone register, but this does not have to be a stand-alone register. The whole point is to bring this into the existing MAPPA and violent and sex offender register—ViSOR—processes that are currently used for sex offenders and the most serious violent offenders. We have processes that can work. Why not use them for serial domestic abusers who can escalate that abuse?

Nor is it good enough for the Government to simply say, “Well, there’s a lot of good work under way. We’ve got to respond to pilots.” We have already heard them say in response to the powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), on the need to address the issue of no recourse to public funds for migrant women, that we need to wait for pilots. In that case, it is not enough to respond to pilots. We should be taking some action while we wait for those pilots to conclude.

Similarly, on serial domestic abusers, by all means let us have pilots and different measures in place on how best to respond to perpetrators, but let us get on with having the systems that can join up the information so that the police and probation can work together and know who those dangerous serial abusers are. The tragedy is that Laura Richards’s report lists case after case where that did not happen, where someone has been murdered and the killer had a history—the killer had abused many times before—and the police, probation services and others did not have a system in place to identify that and to respond. It has happened too many times.

If Ministers will not listen to me and will not listen to the Select Committee when we make these recommendations, perhaps they will instead listen to the calls from the families of victims. Perhaps they will listen to the words of John Clough, the father of Jane Clough, who said,

“It’s way past time serial abusers and stalkers were treated with the same gravitas as sex offenders and managed in a similar fashion”,

or those of Celia Peachey, daughter of Maria Stubbings, who said,

“My mum was failed and the lessons have not been learned. Our current system is failing women and children—violent men must be made visible. Men with violent histories must be checked and joined up.”

I urge the Minister not to simply reject these amendments out of hand. Even if the Government are not yet able to accept new clause 33, which would set up the system and process to manage serial offenders, I urge them to at least accept new clause 32, to urgently review the risk management of these serial abusers and offenders across the country and report back, so that we can keep more women safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to urge that commitment for the future. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am very pleased that under my Government, we have seen the gender pay gap at a record low, female employment at a record high and a record percentage of women on executive boards. With our women’s empowerment road map, we are now looking at how we can empower women in this country from school to retirement. I want women in this country to feel that there are no limits to how far they can go and what they can do with their lives.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We have disagreed on many things over the years, but the Prime Minister knows that I have long respected her resilience, commitment to public duty and seriousness, as well as her work on national security. I assure her that there is much to be done from the Back Benches. She knows that I once said to her that I believed she was not the kind of person who would take this country into a chaotic no-deal scenario, not least because of the advice she had had on the risks to our national security. I am fearful about her successor, so can she reassure me that she really thinks, in her heart, that her successor will take those national security warnings as seriously as she has? If he does not, in October, will she speak out?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I have every confidence that my successor will take all the issues that he needs to look at in making these decisions and others across Government as seriously as they need to be taken. I also say to her—I am sorry, but I will say this—that she is absolutely right that I have always said that I believe it is better for this country to leave with a good deal, and I believe we negotiated a good deal. I voted three times in this House for a good deal. I spoke to the right hon. Lady about this issue. If she was so concerned about the security aspect of no deal, she should have voted for the deal.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Because I have been discussing, and business managers have been discussing, a timetable for the Bill’s passage. Obviously, a business motion and a programme motion have to be agreed by the House. It is very clear, and the determination of the last European Council makes it clear, that bringing the Bill back for Second Reading after the Whitsun recess would enable us to do exactly what I said and leave the European Union on 31 July.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Given the awful news about British Steel, it is crucial that the Government stand up for British manufacturing. The Prime Minister will know that a customs union is immensely important to manufacturing across the north and the midlands and that industry needs a long-term deal to support investment. Given the reports coming out of Cabinet yesterday, can she tell us: has the Cabinet ruled out a long-term customs union being part of the future partnership with the EU that they are supposedly going to negotiate after this withdrawal agreement? Have they ruled out a long-term customs union—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady referenced what has happened to Greybull Capital’s company, British Steel. She will be aware, as others will, that a number of issues and a number of challenges face the steel industry—not just in the UK, but globally—and part of that, of course, is the overcapacity issue because supply is outstripping demand. Of course, much of the excess production is coming from China. That is why in the G20 two or three years ago we acted to bring China around the table to try to deal with that issue.

The right hon. Lady asks about the long term. The compromise solution on customs that I put forward and referenced in my statement is designed to ensure that a future Government can take that issue in the direction that they wish to take it, and for the House to determine what those negotiating objectives should be. What matters to our manufacturing industry is the frictions that take place at the border and having the benefits of the customs union in no tariffs and no quotas. That is exactly what is already in the political declaration—the benefits of the customs union—and, as I say, we are committed to ensuring that trade is as frictionless as possible.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are indeed conducting the negotiations in the spirit that my right hon. and learned Friend has described, and I do indeed want to achieve the timetable that he has set. I think that many of us on both sides of the House believe that it is important for us to do all that we can to set this in train to ensure that we can leave the European Union before the European parliamentary elections.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We are in this difficult situation because the Government’s approach has not worked, and simply going round in the same circles or doing the same things will not solve the problem either. It would be helpful to understand how far the Prime Minister is actually prepared to reconsider her red lines. Is she now willing to consider a common external tariff with the EU—which is a key part of any customs union—or does she still rule that out?

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend asks an important question. We have published economic analysis that shows the impact of no deal. Over £4 billion is being spent by the Government on preparations for leaving the European Union with or without a deal. As I say, there is economic analysis that shows the impact of no deal over the coming months. My own view is that, over time, we would be able to address the issues that arose, but there would be an immediate impact on the economy.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said that she is prepared to provide for indicative votes and to engage constructively with the process, but she has also many times—she appeared to again today—ruled out supporting a customs union. If a customs union is supported in indicative votes, is she ruling out the Government attempting to negotiate a customs union with the European Union?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The suggestion of the extension to the end of June was of course considered by the House last week. The request has gone into the European Union Council, and before it is possible for that request to be confirmed, it is of course necessary for the EU Council to agree that extension, because the treaty is clear that an extension can be applied for by the country that is leaving the European Union but it has to be agreed by all 28 members of the European Union. That will not be possible until the European Council at the end of this week.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister still has to ask the EU to agree to something. At the moment, all she is asking anybody to agree to is the same plan that she has put to this House twice, and that has been roundly defeated twice. Why will she not just open up, just think again, just allow the indicative votes that others have put forward? What she is doing by sticking to this failed plan is deeply dangerous for our country. In the national interest, I beg this Prime Minister to think again.

[The Prime Minister]

What is first and foremost in the national interest is for this country to leave the European Union, and to do so in a way that protects people’s livelihoods, protects their security and protects our Union. That is the proposal that we have put forward. The right hon. Lady has raised again the issue of indicative votes. I say to her, as I have said to others, that first of all we stand by the requirement to bring the motion under section 13(4) of the withdrawal Act, which we will do, and we will bring that motion to this House within the timetable set out in the legislation. I also say to her that it is the case that there have been votes in this House on some of the other proposals that have been brought forward, and those have equally been rejected. There is one thing that this House has agreed to, and that is that it would leave with a deal; it was in relation to changes in relation to the backstop. That is the one positive vote that the House has given.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, in the talks with the European Union we are discussing delivering the changes required by this House regarding its concern about the potential indefinite nature of the backstop. There is the prospect—I believe we have it within our grasp—to get an agreement such that we can leave the European Union on 29 March with a deal. When those changes are brought back I hope, as my right hon. Friend says, that every Member of this House will recognise their responsibility to deliver on the vote of the referendum in 2016 to deliver Brexit, and to do it in the best way possible, which is with a deal.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said, for the first time, that she is willing to put a motion extending article 50. I hope that reflects the strong arguments that have been made from all parts of the House about the damage no deal would do to this country. But she will also know that promised votes have been pulled before, that Commons motions have been ignored before, and that when the Commons previously voted against no deal the Brexit Secretary told the House that Government policy was still to leave on 29 March with no deal if the deal had not been passed. He said:

“Frankly, the legislation takes precedence over the motion”.—[Official Report, 14 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 1070.]

If there is no legislation in place, what assurances do we have that: votes will definitely be put; the Government will abide by any motions; and the entire Cabinet will abide by any votes? What will the Government’s policy be in those circumstances? Will it be to argue for no deal or will it be to argue for an extension?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the right hon. Lady references the Cabinet. This has been discussed by Cabinet, so this is a position that the Government have taken. I would not have brought it before the House today if it were not a position that the Government had taken on this issue.

I have set those dates. If she would care to look at what I have been doing over recent weeks, she will see the points where I have said I would come back today. On the previous time I came back to the House there was a guarantee that I would come back to the House. I said I would bring a motion, and we brought a motion. We will bring a motion tomorrow. So there is a clear and firm commitment from this Government to ensure that we bring those votes to this House. The House then has that opportunity.

I recognise the concern of right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that the voice of the House is heard. That is why I said that those votes will be brought before the House should we lose the meaningful vote. I continue to want to see this House supporting a meaningful vote, so that we can leave with a deal. As she will have heard in my statement, in the case that a vote for no no deal and then a vote for an extension had been put forward, we would take that to the European Union. The decision would not be entirely ours. There has to be a unanimous decision of the 27 member states of the European Union to agree that extension, but were that agreed, we would bring forward the necessary legislation.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, what we are doing now is working with the EU to achieve what this Parliament has said it wants to see achieved, notably legally binding changes to the backstop that deal with the issues that have been raised by this Parliament. I continue to work on those points, but my hon. Friend made a very important point at the beginning of his question, which is that Members from across this House overwhelmingly voted for a referendum. It was clear at the time that this House would respect the result of the referendum. The Government of the time made it clear that we would respect the result of the referendum. This House over- whelmingly voted to trigger article 50. Article 50 had a two-year timeline to it, which ends on 29 March, and this House voted for the withdrawal agreement Act. At every stage so far this House has been willing to put into place the result of the referendum. What the House now needs to do is agree a deal, so that we can leave on 29 March and progress on to the next stage of negotiations and progress on to a brighter future.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The country’s counter-terror chief has said that no deal would be a “very serious flaw” in our security arrangements. The police chief in charge of preparing for Brexit has said that no deal would leave us less safe. The Prime Minister and I have always previously agreed on the importance of not undermining our national security or public safety, but she knows that her continued delays have increased the risks of no deal on 29 March, so if she has failed by the middle of March to persuade this House to back a deal, is she still ruling out extending article 50—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

The extension of article 50 does not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem of having no deal is to agree a deal. The right hon. Lady says that my delays have caused the position we are in. We are in this position because I negotiated a deal with the European Union and brought it back to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons, including Members on her side of the House, rejected that deal. We are now working to address the issue raised by the positive vote that the House of Commons gave on 29 January. That vote ensured it was clear what changes the House of Commons felt were necessary to agree a deal.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to make some progress.

The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford does not rule out no deal; it simply delays the point of decision, and the policy dilemmas, the choices, the trade-offs that we face as a Parliament will not go away if we postpone exit day. Her amendment offers absolutely no positive suggestions to address them. Furthermore, I believe that the EU is very unlikely to agree to extend article 50 without a credible plan for how we are going to approve a deal. So whatever the right hon. Lady’s intention, I think the practical consequences of her amendment would be not to rule out no deal, but to delay Brexit, and that is not a course of action that this House should support.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will of course give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Prime Minister does not get agreement either from the EU or this Parliament to her next course of action, is she ruling out any extension of article 50?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been very clear, as I said earlier, about the process we will follow: if we get a deal we will bring it back to this House, or if we have not got a deal we will give this House opportunities through amendable motions to state its view as to what should happen at that point in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, as I have referenced her.

[Yvette Cooper]

It is really important that the House has some clarity on this. If the Prime Minister is saying that there will be future votes in which Parliament can make some decisions about no deal or not, she will know that her credibility is very limited because she said there would be a vote in December and then pulled it at the last minute. We therefore need some clarity from her now: is she saying that if Parliament votes for an extension of article 50 to avoid no deal on 29 March she will respect that?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a very simple point: extending article 50 does not rule out no deal. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry; I have said this before, but I apologise to the House as I am going to repeat it again. There are two ways in which it is possible to rule out no deal. One is by revoking article 50 and not leaving. That is the SNP’s view, but it is not my view, it is not the Government’s view, and I believe that it is not the view of the British people and is not the view of the majority of Members of this House. The other way to ensure we do not leave with no deal is to agree a deal. The stage we are at at the moment is that the House of Commons has rejected the deal that the Government agreed with the European Union when we brought that back, and it rejected it with our having achieved further reassurances; I am going to go on to say what I believe is now required by this House, from the conversations and discussions I have had with right hon. and hon. Members of this House. As I have set out—

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady wants to intervene again; I will take another intervention from her, and then if she will excuse me I will make some progress.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way again, but I am simply trying to understand what she is saying. She cannot have it both ways: she cannot be saying that she absolutely will leave on 29 March in all circumstances, whatever happens, and then simultaneously say that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to have some future votes and decide what happens next if there is no deal. The question here is whether or not she would ever contemplate any extension of article 50 to get a bit more time to sort things out to avoid no deal—yes or no.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier in my speech, we will bring a revised deal back to this House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can. If it were not supported by the House, we would table an amendable motion for debate the next day, and if we have not brought a revised deal back to this House by Wednesday 13 February we will make a statement and again table an amendable motion for debate the next day. The right hon. Lady references the timetable up to 29 March; actually this House voted for that timetable when it voted to trigger article 50.

I would like to move on to the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If my hon. Friend looks back at the discussions that have taken place in the European Union, he will see that it has often been the United Kingdom that has been promoting fair competition, including in relation to state aid rules. The question of those state aid rules and what will be included in any future trade agreement with the European Union is, of course, a matter that we look at in detail in the next stage of the negotiations.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister seems to be talking as if she lost by 30 votes, not 230. She says that she wants to give Parliament a say on the political declaration and the future partnership but, to be honest, we have heard all that before. If she is serious, why not give Parliament a say before we finish the article 50 negotiations, not after? Why not put to Parliament some votes on her red lines, including on a customs union; otherwise, how can any of us believe a word she says?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have set out, the correct process, which is provided for under the legislation, is that there will be a neutral motion next week, which will be amendable. There will be Members across the House who wish to put down amendments that may reflect different views across the House in relation to different matters. We will, of course, continue to work on this, and when the Leader of the Opposition said that we were denying any democratic involvement in the process—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) says from a sedentary position that, yes, we were. Actually, no, even when we get the support of this House for a deal, there will still be the process of legislating to ensure that that deal is put in place, and this House will play a role in that legislation.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In a moment.

When I became Prime Minister that is what I pledged to do: yes, to deliver Brexit, but also to govern on the side of working people, right across the country, for whom life is harder than it should be and to build on the progress that has been made since 2010.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. The problem is that she seems to be talking as if she lost by 30 votes yesterday and not 230. Her refusal even to consider changing any of her red lines, when the EU, the Irish Government and others made it clear that the deal that she got was dependent on those red lines, is making this impossible. May I ask her to clarify this: is she saying that she will rule out, in any circumstances, a customs union?

[The Prime Minister]

What I want to see is what the British people voted for—[Interruption.] No, this is very important. They voted for an end to free movement; they voted for an independent trade policy; and they voted to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It is incumbent on this Parliament to ensure that we deliver on that.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The concern that Members overwhelmingly raised was the issue of whether or not the backstop could continue indefinitely. The European Union, within the withdrawal agreement in a number of ways, makes it clear that the backstop can only be a temporary arrangement. It has given further assurance in Council conclusions, which, as I say, have legal force in international law. That has been confirmed here in the UK, so it has gone further than it did within the withdrawal agreement. I have said to the House on many occasions that there is no deal with the European Union that does not involve a withdrawal agreement and there is no deal that does not involve having a backstop, as a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister called on everyone this morning to

“move beyond division and come together”.

Does she not recognise that she has made the divisions worse and made it harder for people to come together by not consulting either Parliament or the public on her red lines or the negotiating objectives, and by ducking and delaying votes? Does she not recognise that brinkmanship is the worst possible way to make such big decisions for the future of our country? Will she tell the House now that she has not ruled out extending article 50 if her plan is rejected tomorrow?

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into some budgetary decisions there, which, as he will know, would not be appropriate at the Dispatch Box. But I would say to him that we are making the plans—the contingency arrangements—for no deal. As I said in my statement, the Cabinet will be meeting tomorrow to discuss what further steps need to be taken. We have already stepped up those preparations—indeed, my right hon. Friend was responsible for them himself when he was the Brexit Secretary of State—but further stepping up of the no-deal preparations has gone on to address exactly the sorts of issues he is looking at, such as the flow of traffic into different ports here in the UK to ease the disruption. Disruption will take place under no deal in the short term. We want to take every step we can to mitigate that.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister ruled out a customs union, ruled out Norway, ruled out Canada, ruled out parliamentary votes on her objectives, ruled out parliamentary votes on the options and is now ruling out extending article 50, yet everyone knows she does not have support for her plan and she has no assurances from the EU that she asked for. If she carries on like this, she is the one who will take us over a no-deal cliff edge.

This Christmas, businesses and Departments across the country are now going to be spending billions of pounds preparing for no deal. Does she not have a duty and a responsibility to them to rule out no deal, to say she will extend article 50 and to have a proper discussion in Parliament to work out the way forward?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the right hon. Lady says that we ruled out certain things. Actually, in the vote that took place in 2016, the majority of the British people voted to leave the European Union, and one of the key issues in that was bringing an end to free movement, which some of the suggestions that she has as alternatives would not allow to happen. So, actually, we are trying to reflect the views that took place during that vote, and the decision as to whether or not we go forward with the deal will be one that this Parliament will take.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Every Member of this House who has raised this issue of going back to the public on this matter needs to consider very carefully the impact that that would have. I believe that it would lead to a significant loss of faith in our democracy, and to many people questioning the role of this House and the role of Members within this House. We gave people the decision. The people have made that decision; we should deliver on it.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Nothing has changed in the level of parliamentary concern about the Prime Minister’s deal since last week, but she still sent her Ministers and her official spokesperson out at 11 this morning to say that this vote was 100% going ahead, and yet we still, even now, do not know when she wants to bring this vote back, or even what she wants the deal to be. Does she not realise how chaotic and ridiculous this makes our country look? Given the importance of trust and credibility in this entire process, how can she possibly talk about duty and honour, and faith in politicians, when we cannot even trust the most basic things her Ministers are saying?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I should be clear with the right hon. Lady and with the House that I consulted the Cabinet late-morning about the decision to defer the vote. That decision was taken because of an understanding of a concern that Members of this House have expressed in relation to the backstop. It was taken, having discussed with Members of the House whether the reassurances that had previously been negotiated by the UK Government were sufficient to allay those concerns. It is that issue on which we will be going back to European Union and it is that issue on which we will be seeking those further reassurances. I say once again that this House has a responsibility, and there will come a point when it will be up to every Member of this House to determine whether they will accept the result of the referendum and deliver a deal for the British people that ensures a smooth exit from Brexit and that protects jobs and livelihoods.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The economic analysis that was produced by the Government last week made it very clear that within the political declaration is a spectrum on which the balance of obligations in relation to the rights of access—the balance of obligations on checks at the border in relation to market access—must be addressed. It is clear that that will be ambitious, and we will continue to work for frictionless trade, which is indeed what was put forward in the White Paper in the summer. However, it was only right and proper that in our economic analysis we indicated a midpoint on that spectrum, which gave an indication to people of the impact of trade barriers should they be put up.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way—she is being very generous—but does she not understand that by over-claiming what is in the political declaration, she is undermining trust? She is asking for our trust in her, and in the UK, to determine what will happen in future, because so little is resolved. Not only on the spectrum on the economics, but also on the security issues, she is over-claiming. She suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that she had effectively secured agreement to SIS II, but she knows that she has not, because she tried to do so. Paragraph 87 of the political declaration does not refer to SIS II; it simply says that “the Parties” will “consider” the arrangements, and if we are lucky we will get something that will “approximate”. That is not the same as SIS II, and the Prime Minister knows it. Will she be straight with the country and with Parliament about the political declaration?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said this to Members before, and I will say it again. There is a difference between ensuring that we have the security capabilities that we need in the future, and simply saying that we will be doing that in a particular way. What paragraph 87 makes clear is the intent to have

“exchange of information on wanted or missing persons and objects and of criminal records, with the view to delivering capabilities that, in so far as is technically and legally possible, and considered necessary and in both Parties’ interests, approximate those enabled by relevant Union mechanisms.”

[The Prime Minister]

No; I am sorry.

This is a fundamental issue which has underpinned the approach to these negotiations. We could have approached the negotiations by saying, “We are going to take the models that already exist, and in all cases we are going to say that we have to be in those models in exactly the same way as we are today.” What we have said is that we look to ensure that we can have the capabilities that we have where we need those capabilities, and that is exactly what we are delivering—

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Prime Minister give way on that point?

[The Prime Minister]

No. I am sorry.

That is exactly what we have in the political declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly am encouraging forthrightness. I would not challenge the Prime Minister’s integrity, because I know that she has worked immensely hard on this, but I am asking her to give accurate information to the House. Will she tell us whether she tried to get SIS II, rather than pretending that she was trying to get parallel capabilities?

[The Prime Minister]

We are clear about the capabilities that are currently available to us as a member of SIS II and within ECRIS. It is still open to us to seek to have the same relationship in relation to SIS II and ECRIS as we currently have, but we want to ensure that we have the capabilities that underpin SIS II and ECRIS.

I am tempted to say that the right hon. Lady might like to cast her mind back to the time when I was Home Secretary and she was shadow Home Secretary, and I stood at this Dispatch Box moving the motion that ensured that we could rejoin 35 measures on justice and home affairs matters, including SIS II and ECRIS, while she, I seem to recall, was working with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) to prevent the Government from rejoining those measures.

If this deal is passed, the task ahead of us will be to turn this ambitious political declaration into our new legal agreement with the EU. [Interruption.] No, I am going to make more progress, and the next section of my speech might be of interest to Members of this House. In doing so, I want to build the broadest possible consensus both within this House and across the country. So for the next stage of negotiations we will ensure a greater and more formal role for Parliament. This will begin immediately as we develop our negotiating mandate, building on the political declaration ahead of 29 March 2019. The Government will consult more widely and engage more intensively with Parliament as we finalise the mandate for the next phase of the negotiations. Ministers will appear before Select Committees between now and March in each relevant area of the political declaration from fisheries to space to foreign policy. So Members across the House will be able to contribute their expertise to the detailed positions we take forward with the EU, and the whole House will be consulted on the final version of that full mandate. We will also provide the devolved Administrations with a similar degree of detailed engagement. We will undertake targeted engagement with business and civil society to help inform our detailed negotiating positions.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first point out to my right hon. Friend that what I said in my statement was that neither we nor the EU were entirely happy with the backstop arrangements that were put in place. That is accurate. I have referenced one reason why we are not happy with it, and I have referenced in earlier answers why the EU is not happy with it.

I recognise the concern that has been expressed about our ability to negotiate free trade deals with other countries on the basis of the arrangement that we are putting in place with the EU for our future relationship. We will be able to negotiate those free trade deals, but I think every Member of the House should be aware that when they are being considered, there will be issues that the House will want to consider, which will be nothing to do with whether or not we have a particular relationship with the European Union. The House will want to consider animal welfare standards. The House will want to consider environmental standards. Those are the issues that Members will wish to consider when it looks at the free trade deals, but it is absolutely clear that we will be able to negotiate those deals with the relationship that is being proposed.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This is not a deal for the future; it is just a stopgap. We do not know whether it means Chequers, or Canada, or Norway, or an endless backstop, or something worse, or a massive security downgrade. We have no idea where this is heading, and other countries are already saying that this gives them more leverage because it reduces our negotiating power. How can the Prime Minister say that this is in the future interests of the country? She used to say that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. When did she change her mind?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me point out to the right hon. Lady that what the political declaration does is set out very clearly the basis for the future relationship that we will be having with the European Union in respect of security and economic arrangements. It also sets out clearly that

“it is the clear intent of both Parties to develop in good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship”.

This is not about some other sort of relationship; it is about what is in this document.

The right hon. Lady asked whether it was Canada or Norway. I said right at the beginning of this process that we should get away from thinking of “on the shelf” models that already exist. What is being proposed here, and what is acknowledged from the European Union, is a relationship of unprecedented depth which has not been offered to any other major advanced economy. It is a relationship which shows that we are not just another third country.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What we are looking at here is a withdrawal agreement that determines the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and a declaration that identifies the scope and structure of our future relationship. Our future relationship is one that will not see the European Union controlling our laws because, in those areas where we choose to align with the European Union, it will be for this Parliament to decide that, and that decision will therefore be taken here by the United Kingdom. There will not be European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. That is what we have negotiated in the outline political declaration for our future relationship.

I recognise my hon. Friend as one of the Members of this House who has campaigned on this issue probably since the day—maybe even since before—he came into this House. He has continued to campaign on this issue with a passion, and I recognise the concerns that he has expressed. As Prime Minister and as a Government, it is our duty to ensure that we put together a deal that not only respects the vote of the British people—it does, in the ways that I have said, and it also ends free movement—but does so in a way that protects jobs. That is why I believe it is important not only that we take back control in the areas mentioned, but that we maintain a good trading relationship with the European Union, as well as having good trading relationships elsewhere. That is in our economic interest and in our national interest, and that is what we will deliver.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The political declaration includes passenger name records and the Prüm fingerprint database, but makes no reference to the crucial Schengen Information System II criminal database, which we check 500 million times a year, or to a replica European arrest warrant, and that is at a time when cross-border crime and security threats are at their highest ever level. The Prime Minister knows that these measures save lives, stop criminals and stop terrorists, so how can she of all people say, with her head and her heart, that this public safety downgrade is in the national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

First, of course, there is reference to us agreeing expeditious, swift and effective arrangements to enable the United Kingdom and member states to extradite suspected and convicted persons effectively and expeditiously. That will be part of the measure, and the instrument that is used will be part of further negotiations that will take place. The right hon. Lady is right to say that SIS II is important to us. There are two further areas of exchange of information that I and the Home Secretary believe are important—SIS II and the European Criminal Records Information System—and we will take those matters forward with the European Union in our further negotiations.

October EU Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister and I have had many disagreements on many things, but I stand with her completely against the violent, dehumanising and, frankly, misogynistic language that we have heard. I hope the whole House will condemn it, because it demeans every single one of us.

The Prime Minister has previously said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Can she tell the House what proportion of the future partnership agreement she thinks has been reached?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments about the use of language.

The position we are in is that 95% of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed, as I said, and a substantial part of the future relationship in relation to security, services, transport and other issues has been agreed, in terms of the structure and scope of that future relationship. The point is that none of this is finally agreed until leaders look at the package and agree the whole package together, hence nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is obviously one of my hon. Friends who has paid particular, very careful attention to these issues, but I do not agree with the situation that he has set out. We have been negotiating with the European Union. That has seen both the European Union recognising our arguments and moving its position in relation to some issues, and our recognising our need to put forward proposals that are acceptable to us but that recognise the concerns that have been expressed by the European Union.

But what we are doing, and what I am doing, is making sure that any deal that we have is the deal that is best for the future of the United Kingdom. That is a deal that delivers on the Brexit vote but does so in a way that protects jobs and livelihoods.

In relation to the future relationship, I want to ensure that that future relationship can start at the end of the implementation period, in which case, of course, there would be no question of a different relationship with the European Union for any period of time. We have agreed the financial settlement as part of the withdrawal settlement, as my hon. Friend knows, but I remind the House, yet again, that—this was a phrase first used, I think, by the EU itself—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that there is a real fear that the Government will delay pinning down any deal until the last possible minute so that they can try to bounce Parliament with the threat that it is her deal or no deal. She knows that that would be unacceptable to Parliament, but she also knows how damaging no deal would be in terms of security as well as jobs and the economy. So will she confirm that it would be better to apply for an extension to article 50 than to crash out with no deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe that we should be extending article 50. I have been very clear that we should not be extending article 50. I am a little bemused by the right hon. Lady’s first suggestion. We have legislated here in Parliament for a process that ensures that there will be not just the deliberations that this House will rightly have on the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, but a meaningful vote in this House prior to that. [Hon. Members: “When?”] Labour Members say “When?” Of course, we are still in negotiations with the European Union in terms of delivering on the deal, and we continue to work to the timetable that has recently been set out.

Salisbury Update

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the role that she played as Home Secretary and for the visits that she made to Salisbury on this issue. She is absolutely right that when I first presented what had happened in Salisbury in March to this House, there were those who questioned my statement about the involvement of the Russian state. Now we have clearly seen what happened. The police have identified two individuals. The independent CPS has laid charges against those two individuals. We have clearly identified a link with the Russian military intelligence agency—the GRU—and it is clear that permission for an act of this sort would have been taken outside the GRU and at a senior level within the Russian state. It is incumbent on all those who were sceptical back in March to see the evidence that has been laid before this House and before the public, and to recognise the involvement of the Russian state and condemn it wholeheartedly.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her immensely serious statement and pay tribute to the impressive forensic work of our police and intelligence agencies. They and the Government have support from across the House for their work in the face of this vile chemical attack, this threat from the GRU and the operations of the Russian state, which we must unreservedly condemn not only for this chemical attack, but for the wider propaganda and for the online spread to undermine democracy and truth.

Alexander Litvinenko was murdered 12 years ago and the Prime Minister will know that there were then long delays in setting up an inquiry, and in taking action against the assets of suspects who were identified and those who were linked to them. Has she considered the lessons from the Litvinenko case, and what further measures is she ensuring are put in place now around those suspects and those who may be linked to them so that we learn those lessons, too?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and for her support for the police, the intelligence agencies and the work that the Government have been doing in relation to this particular issue. Yes, we did look at the Alexander Litvinenko case and at the lessons that we as a Government needed to learn from the response to that and the action that was taken, and we acted accordingly. One key difference from the Litvinenko case that we saw in March was the very strong international response to what had happened here in Salisbury. As I have said, we saw the biggest single number of expulsions that has ever taken place of Russian personnel of this sort. Obviously we will continue to look at this matter. We will be looking at what further action can be taken. As I have said, we will be using all the tools in our national security apparatus to do that. It is not possible for me to go into detail on some of those matters, but I am sure that it will be possible to give the right hon. Lady a briefing on Privy Council terms.

NATO Summit

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are very clear—as was, I think, everybody around that table—that an illegal annexation took place. Significant support was shown for Ukraine around that table. There are of course requirements on Ukraine and Georgia for their potential future membership of NATO, but we look forward to working with them to help them to meet those requirements.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I have often supported the Prime Minister on security and countering terrorism, because extremists must never divide us, but one of our NATO allies, President Trump, chose to single out London’s Mayor, who is Muslim, and attack him on terrorism. I know that the Prime Minister will not agree with President Trump and will understand what a vile and false attack that was, but has she said so to President Trump? Has she challenged him on it? We cannot pander when our democratic values are under attack.

[The Prime Minister]

I have made it clear to President Trump on a number of occasions that some of the views that he expresses about the United Kingdom on these issues are not shared by this Government. There are issues on which I disagree with the Mayor of London—for example, I want to see him building more homes in London than he is doing—but on the issue of fighting terrorism, the Mayor of London and this Government work together, as we did last year following what happened here in Westminster and at London Bridge and Finsbury Park. It is an issue on which we unite, because we all recognise the importance of ensuring that the terrorists can never divide us.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure my right hon. Friend has read the Chequers statement very carefully but, actually, it did not say that. We will be ending free movement. As in any trade agreement we would strike with any country or group of countries around the world, there will be mode 4 provisions on mobility of investors and businesses, but we will be able to set our own immigration laws and immigration rules for people coming here from the European Union. We will be able to continue to set our own laws in the future.

It is not the case that the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction in the United Kingdom—it will not. Businesses and individuals here in the United Kingdom will not be able to take cases to the European Court of Justice. Matters here in the UK will be determined by the UK courts.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s plan is still a fudge, on immigration, on the European Court of Justice and on the “customs facilitated partnership maximum arrangement”—nobody understands what it is. She has kept trying to pander to different parts of the Conservative party, and today has shown that it just is not working. Will she instead put a plan for negotiations to the whole House of Commons for approval? When she is in such a mess she cannot just keep standing there saying, “Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.” It has.

[The Prime Minister]

I did not say nothing has changed; I said our position had evolved. We have set out more details in our position, and I believe that it is the position that is absolutely right for the United Kingdom. It is the best Brexit deal for Britain; it gives us delivery on Brexit, protects jobs, and ensures that we maintain our commitment to Northern Ireland in relation to the border and that can have a smooth and orderly Brexit.

June European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There has been much jocularity around the term “Brexit means Brexit,” but it does mean Brexit. People want to ensure that we take back control of our borders and our laws, and that we no longer continue to send vast sums of money to the European Union each year. We will be coming out of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, but we will be ensuring that we are able to trade with the European Union and set an independent trade policy that enables us to negotiate good trade deals around the rest of the world.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This weekend, the Prime Minister criticised the Commission’s approach to security, and I think the Commission is being too rigid, but I have to say to her that her red lines—that she just reaffirmed—on the European Court of Justice and on the charter of fundamental rights are also causing huge problems in getting a security deal. Frankly, from the outside, it look as though no one is listening to the police. Will she now accept that we are running out of time, and will she confirm that she will not stick with those red lines if they get in the way of a security partnership?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The review we are bringing in on tertiary education is about ensuring not just that the funding and financing of tertiary education is right, but that young people have access to the routes through education, be it technical or university, that suit their particular needs. Of course, last year the Leader of the Opposition said that he would deal with student debt. Students thought he was going to abolish student debt. What happens after the election? He goes back on his promise.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I was not going to raise this, but the Prime Minister quoted me. Let me say this to the Prime Minister: do not try to hide behind me or the Labour party when she was warned repeatedly of the damage that her obsession with her migration target was doing. Do not try to hide behind the Cabinet when they do not agree with her on this and are trying to clear up the mess, and do not try to hide behind civil servants—[Interruption.]

[Yvette Cooper]

Do not try to hide behind civil servants when she set the policies and instilled in them the culture of hostility, and when the high commissioners told us this morning that they had warned the Foreign Office about the Windrush generation immigration problem in 2016. What did she do? Because a few years ago the Prime Minister said:

“I’m actually sick and tired of government ministers…who simply blame other people when something goes wrong”.

What has changed?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody is trying to blame anybody else. The question of the Windrush generation arises from the fact that when they came here, their status to live here was not documented. Over the years—[Interruption.] Yes, there have been individual cases over the years of people who have had to regularise their documentation and have done so. We have now seen cases of people in difficulty because they have not been able to do that. That is why the Home Office is taking action to deal with that. But under Governments of every colour, including the Government in which the right hon. Lady served, action has been taken against illegal immigrants. This does not apply to the Windrush generation. They are here; they are British; they have a right to be here. Under Labour, action was taken for a compliant environment; under the Conservatives, action has been taken to deal with illegal immigrants. That is what we are doing.

I have apologised to the Windrush generation and I do so again. We are doing everything we can to ensure that they are reassured, and that they do not have the anxiety that some of that generation have had. But we also owe it to them and to the British people to ensure that we deal with people who are here illegally.

Syria

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment. In fact, the 2016 written ministerial statement from which I quoted earlier was made in my right hon. Friend’s name. It states:

“In observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.”

It is important that we are able to do that, and I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This was clearly a vile attack by Assad on his own people, and we have a responsibility to consider how to respond while also not escalating global conflict. However, Parliament has considered these kinds of complex issues before. We have voted for and against military action. We have got things right and got things wrong, and so too have the Executive. The Prime Minister and her Cabinet appear today not just to be arguing about the circumstances of last week, but to be rejecting the entire principle of consulting, debating and voting in Parliament in advance of military action. Given the importance of us pioneering democratic values across the world, will she clarify her position on that and say how important she thinks it is for Parliament to decide on issues of war and peace?

[The Prime Minister]

It is not a question of the Government rejecting that principle. If I can return again to the written ministerial statement, it observes:

“The Cabinet Manual states, ‘In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a Convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that Convention except where there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.’”

It subsequently goes on to make other references and, as I just said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), states:

“In observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 10WS.]

When the Government take a decision and act without a debate in Parliament, as has happened on this occasion, it is right that I come to Parliament at the first opportunity to explain that decision and to give Members an opportunity to question it, and to hold me and the Government to account.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said before in this Chamber in response to a question from our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), during the implementation period, there will of course continue to be that role for the European Court of Justice, because we will be continuing to operate on largely the same basis as currently. Once we have ended the implementation period, it will be a very different story. We will then be absolutely in a position that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants: one of taking back control of our laws. As I said in my statement, there are some issues still to be addressed on the withdrawal agreement, including the governance of that agreement. A number of interesting ideas have been proposed that do not give sole authority to the European Court of Justice, which is not something that we would want.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s welcome remarks about European co-operation on Russia show the continued importance of co-operation with the EU after Brexit. She has rightly proposed a security treaty on extradition, Europol and data sharing to be in place by the end of the transition period. But she will also know that a new treaty could take 18 months for other countries to ratify, could yet be referred to the European Court of Justice and will have to deal with some tricky legal and constitutional issues—for example, on extradition, which Norway has taken over a decade to try to resolve. So why is there no fallback clause in the withdrawal agreement, why has the Prime Minister set a hard deadline of December 2020, and what will she do if the security treaty is not in place in time?

[The Prime Minister]

We are absolutely ready to start negotiations with the European Union on the security partnership and treaty for the future. It is in both sides’ interests to have that treaty in place. So far, that has been the very clear message from my European partners. I think that they will have every intention, as we do, of ensuring that those security arrangements are in place when we end the implementation period.

Salisbury Incident

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. One of the things we will be discussing with our allies is how we ensure that the robust message about the act that has taken place on UK soil is consistently given, and continues to be given, by all our allies. Nord Stream 2 is regularly discussed at the European Union Council, as my right hon. Friend would, I suspect, imagine.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Her conclusion about the culpability of the Russian state is immensely serious. In addition to its breaches of international law, its use of chemical weapons and its continued disregard for the rule of law and human rights, that must be met with unequivocal condemnation. May I welcome the measures she has taken to downgrade the intelligence capability of the Russian state, and particularly the work that I understand has started with the United Nations? Within the United Nations, it is important to expose what the Russians are doing and to build the broadest possible support against them. Will she say a bit more about what she is doing on that front?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the strength of the statement she has just made, which I know is representative of the views of many of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Back Benches. We are taking this matter to the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already spoken to the UN Secretary-General about this issue. The open discussion that is taking place tomorrow is the start of the process of looking at this issue. As I said in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), this is not just about the incident that has taken place here in the United Kingdom; it is about the use of chemical weapons—this illegal use of chemical weapons—that has taken place and about the role of the Russian state in the development of chemical weapons, contrary to international law.

Salisbury Incident

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It was very good that the ISC had already announced that it would be considering issues around Russian activity against the UK that requires investigation. I look forward to the work that my right hon. and learned Friend’s Committee will be doing on that, and the Government will work with the ISC to share relevant information that is within its remit.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. It is hard to see any alternative to her grave conclusion that either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country or the Russian Government have lost control of a dangerous nerve agent. In that context, I hope the whole House will be able to come together behind a firm response from the Government in the interests of our national security and public safety. Can I therefore ask her whether the National Security Council has asked for a review of the 14 other cases that I wrote to the Home Secretary about to see whether any of those should be investigated? Can I also press her on what further action she has taken in preparation for potential UN Security Council resolutions that should be drafted in order to get the widest possible international support?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need for a clear response from the whole House, and everybody in the House should be in no doubt of the nature of what has happened and that we should respond robustly to it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responded to her letter in relation to those 14 other cases. I think the focus at the moment should be on ensuring that resources are put into this criminal investigation, so that the police are able to do their work with the maximum time and space.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As we have said before, we will of course make information available to this House, when it is possible to do so, as we go through this process of negotiation. A certain amount of information has already been made available, for example about the amount of money that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set aside for the contingency preparations that are being made by Departments. My right hon. Friend will be aware of some of the other steps that we have taken, including setting up two new Departments when I became Prime Minister, to ensure that we had a Department focused on exiting the European Union and another—the Department for International Trade—focused absolutely on making a success of the opportunities that will be open to us once we have left the EU.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is still proposing that we will be outside a customs union and have different external tariffs and commercial policies, which she knows will mean burdensome rules of origin checks, and customs checks on goods crossing borders to ensure that businesses do not evade or avoid those different external tariffs. She has proposed that 80% of businesses in Ireland would be exempt from any of those checks, but she will be aware that security experts have warned of the risk from not just physical infrastructure at the border, but an increased incentive for smuggling, particularly given the links between smuggler groups and paramilitary organisations. Why is she continuing to pursue a policy on the customs union that involves a risk of increasing both the smuggling and security threats?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I remind the right hon. Lady that the 80% reference was in one of the options on future customs arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Of course, what I set out in the speech in relation to that border issue was about not just the customs arrangements, but the regulatory standards that this country will be following once we have left the European Union. We are not going to be in a customs union—we are not going to be in the customs union—because that would prevent us from being able to follow an independent trade policy, which is something that we should be following because we can see great opportunities for companies, businesses, jobs and prosperity in the UK as a result.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The joint progress report, which was published by the UK and the European Union prior to the December Council, made it absolutely clear that the settlement within it was set out in the context of going forward and having agreement on the future relationship.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister now agree that the meaningful vote to which she referred should take place on a statute, as set out in the terms of amendment 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, before any withdrawal terms can be implemented? Does she also agree that those who voted for amendment 7 did so in good faith to ensure that power would not be too heavily concentrated in the hands of the Executive, and that it was completely wrong to do what the Daily Mail suggested and accuse them of treachery?

[The Prime Minister]

If we look at our debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and indeed on other matters in this House relating to Brexit, such as article 50, it is clear that the will of Parliament overall has been to deliver on the vote of the British people. We were always clear with the House that there would be a meaningful vote on the question of the withdrawal agreement—[Interruption.] Yes, we were always clear that there would be a meaningful vote on that but, as I have just indicated to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), there will subsequently be the process of this Parliament agreeing the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. It will be that which will bring the withdrawal agreement into UK law.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely right and important that business prepares for a smooth and orderly move to the future relationship we have. That is why I have proposed an implementation period, which I believe is in the interests of businesses not only in the United Kingdom but in the European Union. As my right hon. Friend says, we are working to get the good deal that will also be not just in our interests but in the interests of the EU27.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said last week that

“a transition phase will be triggered only once we have completed the deal itself”—[Official Report, 17 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 741.]

I understand that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said today that an implementation period is

“a bridge to where you are heading. You need to know where you are heading.”

Will the Prime Minister clarify whether she is saying that if we have not agreed a long-term trade deal by this time next year, there will be no transition deal at all and Britain will end up on WTO terms by March 2019?

[The Prime Minister]

As I just said in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), an implementation period is about a period of adjustment to the future relationship. That is the basis on which I have put it forward to the European Union, and that is the basis on which we will be negotiating an agreement on it.

European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can confirm that. One of the key differences between the proposals we have put forward and those of the European Union is that it wants the European Court of Justice to continue to have jurisdiction over EU citizens, even after we have left the European Union. I think people were very clear that they did not want the ECJ to have jurisdiction here in the UK. I believe that we have fine courts in this country. They will be able to uphold EU citizens’ rights, just as they uphold UK citizens’ rights.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister did not answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). If there are French parents whose 19-year-old daughter is studying in Paris and they have been living here for more than five years, will that daughter be able to return to live with them here without them having to pass the income threshold? If those parents have been living here for fewer than five years, will they still have all the same rights as if they had been living here for more than five years?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes: if the parents have been living here for the five years, their daughter will be able to return to the United Kingdom on the same basis that she would today. So there will be no new rules that would apply. If they have been living here for fewer than five years, they will be able to accrue the five-year status so that they go to exactly the same position with that settled status.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which the Leader of the Opposition also touched on. I can confirm that we are ensuring that that support and counselling will be available. There will be further updates to the House on the response to the Grenfell Tower fire, and that will be an issue to be included.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the cladding on the tower is a standard product that is available for sale. I do not understand why the Prime Minister cannot tell us whether that product is compliant with the building regulations for a tower that is this high. Why can she not tell us the answer? Will she also confirm that the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, which should be looking at part B of the building regulations on fire safety, has not yet actually met to look at how the regulations could be improved?

[The Prime Minister]

I will add to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and I ask hon. Members to remember that a criminal investigation is taking place in relation to this matter. The testing of the cladding and of the materials used is being undertaken, and a statement will be made by the police and the fire service within the next 48 hours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend points to a very important part of our plans for a stronger Britain for the future, which is the modern industrial strategy that we are developing, because we want an economy that works for everyone, delivers good, high-skilled, high-paid jobs and creates conditions for competitive world-leading businesses to prosper here in the United Kingdom. But he is right to say that as we look at that industrial strategy we also need to look at particular factors in particular parts of the country. He has long been a champion not just for Carlisle but for Cumbria. I recognise the need, as does the Business Department, to tailor the industrial strategy according to the needs of particular areas of the country.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister yesterday said that she was calling a general election because Parliament was blocking Brexit, but three quarters of MPs and two thirds of the Lords voted for article 50, so that is not true, is it? A month ago, she told her official spokesman to rule out an early general election, and that was not true either, was it? She wants us to believe that she is a woman of her word. Isn’t the truth that we cannot believe a single word she says? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is rather over-excited. The question has been heard. The answer will be heard.

Article 50

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very clear in the letter that I have sent to President Tusk that we intend the work on the rights of EU nationals and UK nationals living in the EU to be undertaken as part of the negotiations at an early stage. As I have said before, I genuinely believe there is good will to do that, and I hope we will be able to achieve that at an early stage of the negotiations and give EU citizens living here and UK citizens living in the European Union reassurance about their future.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The last Prime Minister did not want this day to come, although it followed from many of the decisions he took over many years, and he will be remembered as the Prime Minister who unintentionally led Britain out of Europe. I know this Prime Minister does not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom, but she will also know that holding us together requires more than just the rhetoric of unity. Will she therefore say what she will do in both the content and the style of her negotiations not to fuel further division and not to play into the hands of others, but to ensure voices from all over the country are genuinely heard in this debate so that she does not become the Prime Minister who unintentionally leads the break-up of Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I say to the right hon. Lady that she referred to the decision on the referendum as one of leaving Europe, but it is about leaving the European Union, not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the European Union. We will obviously continue to be part of Europe, and we will want to continue to work with our friends and allies in Europe.

As we go ahead, we will continue to undertake discussions not just with the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom, but with businesses and other organisations across the United Kingdom—Government Departments are speaking with their interlocutors in a whole range of sectors—to ensure that all views and all considerations are taken into account as we go forward in the negotiations. We want to make sure that we fully understand the concerns and interests that people have, and that is why we have already started talking widely with not just the devolved Administrations, but others across the United Kingdom to ensure that we collect those views and take them into account.

London Attack

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to encourage people to do exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. It is a valuable organisation, providing help and support to the families who are left behind. As we have all said, they have to live forever with what, for us, has been an act of bravery from their family member, but which, for them, is a tragedy and a trauma.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s words, as she speaks for all of us with the backing of all parties today. She was right to say that this was an attempted attack on Parliament and democracy that failed because of the bravery of PC Keith Palmer, who gave his life doing a job with others to keep people safe. It was also a violent, cowardly attempted attack on our freedom, by mowing down people who were just walking along a bridge. As our hearts go out to them, does the Prime Minister agree that that attack on freedom also fails, not just because of communities’ resilience and determination but because of the perhaps unique partnership in this country between the police and communities of all faiths and across all parts of the country, and that that partnership working will be crucial to our making sure that the terrorists never win?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) is absolutely right. As she says, her constituency voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. The point is that the people of the United Kingdom voted by a majority to leave the European Union. As we do that, we will ensure that the deal we achieve in our negotiations is the right deal for the whole of the United Kingdom—for people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has just made a £2 billion Budget U-turn in the space of a week. Last year, the Government made a £4 billion U-turn in the space of five days. Is that why they want to abolish spring Budgets—because they just keep ripping them up?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome the measures in the spring Budget to improve school places for children, and to ensure that we put money—[Interruption.]

Informal European Council

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think that I am more hopeful than my right hon. Friend, in that I have every confidence that we will be able to address this issue as an early discussion within the negotiations. I would have liked to be able to address it outside the negotiations but, sadly, some member states did not wish to do that. However, I think that the goodwill is there to give that reassurance to EU citizens here and to UK citizens in Europe.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On the customs union, the Prime Minister has said that she insists on being outside the common external tariff. If the UK, France and Ireland all have different tariffs on goods coming in from outside, how will she guarantee to have barrier-free goods passing between those different countries? A lot of people cannot see how we can be outside the common external tariff and have barrier-free trade. If it comes to that crunch, will she agree to go back into the customs union and be part of the common external tariff in order to have barrier-free trade?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is approaching this, as a number of others have done, as a binary issue between customs union membership and having a good trade agreement with the European Union. I do not see it as such. We want to be able to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries around the world, but our membership of parts of the customs union—this is not just a single in or out question—currently prevents us from doing those free trade agreements. I am confident that we can achieve the sort of free trade agreement with the European Union that is in our interest and that of the European Union and that gives us the ability to trade across borders that we want in the future.

G20 Summit

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend expresses his surprise—I think there was surprise on this side of the House—when the Leader of the Opposition showed his hand in saying that he was not in favour of free trade. Indeed, I suspect many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches were surprised to hear that that was the policy of the Labour party. We will be advocates—strong advocates—of free trade, as my right hon. Friend suggested, and we will ensure that we send out that message. As he says, free trade underpins our prosperity.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Like the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), we all understand that this is an early stage of the negotiations, but it would be helpful to know more about what the Prime Minister values in the negotiations and about her aims. She talked a lot about free trade, but she is still resisting saying what she actually thinks about the ultimate expression of free trade in Europe, which is the single market. Please will she tell us and clear up the confusion from yesterday? Does she value membership of the single market? Does she think it should be an aim or an objective of the negotiations, and that we should be trying to stay in it if we can?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that I have answered this question on a number of occasions already today. She will find that if people ask me a question, I will give an answer, and if they ask me the same question, they will get the same answer. I think that that is perfectly reasonable and perfectly normal.

Our aim is to get the right deal for trade in goods and services with the EU, but this will be a new relationship. We will be looking to develop a new model of the relationship between the UK and the European Union. As I said earlier, we will not be setting out every bit of our negotiating hand in advance of entering those negotiations, because that would be the best way to come out with the worst deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said earlier that she had extended the vulnerable persons scheme to help those who were at risk of being trafficked. On that basis, will she ensure that it is extended further to help vulnerable children, who are at more risk of trafficking and exploitation than anyone else and who are alone and abandoned in Europe? Masud, whom she heard about earlier, suffocated to death in the back of a lorry.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, which gives me an opportunity to clarify what I said earlier. I apologise if the way in which I put it gave the wrong impression. I said that we had extended the criteria of vulnerability that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was using to determine who should be resettled under our Syrian refugees resettlement scheme. However, we have also, separately, offered extra support to the French authorities in relation to the identification in the camps of those who have been trafficked.

Counter-terrorism

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am not aware of any figures that show overall what proportion of jihadists have previously been allied to another faith and have converted to Islam. It is certainly the case that there have been reports in the press, obviously recently but also previously, of individuals who have converted to Islam. A lot of work has been done and continues to be done on this whole question of how people are triggered into radicalisation and terrorist activity. In most cases, a number of factors come together that lead to an individual becoming radicalised, potentially to the point of undertaking violence. What we do with our counter-radicalisation programmes, particularly with Prevent and Channel, is aim to interrupt that process and stop people who have started down that route to radicalisation.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I am asking not about the vile video that the Home Secretary has rightly condemned, but about Siddhartha Dhar and the factual questions that have been raised. Will she tell the House when she was told that he had absconded, whether she asked for an inquiry and also whether the Home Office holds figures on the number of people who abscond while on police bail for terrorist offences?

[Mrs May]

I said that I would not speak about the individual who has been named in the press. I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary, because he did ask me about the number of people who have absconded while on police bail for terrorist offences. Those figures are not collected. Figures are collected for the number of people who are convicted of failing to surrender to bail, but those are not separated into those who have undertaken terrorist offences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We want to ensure that we can put into action our undertaking to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees over this Parliament. As he implies, we take them directly from camps, so that we are able to take the most vulnerable, but we also ensure that there are proper security checks. In fact, at the moment, there are two levels of security checks: the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees undertakes security checks that involve biometrics, the checking of documents and interviews; and further checks, including further biometrics, are undertaken by the Home Office once people have been referred to it for resettlement in the UK.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will know that many of the Syrian refugees whom Britain expects to help over the coming months are fleeing exactly the same terrible ISIS brutality that we saw on the streets of Paris this weekend. Does she agree with me that, as we stand in solidarity with Paris, it is important that we both strengthen our security against such barbarism and continue to give sanctuary to those fleeing it, so that we ensure that the terrorists cannot win?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: many of those refugees will be fleeing ISIS. Of course, some will be fleeing the actions of the Syrian Government. It is important that we provide sanctuary to those who have been displaced by conflict in Syria, partly by resettling a number of refugees here in the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Lady will know, we are also the second biggest bilateral donor to the region of funds to support refugees; a very important contribution of £1.1 billion is made by the UK taxpayer.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course, talks have been taking place in the G20 with a number of international leaders about Syria, what action needs to be taken about it, and its future governance. Obviously, I look forward to the outcome of those talks. It is important to ensure that every effort is made to bring about a resolution to the conflict in Syria, not only because of the impact that that could have on ISIL, but because of the many millions of Syrians who have been displaced from their homes as a result of the conflict.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement of solidarity with the people of Paris in the face of such terrible losses and this barbaric assault on all our values. I welcome the increase in resources and staffing for the intelligence and security agencies, which do so much work to keep us safe. I urge her to apply the same approach to core policing work, particularly around neighbourhood policing. She will know that the work that those teams do on prevention and local intelligence, which helped stop the killer of Mohammed Saleem, is immensely important. That is because this is a battle for hearts and minds, as I am sure she knows.

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady says, this is indeed a battle for hearts and minds. As she will be aware, we have launched a counter-extremism strategy. We wish to work in partnership with mainstream voices in communities across the country to ensure that we promote the values that we share, and that we challenge the ideology that seeks to divide us. It is important that that work is undertaken in a variety of ways. A concern that people in many communities have had about some of the Prevent work is that it has been too much in the security space, and not enough about the integration and cohesion of communities. It is absolutely right that our counter-extremism work is done in partnership with people in communities, so that we work together to promote cohesive communities and mainstream voices.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

On the last point, we will be talking to the Chairman of the Joint Scrutiny Committee, when appointed, about the appropriate timetable. Although we have the deadline of December 2016, we want to ensure that the process of scrutiny by the Joint Committee is a proper one, and the timetable will reflect that. On the judicial commissioners and the investigatory powers commissioner, we have already had some discussions at official level with the judiciary, as my hon. Friend might imagine. We would not be putting these provisions into legislation unless we had spoken to the judiciary about the requirements. Discussions about the precise elements that my hon. Friend and others have raised about the choice and number of judicial commissioners will be ongoing.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The police and the agencies will agree with what the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have said about the need both for powers to deal with serious threats and for safeguards that are needed in a democracy. I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to judicial authorisation and her significant points about transparency, both of which issues reflect the David Anderson report.

I want to ask particularly about the investigatory powers commissioner. It sounds like something we have called for, but will that commissioner be accountable to the Executive and to the Prime Minister, which has limited the operation of some of the existing commissioners, or will he be accountable instead to Parliament or to the ISC? How will this interact with the existing counter-terror reviewer? I think David Anderson has done an extremely good job in that role.

[Mrs May]

On the right hon. Lady’s last point, there is no intention to change the role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. As she will know, we have made some adaptations to that role in respect of what it covers and the reporting requirements, but there is no intention to change that role. Indeed, we are having discussions with David Anderson, ensuring that he has extra support for the role he is required to carry out.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and others who have raised this issue. The appointment of the investigatory powers commission will be a prime ministerial one, and the Prime Minister will appoint such members of other judicial commissions as are considered necessary. The Bill will set out the relevant qualifications that judicial commissioners will need to have to undertake their role.

As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will know, the existing commissioners report annually on the work they undertake. It is a great pity that that part of our process of oversight has never really been seen by the public, precisely because the reports usually show that the agencies are doing a very good job, so do not hit the headlines in the way that different sorts of reports would. We expect the independent investigatory powers commissioner to ensure that recommendations are made and to make public any views on the processes that emerge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Obviously, arrangements were put in place between the Government and the individuals concerned. My right hon. Friend is right to indicate that as part of that settlement sums of money were paid, but I will not go into the details of any individual settlement.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has just said that she does not want people to make dangerous journeys, but the family reunification rules are making them do exactly that. A 17-year-old Syrian boy whose parents have been killed and whose brother lives here was told that the only way he could apply was to travel in person to apply to the nearest embassy or consulate. On the way to Turkey to do so, he was kidnapped and tortured for four days. That was a very dangerous journey, required by the family reunification rules. Will the Home Secretary personally review this case and agree to look at the family reunification rules so that we can support more desperate and vulnerable families? I urge her personally to do this.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees referred earlier to the work that we are doing. Obviously, there are the existing family reunification rules, but we are also expanding the vulnerability criteria whereby we identify with the UNHCR those refugees who will be resettled here in the United Kingdom. That includes a category of vulnerable families.

Migration

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. There has indeed been discussion at European Union level. I and other colleagues, particularly the French Interior Minister, have encouraged the European Commission to work at pace. The initial proposal is for a centre in Niger. We are looking, as is the European Commission, at the possibility of a centre in east Africa as well. It is obviously important to look very carefully at where it is appropriate to have such a centre, because it needs to be a place of safety for individuals. This also relates to the important issue of illegal economic migrants, rather than refugees, in that it is about breaking the link between making the perilous journey across the Mediterranean and gaining settlement in Europe.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her kind remarks. She and I were first elected together in ’97, served on our first Select Committee together, were first promoted at the same time and have shadowed each other for about seven years. I can only wish that her promotion prospects will be rather more successful than mine.

May I ask the Home Secretary about the crisis? I welcome the work that she has done in the last week alone since we debated this matter, but she has been asked repeatedly to go further in taking refugees from Greece, as well as from across Europe. Some 230,000 people have arrived in Greece this year alone. She has provided only 1,000 expert working days to help them. Does she really think that all those people, many of whom are Syrian refugees, should remain in Greece? Does she think that other countries nearby should offer to help and to take some of those refugees? If she thinks that other countries should offer to help, why shouldn’t Britain?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. I simply say to her that politics is an interesting business, and despite what one’s future looks like at this point in time, one never knows what may happen in the coming months and years.

The right hon. Lady asked about the people who are in Greece. She recognised in her question that of those 230,000 people, not all are Syrian refugees and not all are refugees. There are people from other countries who have seen it as a route to enter the European Union. That is why the hotspots proposal is so important and why it is important to set it up as quickly as possible. There were indications on Monday from the European Commission and the Greek Minister that the support that is being put into that will enable people to be identified at that point, so that those who have a genuine claim to asylum can be supported appropriately and illegal economic migrants can be returned to the countries from which they originated.

Refugee Crisis in Europe

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The European Union has agreed a Common Security and Defence Policy programme, to work with a Government in Libya when possible. At the moment, the situation in Libya is such that there is not a Government to provide the support to give the go-ahead for such a programme, but there are already plans on exactly the sort of point made by the hon. Gentleman.

We have established an organised immigration crime taskforce that brings together officers from the National Crime Agency, immigration enforcement, the Border Force and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue and disrupt organised crime gangs. Some of the team are based in Europol cells in Sicily and The Hague. The rest are on standby in the UK to deploy. They will exploit every opportunity to smash the gangs’ criminal operations. Additional officers have already deployed to Senegal, Ethiopia, Greece, Malta and Tunisia to tackle the gangs at source. The taskforce will build on the progress made by the Home Office’s immigration enforcement command in tackling the gangs that target the most vulnerable. Working with the French authorities, our teams in Kent have already broken up 27 gangs in the past 18 months.

As others have said, this problem extends beyond the conflict in Syria. The UK is also a leading member of the group of European and African nations developing the EU’s Khartoum process, focused on concrete actions to combat people-smuggling and human trafficking in the horn of Africa.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will.

[Yvette Cooper]

I appreciate it; the Home Secretary is being very generous. I think everybody in the House will agree with pretty much everything she has said. There is a lot that we agree on, but I really must press her on the areas of disagreement. Can she give me any good reason why Britain would not help to take some refugees from Greece? We know the difficulties that Greece is dealing with—coping with 50,000 people arriving in a month. Can the right hon. Lady give me any good reason why we should not do our bit, when other countries are doing theirs, to reach out a hand and take some refugees from Greece?

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady will bear with me for 30 seconds, I will come on to the issues relating to Greece and Italy to which she referred in her speech. I just want to add this on the criminal gangs: it is not only the victims of conflict on whom the criminal gangs prey; some of those making the dangerous journey to Europe are refugees, but others are economic migrants simply hoping to improve their lot. That is why we are leading the argument in Europe about breaking the link between making these journeys and achieving settlement in Europe for those who are not refugees.

The right hon. Lady, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, put quite a lot of emphasis in her speech on portraying the United Kingdom as completely failing to work with other member states in the European Union. That could not be further from the truth. We have been working closely with other countries in Europe. The right hon. Lady referred to Greece and Italy and asked us to do our bit to help Greece. We are indeed already helping Greece. We are providing support to Greece and Italy. It is very clear to me and to the Interior Ministers of France and Germany that the European Union’s concept of providing hot spots, particularly in areas such as Greece and Italy, will make it possible to process people coming through more swiftly and give them better support as they arrive in Europe. That will make it possible to take quick action to grant asylum to those who need our protection and, of course, to be firm with those who do not. We need to get those hot spots or processing centres up and running. It has been taking too long and that is precisely why the Interior Ministers of France and Germany, with me, have asked the European Union to call the urgent Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting next week so that we can press this point and ensure we get action. I assure the right hon. Lady that I and the Government have indeed been leading in Europe on a number of these issues.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I said that I would not take any further interventions, but as the right hon. Lady is on the Opposition Front Bench, I will take an intervention from her.

[Yvette Cooper]

I appreciate it. Once those assessment centres or hot spots are in place, what will happen to the refugees? Will the Home Secretary go into that meeting on 14 September and pledge not only to support the establishment of the hot spots and assessment centres but to take some of the refugees once they have been assessed? That would be Britain really doing its bit. That, I think, would be welcomed right across Europe and give her so much more leverage in getting Poland and other countries to do their bit as well.

[Mrs May]

Every country in Europe is working and contributing on this issue in a variety of different ways. We are very clear that the focus should be on helping Syrian refugees in the camps and in the region. We are not part of quota systems of resettlement and relocation within Europe for those who have arrived in Europe. We are helping in relation to the problems that Greece and Italy are already finding, as I have just indicated to the House.

I want to talk specifically on resettling refugees, particularly from Syria. As I have said, we are providing aid directly to people in the region. We believe that that is the best way to provide the greatest level of support to the largest number of people. We are embracing the need to provide protection here in Britain. We have always proudly done that. We operate some of the largest and longest-running refugee resettlement schemes in Europe. We have been among those EU member states offering the highest number of places in response to the current situation. Since the Syrian crisis began, we have granted protection to almost 5,000 Syrian nationals and their dependants under our normal asylum rules, in addition to the more than 200 we have taken under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which is for the most vulnerable people—survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk, and people in need of emergency medical treatment. As the Prime Minister announced yesterday, we will significantly increase the numbers of people resettled under that scheme—up to 20,000 over the course of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I apologise to hon. Members; I indicated earlier that I would not take further interventions. I took interventions from the Opposition Front Bench. I will not take further interventions, because, as Mr Speaker said, 27 Back Benchers wish to speak in the debate. It is only fair to them if we on the Front Benches try to limit our comments.

Increasing the number of resettled refugees to 20,000 people over the course of this Parliament will not replace our humanitarian efforts. However, it recognises the resettlement of vulnerable refugees as an important part of the comprehensive approach needed to address a crisis on this scale.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I hope the right hon. Lady will bear in mind what I just said about Back Benchers.

[Yvette Cooper]

On this crucial point, the Home Secretary has said 20,000 over five years. How many will she take this year? Will she give a target for the number of people she will help this year, and will she make sure it is more than 4,000?

[Mrs May]

As the Prime Minister said in response to questions yesterday from hon. Members asking him to put a figure on the number in the first year, we will work with the UNHCR, which will identify the most vulnerable people. We will also work with local authorities, as the right hon. Lady mentioned. I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government are chairing a taskforce to ensure that across Government we are getting the maximum effort on this point. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has already contacted the Local Government Association and the Scottish Government. We need to ensure appropriate accommodation for people when they arrive in the UK, so we will work with the UNHCR and scale up as quickly as we can, but I am sorry to say to her that I cannot put a figure on the number for the first year. If she thinks about the need to ensure that the UNHCR can identify the most vulnerable people and that the accommodation and support provided to those people here in the UK is appropriate for their needs, she will see that it would not be right simply to chase some figure for the first year. We need to ensure we provide the right support for the most vulnerable people, and we will continue to work with the UNHCR to identify those refugees.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we recognise that children have been particularly badly affected by the crisis. In most cases, the interests of children are best met in the region, where they can remain close to surviving family members, but where the UNHCR’s advice is that their needs should be met by resettlement in the UK, we will ensure that vulnerable children, including orphans, are a priority. We are already working with the UNHCR and a range of other partners to deliver these changes and to start bringing in additional people as soon as possible. As was referred to earlier, this carries a cost, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will ensure that the full cost of supporting thousands of Syrian refugees in the UK is met through our aid spending for the first year, easing the burden on local communities.

Water Cannon

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She and I are often at odds on Home Office issues—she will know that we have disagreed on issues relating to police reform, including on police and crime commissioners, and she referred to that at the end of her statement—but today, on the main substance of her statement, I could not agree with her more. She is exactly right to reject the application from the police and the Mayor of London to use water cannon, and I support her decision today. I also welcome the thorough and comprehensive way in which she has done so and agree with her on each of her three counts.

The Home Secretary is right to take immensely seriously the safety and health risks from this kind of weapon. She referred to the case from Stuttgart in 2010, where a man was blinded when he was hit in the face by a water cannon during a protest against a local infrastructure project. It was troubling that the submission from the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2014 calling on her to authorise water cannon did not even refer to that case—that did not reflect well on the thoroughness of the case being put forward.

Secondly, I agree with the Home Secretary that the operational case that was put forward is too weak to justify the authorisation of something so potentially dangerous. During the riots in 2011, the then president of ACPO, Sir Hugh Orde, described calls for the use of water cannon then as

“the wrong tactic, in the wrong circumstances at this moment”.

He said that

“excessive force will destroy our model of policing in the long term”.

Significantly, Sir Hugh Orde is one of the few chief constables to have authorised water cannon in Northern Ireland, where of course the circumstances are very different and where a unique threat is faced.

The ACPO paper from 2014 also says that

“history would suggest that the most serious outbreaks of public disorder have occurred spontaneously”

and therefore water cannon would not be suitable. Instead, it says water cannon would be useful for “planned events” and points to

“ongoing and potential future austerity measures likely to lead to continued protest”.

However, Britain has policed planned events in this country for centuries without the need for water cannon, by using communication with event organisers, using sensible policing strategies or, in exceptional cases where violence is expected, such as with English Defence League marches, using the power to ban marches or relocate them. Can the Home Secretary confirm that she believes the police do have a wide range of powers available to them to deal with serious public order threats or serious criminal threats on our streets, be it in the capital or across the country? I agree with the Home Secretary that water cannon have never been deployed in England, Scotland or Wales and no one has put forward any justification for why that should change now.

The Home Secretary also pointed out that the Mayor of London has already purchased three water cannon. Can she confirm that that cost £218,000 of Greater London Authority money, and that it was done before getting her authorisation and was based on an operational case that has now been proven to be extremely weak? Can she also confirm, as she seemed to be saying in her statement, that he did not even seem to have bought particularly good water cannon, as it appears that they are 25 years old and need at least 67 major repairs and alterations? Given that the Chancellor has now grounded the Mayor’s airport ambitions, may I strongly welcome her comprehensive pouring of cold water on his cannon ambitions, too?

I agree with the Home Secretary that deploying water cannon could also be counterproductive and could damage our long tradition of policing by consent. She rightly has a responsibility not only to look seriously at any proposal put to her by the police and to make sure that they have the powers they need, but to take account of the fact that our model is based on nearly two centuries of policing by consent, with people becoming police officers from their communities to represent and protect their communities. Public order policing, just like any other aspect of policing, is based on that consent and confidence, and to weaponise policing further would create significant risks. The Home Secretary is therefore right to reject water cannon today and Labour strongly supports her decision.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks about the decision I have taken. May I echo one of the comments she made about Northern Ireland? It is important that we recognise that the policing circumstances there are completely different from those the police face in England and Wales, and I would just like to commend the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland does. Its officers face significant threats and significant trouble, and they do that job with integrity and professionalism.

The right hon. Lady is also right to say that a range of powers are available to the police in England and Wales to be able to deal with public order, as they have been doing for many years. At least one chief constable referred in his correspondence to me to the way in which they like to work with communities when public demonstrations or marches are about to take place, and would prefer to be able to use those methods of communication and working with communities to ensure that public order is maintained at all times.

The decision on the three machines was a matter for the Mayor of London. The point that she makes, crucially, about the level of trust is a significant one; it is about that model of British policing. As Peel said,

“the police are the public and the public are the police”

and we should treasure our model of policing by consent.

Calais

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it this morning.

When order breaks down, a difficult situation can become desperate. That is what is happening in Calais. Today, there are reports that three people were injured after they broke into the French channel tunnel terminal. That comes just a week after a young man from Eritrea died, attempting to board a freight train headed to Britain. We do not know the circumstances of his death, what made him travel more than 3,600 miles to try to enter Britain, nor how much he paid to criminals who may have profited from his death.

The Home Secretary talked about the serious and growing challenge for hauliers, who are worried continually about the security of their load, whether people will try to break in and whether someone might be caught under their wheels, and about the holidaymakers who see people walking between the queuing cars and worry about the security of their boot, but this is a terrible crisis at our border in which lives are being lost and people are being injured.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today, but it is not the first one that we have had and there have been urgent questions too. The situation has been exacerbated by the huge problems caused by the strike action, but the underlying problem has been getting worse as well. I welcome the additional measures, such as the lorry zone that she announced. I thank Kent police, Border Force and all the authorities for the difficult job that they are having to do. Will she confirm whether the lorry zone is additional capacity? Eurotunnel has already talked about there being additional capacity in place, but has warned that that is just making more people try to get into the tunnel and enter the trains directly. Will she clarify that point? Will she tell us how many additional staff the UK has deployed to Calais since last year and how many additional enforcement staff the French authorities have deployed?

Will the Home Secretary explain what is happening when people are found attempting to cross illegally? She referred to 8,000 people. Is it true that many of them are simply being returned to the streets of Calais to try again? What action has she taken to get a proper process in place in France to assess whether they have an asylum claim and are fleeing persecution or to assess their immigration status and whether they need to return home? Will she say whether the British authorities are fingerprinting those whom they find, which I have raised with her before?

The Home Secretary and I will agree that the French authorities need to do much more. Under the Dublin convention, it is their responsibility to assess those who may be vulnerable or who have asylum claims, and who should not be further victim to people traffickers or the despair that comes from being a vulnerable refugee travelling over large distances. Such people need an assessment early on, either in France or in the other countries that they have come from. What is she doing to ensure that the French authorities are assessing those who are living in camps or on the streets in Calais before they make an attempt to reach the border? Can she tell us how many people have been assessed in Calais by the French authorities, and what is being done to increase the number being assessed, rather than simply leaving people in the camps and leaving the problem to get worse?

The Home Secretary will know the importance of diplomatic action and partnership working with France. The former Home Secretary and Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough had to do exactly that when he negotiated the closure of Sangatte many years ago. It would be helpful to hear from her what progress is being made, because at the moment it looks as though the problem is still getting worse.

The Home Secretary talked about the work that is being done to tackle people smuggling more widely, but what is being done to make sure that immigration control and asylum process assessments take place in the southern Mediterranean countries too?

Finally, while it is crucial for us to strengthen border security to ensure that action is being taken in France to address this serious problem, we have a responsibility across Europe to deal with the humanitarian crisis that has been increasing the problem. A significant part of the problem is caused by the war in Syria, which is the worst humanitarian crisis of our generation. We all know of the pressure on families that are fleeing that situation.

The Prime Minister said that the UK Government would accept a “modest expansion” of the programme to accept Syrian refugees. I have urged the Home Secretary many times in the House to accept far more UN refugees from Syria. How many does she now expect to accept? I urge her to work with local authorities across the country, including on reviewing the support processes, to get them to offer places for those who are fleeing persecution. This country has a long tradition of providing humanitarian support and sanctuary for those who need it.

We have had a series of urgent questions and statements, but the problem is getting worse. Can the Secretary of State really put her hand on her heart and say that she thinks that as a result of her statement, things will be better in six months’ time than they are today? It does not feel like they will be. What else can she do to prevent the crisis from simply escalating, and to prevent us from simply being in the same situation in a few months, having the same discussions and asking the same questions, with her being able to give only the same answers?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her response and for her gratitude for my coming to the House and making a statement.

The right hon. Lady referred to the work of the police and Border Force officials, as I have done. We should recognise the professionalism with which Border Force officers deal with circumstances such as the current ones. They had contingency plans in place for the possibility of a strike related to MyFerryLink, and those plans were put into action. From the Border Force’s point of view, what it did operated smoothly. We should recognise the professionalism with which its officers approach their job. A number of resources have been deployed over time around the Border Force ports, and it operates a flexible system to ensure that it can move resources around.

The right hon. Lady asked whether the lorry park or buffer zone that I described was additional capacity. It is a new secure area that is being set aside, because if lorries are queuing it is easier for illegal migrants to try to get on to them. Putting lorries separately in a secure zone means that we can remove people’s ability to access them. The French have also put in extra staff, and in particular they have increased the number of police in the area, including riot police.

As the right hon. Lady said, and as I recognised in my statement, previous Governments have worked with the French authorities on this issue for many years. The juxtaposed controls at Calais and Coquelles are important to us and work well, but they have come under increasing pressure. She asked about the progress that has been made, and I point out to her that in 2014-15, the Border Force, its contractors and the French authorities prevented about 40,000 attempts to enter the UK illegally at the juxtaposed controls in France, compared with 18,000 in the previous year and 11,000 the year before that. There is increasing pressure, but also increasing ability to make identifications. As I indicated, we have put in some more technology to help that process.

In 2014 the number of organised criminal networks dismantled in the Calais region increased by 30% compared with the previous year, so the increasing joint working and collaboration with the French authorities is having an impact on the ground.

The right hon. Lady asked how asylum seekers are being dealt with. That is being addressed in a number of ways, but I return to a point that I have made in the House before. The number of asylum claims in France has increased—she referred to that point—and the French authorities have encouraged people to make asylum claims in France. There is a further upstream issue for both us and the French Government, which is what action the Italian authorities can take when people arrive across the Mediterranean on Italian shores. We have offered and given the Italian authorities increased support in fingerprinting and registering people properly at that point.

We have said before that we expect several hundred Syrian refugees to be relocated to the UK over a period of years as part of our vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and we are increasing that number by a few hundred. I remind the House that we have not set a target number, but those are people in particular need. We work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which identifies such people. Some of them require long-term medical treatment, which we will provide in the United Kingdom. We are trying to focus support on those who are most in need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman does well to remind us of the appalling events in Srebrenica, and I remember the shock we all felt when we saw what had happened. I applaud all organisations that aim to work among faiths to encourage tolerance and understanding, so that we all respect each other’s faiths while being able to continue to worship as each individual wishes.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We have all been appalled by the terrible attack in Tunisia and our thoughts are with the families and friends of the 30 British nationals who have lost their lives. We know that tomorrow will also be a painful day for the families of the 52 people who died and the hundreds who were injured in the terrorist attacks in London 10 years ago. It is a day that none of us can forget, and tomorrow we will remember those who lost their lives. It is testament too to the hard work of our intelligence services and police that so many plots and attacks have been prevented since 7/7.

We all agree that action must be taken to prevent both violent and non-violent extremism here in Britain and that public sector organisations need to do more. I raised with the Home Secretary several times in the last Parliament my concern that the Government are still not doing enough to support community-led prevention programmes on extremism. May I urge her to look again at that and to make sure that it is a central part of her next strategy on extremism?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and I intend to refer later to the 10th anniversary of 7/7. As she says, no one will ever forget that terrible day, and our thoughts are with all of those who suffered as a result of those terrible attacks.

We have delivered a significant number of community-based projects through the Prevent agenda. It is right that we want to work with communities, and that will be part of our counter-extremism strategy, especially looking at those communities that are perhaps more isolated than others and working with them, as I was saying earlier, to help to ensure that we see across our society a valuing and a sharing of the values that we all hold, so that we do not allow those people who wish to radicalise youngsters and others to divide us.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s comments because I have seen some very good community-led projects, in Cardiff, Bradford and online, which so far have lived hand to mouth and have not had Government support or backing from the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Home Office. If she is able to offer that support in future, it would be hugely welcome.

May I also ask the Home Secretary about support for policing? She has rightly worked hard to prevent the counter-terror budget from being reduced and to ensure that it was supported, but she will know the concern from various senior police officers involved in counter-terrorism that neighbourhood police should also play a central role, working with communities in the prevention of extremism. Can she assure us that in the next spending round and in her Home Office budget decisions she will also ensure that neighbourhood policing and the wider policing work are properly protected so that they can play an important part in protecting the national security of our nation?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the right hon. Lady that in looking at the policing budget I will consider all aspects of policing, and I recognise the role that neighbourhood officers play. We do have Prevent officers working in local communities and doing an excellent job identifying issues there. They are working with local authorities, community groups, schools and others to ensure that we provide support and do what we all want to do—as she suggests—which is to eradicate extremism and the poisonous ideology that leads people to seek to do us harm.

Reports into Investigatory Powers

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is strong support for the work of the intelligence agencies and the work they do in Britain, which has historically always been the case, but we should never take that for granted. It would not be fair on the intelligence agencies to take it for granted, so maintaining that sense of trust and confidence across the whole of society and not simply across the majority of people is extremely important for the work that they do. If we are to protect both our liberty and security in a democracy, we need to achieve consent for and understanding of the law and it is not just those who are concerned about surveillance who value greater clarity. It is also an essential mission of our intelligence agencies as part of defending democracy and protecting liberty and security.

The Home Secretary has been clear that there is no doubt that investigatory powers are vital in confronting terrorism, child abuse and other serious and organised crime. During the Home Secretary’s statement two weeks ago, I mentioned the awful case cited in David Anderson’s report in which communications data were used, rightly, to stop the abuse of three children who were all less than four years old. There are other cases. For example, Operation Overt dealt with the largest and most serious terrorist plot we have ever faced. Between 2008 and 2010, 10 individuals were convicted of plotting to blow up multiple transatlantic airliners. A key part of the evidence that brought the plotters to justice was coded conversations by email between the conspirators and extremists abroad in which they discussed the preparation for their attacks and the selection of targets.

It is clear from the review and other evidence that the powers passed through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 last summer are essential and must be renewed, and will need to be renewed in good time before the sunset clause at the end of next year. It is also right, however, that we ensure that the legal framework that governs them is updated so that it properly reflects the needs of security and the need for safeguards.

In 2012, the Home Secretary made proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill that would have gone much further than the current legislation. I argued at the time that there were serious problems with the Bill, because it put too much power in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Joint Committee set up to scrutinise the draft Bill also, rightly, raised substantial concerns. David Anderson’s report makes it clear that he does not think that the draft Bill was the right approach. He noted that the first clause was “excessively broad”. The important question of IP addresses, which was encompassed in the draft Bill, has now been dealt with in other legislation. On weblogs, which the Home Office said at the time it wanted to pursue, David Anderson concluded that he

“was not presented with a detailed or unified case”

on the viability, practicalities or legal considerations.

On perhaps the most significant and the most controversial measure in the draft Bill—requiring internet service providers to hold huge amounts of third-party data—he commented:

“I did not get the sense that this was judged to be the priority that it once was, even within law enforcement”,

and he concluded:

“Accordingly…there should be no question of progressing this element of the old draft Bill until such time as a compelling operational case has been made, there has been full consultation with CSPs and the various legal and technical issues have been fully bottomed out. None of those conditions appears to me to be currently satisfied.”

Experts have also expressed substantial concerns about encryption and the cost and proportionality of the proposals.

Where David Anderson and the agencies confirm that there is a problem is in ensuring that companies whose headquarters are overseas comply with UK law, particularly for data and communications that involve those who are living and operating in the UK and those who pose threats to the UK. The Home Secretary referred to the report by Nigel Sheinwald, whose work is vital because, as the agencies and the Home Secretary recognise, UK law is only part of the answer; legal and diplomatic arrangements with other countries are immensely important. In fact, there is a growing range of views that the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill were not the right way to deal with that genuine and significant problem in relation to companies based overseas.

On that basis, I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she has dropped the original draft Communications Data Bill and is starting with a fresh approach. I think it would help our debate in this place and the development of future proposals that should balance the appropriate powers and the appropriate safeguards. Will she confirm that that draft Bill has been dropped and a new approach will be taken?

[Mrs May]

After the Joint Committee that scrutinised that draft Bill had done its work, we made it clear that we would take on board in principle the various recommendations the Committee made. Obviously, David Anderson’s report refers to some of the issues in the draft Communications Data Bill, so we will have to look at that in the context of subsequent proposals. We were clear that we would accept all the principles that that Committee set out, including that the original draft Communications Data Bill, which was an attempt to future-proof our legislation, was too wide ranging.

Anderson Report

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and join her in paying tribute to the agencies and police and the vital work that they do to keep us safe. Because their work is so important, they need a robust and up-to-date legal framework for that work, and that is what they want as well. Their job is to protect our liberty as well as our security in a democracy.

I strongly welcome the publication of David Anderson’s report, which we all need to consider in detail. We called for the report in our amendment to the emergency legislation last summer, and we did so because we believed that the existing framework was no longer fit for purpose. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also called for a new framework. Technology has moved on, but neither the law nor the oversight has done so. The law is, in David Anderson’s words,

“incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates...and—in the long run—intolerable.”

Reforms are needed. First, as the report confirms, it is clear that proportionate surveillance and interception are vital to saving lives and to averting and disrupting dreadful attacks. The Home Secretary is right to highlight the changing threats, and communications data have been used to tackle some awful crimes. The report refers to a case in which the US authorities found a movie file of a woman sexually abusing a four-month-old girl. Communications data were used to track the source of an email to a man in Northampton and, as a result, he and his girlfriend were convicted of serious sexual abuse of three children, all less than four years old. There is no doubt therefore that powers are needed and that they need to keep up with new technology. We cannot allow the sunset clause to let existing powers lapse without new legislation in their place.

Secondly, we have argued that, alongside strong powers, we need strong checks and balances and significantly stronger oversight of how the system works. I welcome the report’s proposals to strengthen oversight by introducing a new, stronger independent surveillance and intelligence commission, merging the existing system of commissioners, which I have long argued is not strong or transparent enough, and by introducing judicial authorisation of warrants. Both would be important steps, but their detail needs to be right, so that they do not add delays to urgent processes or detract from the Home Secretary’s wider responsibility to assess risks to national security and be answerable to Parliament. I believe that those reforms would strengthen the legitimacy of a long-term framework, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider and agree to them.

Thirdly, the report confirms some of the problems with the original draft Communications Data Bill, which the Joint Committee that scrutinised it at the time stated was too widely drawn—we agreed. David Anderson says:

“There should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out (as it has not been to date)”.

I agree with David Anderson and, again, I urge the Home Secretary to accept that recommendation.

I welcome the points that the Home Secretary made about a future investigatory powers Bill based in large part on David Anderson’s report being subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and about how we will have the opportunity for cross-party debate. I also urge her to ask the business managers to schedule a day’s debate on the Anderson report, so that Members of all parties may discuss it fully and to foster a wider public debate to get the widest possible consent and legitimacy for the new framework. There has been a wider public debate in other countries, including the US, than there has so far been here.

Finally, David Anderson’s report calls for greater public avowal and transparency of capabilities and legal powers. Everyone understands that many national security operations need to be secret to be effective, but I urge the Home Secretary to consider that recommendation closely, too, as there needs to be sufficient transparency for us in Parliament to take responsible decisions on getting the legislation right.

We need freedom and security in our democracy, the powers to keep people safe and the checks and balances to protect people’s privacy and to ensure that the powers are not abused. The digital age is a wonderful source of freedom and opportunity, but it also brings new challenges from new crimes and new threats to our security. David Anderson’s report helps us to face both. We in this House now need to ensure that the report helps us to navigate both the opportunities and the challenges to sustain and to strengthen our democracy in a digital age.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the tone and approach she has adopted on these matters, which—as we all accept across the House—are incredibly serious. It is important that we have full debates about them, as we will be able to do. In the timetable I have set out, people will have an opportunity to reflect fully on the David Anderson report, and other reports that have already been published or will be published, so that when they come to look at the Government’s proposals, they will be able to do so against that firm background.

It is important to draw to the House’s attention the fact that David Anderson looked into all investigatory powers and techniques. He recognised the necessity of the powers and techniques. The issue he was looking at was whether the legislative framework we have is the right one. He has made the point that the current legislative framework is found in a number of different Acts of Parliament, so it is sometimes difficult for people to see the complete picture. Obviously, one of his purposes in his recommendations is to bring that picture together, and to look at the questions of authorisation and oversight.

The right hon. Lady mentioned two particular issues, one of which was access to third party data. David Anderson does not say that this should not be permissible or possible; he says that he would like to see a better case made for it than has been made in the past, but he does not reject the use of access to third party data. On judicial authorisations, he has come down with a particular point of view in that area, and it happens that the ISC took a different view. In looking at this carefully, the point that we will want to reach is ensuring that any decision taken in this area does not adversely affect the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary in relation to other aspects of Government powers and what they need to do, and where any arrangements made are seen to have clear legitimacy and also reflect the issue that the shadow Home Secretary referred to—that the individual who bears the risk, regardless of who takes the authorisation, is of course the Home Secretary. So we have to look at those proposals in the context of that complex mix of areas that we need to consider.

Home Affairs and Justice

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have done a significant amount in relation to both gang-related crime and firearms. On firearms, we have introduced a new offence applying to middlemen, because the firearms used in attacks are often hired out by those who possess them. We are also doing some work across Europe in relation to the availability of firearms, and the way in which they are brought into the United Kingdom.

We have attacked the problem of gangs on two levels. Our work in connection with “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” has focused on the street gangs that have often been such a problem in many areas, and some of the work done by Greater Manchester police in bringing agencies together to deal with gang-related crimes has served as a model for others. We have also set up the National Crime Agency, which has enhanced the ability of the police to deal with the organised crime groups that often lie behind such crimes. Incidents such as those to which the hon. Lady has referred are, of course, tragic, and, as she has said, the police will be properly investigating them. We have enhanced their ability to deal with incidents of that kind.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary talked about the cuts that are to come. What would she say to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, who leads on counter-terror for the Met, and who has warned that further cuts in neighbourhood and mainstream policing would put at risk the fight against terror?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly one of the issues that we will be looking at. It may require legislation but it obviously requires discussions with internet companies and others, and I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has appointed Baroness Shields, who, as my hon. Friend may know, is well versed in these matters of technology, to look at exactly this issue of extremist material online and how we can deal with it.

As part of our wider work on extremism, we will introduce an extremism Bill, which will provide three important new powers. Those will allow us to: restrict extremists, to stop them engaging in harmful activity, through new extremism disruption orders; ban extremist groups that promote hatred but which fall short of proscription through banning orders; and close premises that persistently host extremist speakers and events with new closure orders. As I have said, the Bill will form one part of our wider strategy, which contains a range of non-legislative measures, including a major new programme to help people in our most isolated communities play a full and successful role in British life. That will include training; help to find work; and intensive English language training. It is imperative that we work together to tackle extremism and that, as we do so, we challenge it from every possible angle.

It is clear that we must not only work hard to defeat damaging and divisive extremism, but ensure that, in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime, the security and law enforcement agencies have the powers and capabilities they need to keep us safe from those who have been twisted by extremism and seek to do us harm.

Last summer, we legislated to deal with two urgent problems relating to communications data and—separately—the interception of communications. That put beyond doubt both the legal basis on which we require communication service providers to retain data and the application of our laws on investigatory powers to providers overseas. But the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 contained a sunset clause, which means that new legislation is required before the end of next year. The Act contains measures to deal with only limited and specific problems, and there are still significant gaps in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ capabilities.

That Act also places a statutory obligation on the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to carry out a review of investigatory powers. That review is now complete and will be published shortly. It is a comprehensive and thorough document and I wish to take this opportunity to thank David Anderson for his work.

The Government are considering the content of the report very carefully as we frame the investigatory powers Bill, which will be brought forward in the coming months. The legislation will cover the full range of investigatory powers that David Anderson has reviewed. Although I cannot provide full details on the Bill while we are still considering the report, I can assure the House that, in considering these sensitive powers, we will look to balance the important needs of privacy and security.

It is also right that any legislation should be given full and proper consideration and I can assure the House that hon. Members will be given the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation thoroughly.

In the previous Parliament, we took robust action to reform the chaotic and uncontrolled immigration system that we inherited from the Labour Government. We transformed the immigration routes for migrant workers, reduced red tape and increased flexibility for businesses, and introduced a new route for the exceptionally talented. We took action to ensure that students who want to come to Britain really are coming here to study.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that net migration is now at 318,000, which is more than 70,000 higher than when she took office? Will she tell us, given that she has reaffirmed that she wants to keep her net migration target, in what year does she plan to meet it?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has correctly quoted the last figure that was produced by the Office for National Statistics. When I said that we brought control into the system of immigration, we did just that. Earlier, I mentioned that we shut 870 bogus colleges that the Labour Government had allowed to exist to bring in people who wanted a back-door route to work rather than people who wanted to study here in the United Kingdom. Yes, there is more work for us to do. We introduced measures in the Immigration Act 2014—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady lets me finish this sentence, I will allow her to intervene again.

We introduced measures in the Immigration Act 2014 to make it easier and faster to remove those who have no right to be here and to restrict access to our national health service, bank accounts and rented property for those who are here illegally.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary promised—“no ifs, no buts”—that she would meet her target and get the figure down to the tens of thousands. Instead it is three times that much. Will she answer the question? If she is going to keep that target for the future, in what year will she meet her net migration target?

[Mrs May]

We fully accept, as the figures show, that we did not meet the net migration target, but it is absolutely right that we retain that ambition. The question for Labour is: does it think that immigration into this country is too high, and if it does, what would it do about it? Interestingly, during the election campaign, immigration was a subject on which Labour was surprisingly silent, but I was not at all surprised given its record in Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We said in the run-up to the election that that issue should be reviewed because there were anomalies around, for example, women British citizens who are likely to be earning less than men. They may therefore be treated differently by the immigration system; they may have a spouse who is earning far more than them. We said that the system ought to be reviewed to ensure that it does not have perverse consequences. People need to be able to support their family. If they want to bring a family member into Britain, it is important that there is that proof in the system, but it also needs to recognise people’s different circumstances.

[Mrs May]

What is the right level of net migration into the United Kingdom, according the right hon. Lady?

[Yvette Cooper]

Our problem with the net migration target is that it treats all migration as being the same. We would like, for example, fewer people coming in under the student visitor system, but more coming in as university graduates. We think there is a serious problem with trying to treat all migration as being the same. The approach that the Government have taken has repeatedly failed. The Home Secretary’s net migration target has failed. It is in tatters; it is just a mockery that takes the British people for fools.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the Home Secretary if she can tell me when she expects to meet her fantasy net migration target.

[Mrs May]

I asked the right hon. Lady what she thought was the right level of net migration into the United Kingdom, and she has not answered that question. I give her another opportunity to do so. She says that she wants to affect net migration into the UK by changing the student visitor visa route. Student visitor visas are not included in the net migration figures.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is exactly the point, because the Home Secretary’s net migration target includes some kinds of immigration and not others. She has ignored student visitor visas because they are not included in her net migration target, but she includes refugees in her net migration target and wants to push it down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, may I take up the point that my right hon. Friend made about the work of police officers in police forces, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the National Crime Agency more widely in dealing with child abuse cases? These are not easy issues, and they do a very valuable job. Over the period of this Government, we have invested £86 million in dealing with cybercrime, and the creation of the national cyber crime unit at the NCA is, I believe, an important element in dealing with cybercrime. We expect social media companies to make it easy for users to choose not to receive anonymous posts, to have simple mechanisms for reporting abuse and to take action promptly when abuse is reported.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the Chancellor is planning cuts that are much more severe than anything we have seen over the last five years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the cuts will be twice the size of any year’s cuts over this Parliament. That means a real-terms cut for the Home Office under the right hon. Lady’s plans over the next few years alone of 23% and the loss of 20,000 more police officers on top of those who have already gone. When the terror threat is growing, when more child abuse cases are coming forward, when recorded violent crime is up and when chief constables say that neighbourhood policing cannot be sustained, is she really saying to communities across the country that she and the Tories are prepared to cut 20,000 more police officers?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows full well that the funding for counter-terrorism policing has been protected and that this Government are putting more money into dealing with child sexual exploitation. When she comes to deal with this issue, perhaps she could remind people why it is that this Government have had to deal with budget cuts across the public sector: it is because the last Labour Government left us with the worst budget deficit in our peacetime history.

[Yvette Cooper]

But the right hon. Lady has not managed even to meet her deficit plan, and we have already seen the police cut across the country. Her plans mean going further in the scale of police cuts, with 20,000 further police officers going across the country at a time when recorded rapes are up 30%, but fewer rapists are being arrested; when recorded violent crime is up 16%, but fewer violent criminals are being convicted; when online fraud is through the roof, yet fewer fraud proceedings are going ahead; and when recorded child abuse is up 33%, yet 13% fewer paedophiles are being prosecuted. On her watch, 999 waits are up, the police cannot keep up with extremists on the streets and more criminals are walking free. Is she really saying she is going to go around the country, campaigning with all her Back Benchers, saying she is content for 20,000 more police officers to go—because we’re not, and we won’t?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady mentioned that reports of child sexual abuse have increased, and yes they have. In a sense, that is to be welcomed, because more people feel that they can now come forward and report their abuse, which means that those issues can be investigated and the cases looked into. She talked about the figures for rape and domestic abuse, but I have to say that the volume of domestic abuse referrals from the police rose in 2013-14 to the highest level ever: 70% of those referrals were charged, which was the highest volume and proportion ever; there has been a rise in charged defendants from 2012-13; and conviction rates have risen since 2010-11. The figures on which she bases her rant show once again, I am afraid, that she is not paying attention to what is actually happening. What is happening is the exact opposite of what she and her colleagues said five years ago. She said crime would go up, but crime has gone down under this Government.

Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s counter-terrorism policy and implications for individuals travelling to the Iraq/Syria conflict zones.

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

As the Government have made clear repeatedly, the threat we face from terrorism is grave and is growing. The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on operational matters and individual cases, but the threat level in the United Kingdom, which is set by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, is at severe. This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely and could occur without warning.

The Government have consistently and emphatically advised against all travel to Syria and parts of Iraq. Anyone who travels to these areas is putting themselves in considerable danger, and the impact that such a decision can have on families and communities can be devastating.

The serious nature of the threat we face is exactly why the Government have been determined to act. We have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget up to and including 2015-16, and increased the budget for the security and intelligence agencies. In addition, we have provided an additional £130 million to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities and help address the threat from ISIL, and we have taken significant steps to ensure that the police and the security services have the powers and capabilities they need.

Last year, we acted swiftly to protect vital capabilities that allow the police and the security services to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to clarify the law in respect of interception for communications-service providers. This year we have introduced the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. This has provided the police with a power to seize a passport at the border temporarily, during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned—and I can confirm that this power has already been used. It has created a temporary exclusion order that allows for the managed return to the UK of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad. It has strengthened the existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures regime so that, among other measures, subjects can be made to relocate to another part of the country, and it has enhanced our border security for aviation, maritime and rail travel, with provisions relating to passenger data, no-fly lists, and security and screening measures.

Since its national roll-out in April 2012, more than 2,000 people have been referred to Channel, the Government’s programme for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, many of whom might have gone on to be radicalised or to fight in Syria. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 has now placed Channel on a statutory basis. It has also placed our Prevent work on a statutory basis, which will mean that schools, colleges, universities, prisons, local government and the police will have to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Already since 2012, local Prevent projects have reached more than 55,000 people and have helped young people and community groups to understand and challenge extremist narratives, including those of ISIL.

In addition to this work, alongside the checks we already conduct on a significant number of passengers who leave the UK, we have committed to reintroducing exit checks, and arrangements to do so will be in place by April 2015. These will extend our ability to identify persons of interest from a security, criminal, immigration or customs perspective. And as the Prime Minister stated last week, the Transport Secretary and I will be working with airlines to put proportionate arrangements in place to ensure that children who are at risk are properly identified and questioned.

The Government are taking robust action, but we have been clear that tackling the extremist threat that we face is not just a job for the Government, the police and the security services; it needs everyone to play their part. It requires educational institutions, social media companies, communities, religious leaders and families to help to protect people vulnerable to radicalisation and to confront this poisonous ideology. If we are to defeat this appalling threat and ideology, we must all work together.

[Yvette Cooper]

An estimated 600 British citizens have now travelled to join the conflict in Syria, from extremists with a terrorist history to 15-year-old schoolgirls. The whole House will share a revulsion at the barbarism of ISIL, a determination to tackle extremism and strong support for the vital and unsung work of the security services and the police to tackle the threat here and abroad. Members on both sides of the House have also recently supported further legislation to tackle the terrorist threat. However, there are specific areas in which we need answers about Government policies and decisions.

First, we need answers on the handling of a west London network of terror suspects. In 2011, court papers described a network including three individuals relocated on control orders, 10 other named individuals and further unnamed individuals based in west London who were

“involved in the provision of funds and equipment”

to terrorism and the

“facilitation of individuals’ travel from the UK”

to join terrorist-related activity.

The Home Secretary’s decision, against advice, to abolish control orders and cancel relocations was implemented in 2012, meaning that no one could then be relocated, despite the continued police view that relocation was one of the best ways to disrupt terrorist networks. One of those who had been relocated absconded in a London black cab; another associate absconded wearing a burqa. Other men from that west London network have been reported in the media as subsequently leaving for Syria and becoming involved in brutal violence. The Home Secretary has finally restored the relocation powers within the past few weeks. Does she believe that her decision to remove those relocation powers made it easier for that west London network to operate, recruit and send people to Syria? Will she now ask the independent terrorism reviewer or the Intelligence and Security Committee to consider the details of that west London network and to assess whether Government policy made it easier for it to operate and harder for the police and the Security Service to disrupt it?

Secondly, we need to know about the Government’s policy to prevent young people and children from travelling to Syria, in the light of the distressing story of three schoolgirls from east London travelling there. I have not had a reply to my letter to the Home Secretary of last Wednesday, so will she tell us now whether the Government had an agreement in place with the airlines to raise alerts over unaccompanied minors travelling on known Syrian routes? If not, why not? And will she put such an agreement in place now? The girls flew out on Tuesday, but they did not leave Istanbul bus station until late Wednesday. It is reported that the police contacted the London embassy on Wednesday, but when were the Istanbul authorities alerted, and when were checks made at the main airports and train and bus stations in that city?

One pupil from Bethnal Green academy is reported to have left for Syria before Christmas, and it is widely known that recruitment is taking place through friendship groups and social media. What training and support was given to the teachers and parents of other children at Bethnal Green academy to prevent further recruitment, grooming and radicalisation? What community-led Prevent programmes is the Home Office currently supporting in Bethnal Green?

When the Home Secretary came to office and changed policy to end relocation orders and to remove community work from Prevent, she claimed that previous policies had failed to tackle extremism and she promised:

“We will not make the same mistakes”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 52.]

We need answers from her now about the mistakes that have been made under this Government, so that we can all work together to strengthen counter-terrorism policy in the face of these serious threats.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of serious issues. She asked about Prevent and on that I have to say to her that she needs to stop using the numbers she likes to quote. She tries to compare Prevent before the election with Prevent after the election, but in 2011 we took the very important decision to split work on integration, which is now the sole responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and Prevent. That was done for very good reasons, and if the right hon. Lady wants to securitise integration work again, I suggest to her that she has not learned from the mistakes made by her Government. I would like her to say, at some stage: whether she supports the changes we have made to Prevent; whether she supports the fact that Prevent now looks at non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism; and whether she supports the changes we have made to make sure that no public money finds its way to extremists, as it did under her Government.

The right hon. Lady made various comments about TPIMs, and has done so outside this Chamber, asking why I did not put certain individuals on TPIMs. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I think she should understand how TPIMs work and how control orders worked. I do not decide to put somebody on a TPIM; the Security Service makes an application to me for permission to put somebody on a TPIM and if it has made a strong enough case, I approve the application. If she thinks that the Home Secretary should be taking operational decisions, I suggest that she should study the history of our constitution.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of control orders, but, as I have said at this Dispatch Box many times, control orders were being whittled away by the courts—they were not a sustainable system. TPIMs have, in contrast, consistently been upheld by the courts. She mentioned relocation, and, of course, the House has just passed the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which adds relocation to the TPIM regime. I understand that she told the BBC on Sunday:

“I think effectively—

that TPIMs and control orders are—

“the same thing if you bring the relocation powers back”.

That is precisely what we have done.

The right hon. Lady says the power to relocate has not always been there, but what she fails to say is that the cases that have been raised in the media date from the time when control orders and the power of relocation were in place. At no point has anybody from the police or Security Service said to me that if we had the power of relocation we would be able to prevent people from travelling to Syria. Indeed, at the weekend, Helen Ball, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said—and they have said consistently—

“short of locking someone up for 24 hours a day, you can’t eliminate the risk they pose.”

The shadow Home Secretary herself said yesterday about control orders:

“We can’t pretend it’s going to solve all of the problems.”

I agree with her, which is why we consistently look at the powers available to the police and the security services in dealing with this issue. But, as I made absolutely clear in the answer to her question, this is not just a question of government and the powers we give to the police and to the security services; this is about families and communities as well, and we all need to work together to ensure that we can defeat this poisonous ideology.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that throughout our time in government we have protected CT police funding. She might have missed it, but late last year the Prime Minister announced that £130 million of extra money was being made available to the agencies and police to deal with terrorism.

[Yvette Cooper]

But Peter Clarke is warning about the impact on neighbourhood policing. The Home Secretary will know that online crime is going through the roof and 999 delays have gone up. The terrorist threat has increased, neighbourhood policing is being decimated, and there are fewer traffic police enforcing the rules and more deaths on the roads. On child abuse, in particular, there has been a 33% increase in the number of cases reported to the police, an 11% reduction in the number of cases passed for prosecution and year-long delays in dealing with online cases because the police and NCA do not have the resources and capacity to do the job. Let me ask her again: is this the right time to cut 16,000 police officers? Yes or no?

[Mrs May]

First, on neighbourhood policing, it is absolutely clear from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that forces can successfully manage to balance their books while protecting the front line and delivering reductions in crime. I remind the right hon. Lady once again that there has been a fall in crime of more than a fifth under this Government. The Labour party needs to get its story straight. On the one hand, the right hon. Lady stands up in this House and claims that more resources should be going into the police while, on the other, the shadow Chancellor, whom I think she might know, makes it very clear that under a Labour Government there would continue to be cuts.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Savile, the BBC and the national health service, the north Wales care homes, Rochdale, the Elm guest house and too many others: too many institutions that failed to listen to children, failed to protect them, turned a blind eye while they were abused and, in some cases, even covered up awful crimes. Those who endured abuse need justice. They want the truth, they want answers about what will change for the future and they need support. We all want to know that abusers and criminals are being prosecuted and stopped, that children are being heard and kept safe and that the same mistakes are not being made over and over again. That is why the inquiry is so important, why it must work to get the truth and also why it must set out the reforms we need for the future. It is why we will support it and why we wish Justice Lowell Goddard well in getting it swiftly under way.

It has now been 213 days since the Home Secretary first announced an inquiry and more than two years since we first called for it. It has now had three false starts under the first two chosen chairs, as well as the process of panel hearings that the Home Secretary launched in November and that she has now had to abandon.

We cannot afford for the Home Secretary to fail on this again, so we need to be clear that the previous problems have been resolved. First, the two previous chairs went because the Home Office did not apply due diligence and the Home Secretary did not consult survivors. I welcome the fact that she has now met many groups of survivors. Will she assure us that there has been due diligence? I strongly welcome, too, the additional support for survivors and I hope that she will keep the level of support under review and talk to the Department of Health about the support that it will need to provide. How will she ensure that survivors have an ongoing voice in shaping the inquiry, perhaps learning the lessons from Northern Ireland and other countries?

Secondly, the inquiry was repeatedly not put on a sustainable footing and concern was raised about its independence from the Home Office. Making the inquiry statutory is welcome and is something that we called for. Have the counsel to and staff of the inquiry been appointed by the Home Office or by the chair, and what will their relationship be with the Home Office?

Thirdly, there has been considerable confusion over the role of the panel. Can she assure us that it will continue to include survivors and explain what its role will be? Is this a panel inquiry chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard or a judicial inquiry by Justice Goddard, advised by the panel?

Fourthly, the scope and purpose of the inquiry has not previously been clear. I agree that it must consider the institutional failure and make recommendations for the future. I also agree that individual crimes must be investigated by the police, rather than the panel, and I strongly welcome the greater clarity she has announced today about how criminal investigations will be handled and co-ordinated by the police and prosecution. What about the continued question of whether there was a cover-up in Whitehall or Westminster of very serious crimes over many decades? Extremely serious allegations have been made, but they have not been investigated.

Today, the Home Secretary has had to tell the House that more files were missing from the Wanless review, including files on briefings to the Prime Minister of the day, which came to light only when something was discovered by accident in the National Archives. Have the Foreign Office, MI6, Downing street and other Departments now been asked to look at their files, and why was that not done before, when the Wanless review started?

The Home Secretary will know, too, that no one has looked more widely at allegations that have been made about cover-ups or decisions not to investigate or prosecute in that period. Will she clarify whether she expects the Goddard inquiry to look in detail at those allegations and whether it will have the investigative capacity to do so? For example, will it be able to look at top-secret information held by the security agencies? If that is not its purpose, who will pursue that investigation? It is clear that people will expect us to get the truth of what happened within Government.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police and social services have the resources to deal with these serious cases right now? The current police investigations are immensely important and she will know that there are grave allegations in the papers only today that must be pursued. The police must have the ability to pursue serious investigations wherever they lead, but forces have said that they are struggling to cope with the cases that are now rightly coming forward, both current and past cases, particularly given the scale of officer cuts that they have experienced. We know that there are long and dangerous delays, too, in the National Crime Agency in dealing with online abuse. The Home Secretary rightly talked about her renewed determination to tackle the problem, and this is the area in which we need to act urgently. What is she doing to respond to the extremely serious concerns that police forces and social services still lack both the capacity and the policies to investigate and keep children safe today?

For too long, this appalling crime has been ignored. Children who called for help were not heard and too many of them are still not being listened to. I know that the whole House will want the inquiry to work, to be thorough and effective and to support the announcements that the Home Secretary made today.

The Home Secretary concluded by asking for patience, but she will know better than anyone that the inquiry has gone wrong too many times already and that we still need assurance that the measures will be in place to protect children today. She will know that patience is running out and that we need action to support child protection now and to get this inquiry finally and properly under way so that it can get to the truth and provide the justice and reforms we need to keep all our children safe. The whole House will unite behind ensuring that that can happen.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her commitment to the inquiry. One of the issues raised with me by survivors is that they want to be certain there is cross-party support for the inquiry so they can be confident that it will continue. From what she has said, I think we can give a very clear message that the whole House is of one accord in saying that the inquiry should be able to do what we all want—to get to the truth.

The right hon. Lady asked about the panel hearings. She said that I had set up the listening events. Of course, I did not set them up; they were set up by the independent inquiry panel. The panel decided to stop them in the middle of January, partly in expectation that a decision would be made about how the inquiry was being taken forward. I have been very clear that I have asked the panel to report on the work it has done so far. That will ensure that nothing undertaken by the original inquiry is lost in the process, and that its work can be taken forward, as appropriate, to the new panel inquiry.

I assure the right hon. Lady that greater due diligence has taken place in the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, including lengthy interviews with the individual concerned. On the role and ongoing voice of survivors, I have been very clear that it is important for the panel inquiry to be informed by survivors. They have the experience, understanding and expertise, and their voice will therefore be an important part of the panel inquiry.

The right hon. Lady asked about advisers to the panel. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the possibility of individuals being advisers—or assessors, as they are called—to a panel. I will explore with Justice Goddard how we can get the greatest breadth of input from survivors to ensure that their voice is truly heard in the inquiry’s work.

The inquiry will be an inquiry panel, with Justice Goddard as its chairman. Appointments of staff to the inquiry will be undertaken in consultation with Justice Goddard. The staff—the secretariat—are and will be independent of the Home Office.

The right hon. Lady referred to the issues around the cover-up in Whitehall and Westminster. I have been clear about the files, and we will renew our efforts to ensure that proper searches are undertaken across Government. When I last made a statement to the House, I was very clear that I could not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there has been no cover-up. One of the things that the inquiry will look at, and which I expect it to be able to unearth, is whether there was a cover-up in the past. That is important for us all, but particularly for survivors and those involved in the acts that might have been subject to such a cover-up.

Another of the issues relates to investigative capacity. The formal process is that I will discuss the make-up of the panel with Justice Goddard. We have already had some discussions about the investigative experience of panel members to make sure that they can do what is necessary in their work. As I said in my statement, we have clearly told the Security Service and the police that information they have relevant to the inquiry should be brought forward to it.

At one stage the right hon. Lady said that the police do not have the policies to investigate. I have to say to her that the police do have the policies and powers to investigate. One of the issues in the recent Rotherham case, sadly, was that the police had the ability to investigate, but—I am afraid because of what I have already described as dereliction of duty—they did not investigate. We must deal with that attitude as much as anything else. That is why we are working with the national policing lead to put in extra support for investigations across the country to make sure that such investigations can go where they need to go and can identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the child abuse inquiry.

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

In July last year, I announced the establishment of the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse. The inquiry will consider whether public bodies and other, non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. As I said when I established the inquiry, it must expose the failures of the past and must make recommendations to prevent them from ever happening in the future.

The House is aware that the first two nominees for chairman of the inquiry resigned after it became apparent to them that they did not command the full confidence of survivors. I am clear that the new chairman must be someone who commands that confidence, and who has the necessary skills and experience to carry out this vital work. In my work to find that person, as I told the House I would do, I have undertaken a number of meetings with the survivors of child abuse and their representative bodies. I have been deeply moved by the courage and the candour they have shown in telling me their harrowing stories and the experiences they have been through. I am absolutely committed to finding the right chairman to ensure they get the answers they deserve.

Not only does the inquiry need the right chairman, but it needs the right powers. That means the ability to compel witnesses and full access to all the necessary evidence. In December, I wrote to panel members to set out the three options that could give the inquiry those powers. I confirmed the options in my evidence that month to the Home Affairs Committee. I also confirmed to panel members that I would make my decision on the right model for the inquiry and the chairman by the end of January. It remains my intention to make a statement to the House shortly after I have made that decision, and after the necessary interviews and careful due diligence work have taken place.

It is important that the inquiry can get on with its work, but it is also vital that it has the right chairman, the right structures and the full confidence of the people for whom it has been established. We face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expose the truth, to deliver justice to those who have suffered and to prevent such appalling abuse from ever happening again. That is what survivors of child abuse deserve and that is what I remain determined to deliver.

[Yvette Cooper]

It is now 200 days since the Home Secretary agreed to set up the inquiry into historic child abuse. On 14 July, the first chair stood down and on 2 November the second chair stood down, both times because the Home Secretary had not done proper checks or consulted survivors. She promised then that the best way forward was for the panel to get started without the chair, and said that it would hold meetings with survivors and start gathering evidence. Yesterday the inquiry website announced that all further listening sessions were cancelled. She said in November she had confidence in the panel, yet over Christmas there were reports that she was writing to panel members asking them to re-apply for their own jobs, and there have been troubling accounts of disagreements and tensions within the panel. She said in November she would consult the Opposition and others on a new chair, but we have heard nothing. She said she would make sure that the inquiry had the powers it needs, yet we are six months from the initial start of the inquiry, and we still have no chair, no clarity on the powers and no clarity on the timetable for something that is so important.

The Home Secretary will know how serious the inquiry is and how much it means to those who endured awful abuse in childhood and were not listened to then but deserve to be listened to and to have the chance of justice now—yet they are being let down.

In November, the Home Secretary made much of apologising to the survivors and she promised personally to sort things out. She said she had a direct message to them:

“I know…you have questioned the legitimacy of this process…I understand that. I am listening.”

Despite the fact that she had already messed up twice, we and many others supported her in November because we were very keen to see an effective inquiry up and running, and we took her commitment in good faith. She is now at risk, however, of making a fool of everyone because the inquiry has stalled again—yet it has become more important than ever.

Since November, the allegations have become more serious. The police are now investigating allegations of child murder, involving senior figures linked to Dolphin square. A Government file has emerged, containing further potential allegations of abuse, clearly not seen by the Wanless review. These need to be investigated by the police—not just by the inquiry—but this makes it even more vital that a serious and credible inquiry is under way with the confidence of the public and survivors.

Given the seriousness of this matter, I say there is now no choice but to start this inquiry again properly, with a new chair and statutory powers and proper consideration given to the scope and purpose, involving the survivors themselves. This should not be beyond the wit of a Home Secretary. Other people have set up effective inquiries—Hillsborough, the Northern Ireland inquiry into child abuse and the Soham inquiry—and we are now six months on, with still no chair, still no powers, still no clarity. It is deeply unfair on survivors of abuse, who need to be listened to and who need justice. When will she sort this out?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is trying to make an argument between us about this inquiry where I think none exists—or certainly none should exist. She has indicated in her response that she believes an inquiry should be set up with a new chairman and with statutory powers. That is exactly what I said I would be doing when I last made a statement to this House.

I said in my response to her urgent question today that I set out the timetable to panel inquiry members in the letter I sent them in December and that I would make the decision on the right model for the inquiry and the chairman by the end of January. Three options are available in order to get statutory powers for the inquiry. One is to set up a royal commission, and the others are two variations on setting it up as a statutory inquiry: one to start again and reset it as a statutory inquiry, the other to await the appointment of the chairman and continue the current panel, but with statutory inquiry powers. I made that clear in the letter I sent to panel members, and I set out those three options when I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The right hon. Lady mentions the very serious issues that have come to light, which are being investigated by the police. It is absolutely right that the police investigate allegations. That is not going to be a job for the panel inquiry: investigation of allegations rests with the police, and will always rest with the police, and it is important that that is what happens.

The right hon. Lady made reference to the file that has come to light. We are checking that today, but I understand that it may be a duplicate of a file that was at the Home Office and was seen by Wanless and Whittam during their review. Of course, we are checking that. Any allegations relating to that file will be passed to the police and those concerned to ensure that they are looked at properly.

The right hon. Lady talked about the role of the panel inquiry. It has been meeting survivors and has had a number of listening meetings with them. It was decided yesterday that from now on their work will focus on issues such as methodology that will assist the new chairman in making decisions. The panel wrote to say that it will not have any more listening meetings with survivors until the new chairman has been announced and the model for the inquiry has been announced. I respect that decision. I understand that it must have been difficult, but it was a decision for the independent inquiry panel members to take.

I am sure that everybody recognises that we want to get this right and that we want to ensure that we have the right chairman and the right powers.We received more than 150 nominations for the post of chairman following the resignation of Fiona Woolf. It is right for us to take our time in considering those nominations, and to apply due diligence to them, so that when I announce the name of the new chairman, everyone—I hope—will feel fully confident that that individual has the capability that is needed to ensure that the inquiry can do the job we all want it to do, which is to get at the truth.

Terrorist Attacks (Paris)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The attacks last week in Paris demonstrated the savagery with which terrorists seek to divide us. The murderous intolerance and the bigotry that they pursue aim to spread fear and also to sow division, which they believe exists—us against them. Paris has not let the terrorists win and we must not do so either.

The French police have been praised for the actions that they took. Charlie Hebdo is being published today. Faiths have united, abhorring the anti-Semitism and grieving for the victims of the attack on the kosher supermarket. Muslims across the world have condemned an attack which is not Islamic and is not in the name of their religion, and the brother of the French Muslim police officer, Ahmed Merabet, said, “My brother was killed by people who pretend to be Muslims. They are terrorists. That’s it.” The Leader of the Opposition rightly attended the unity rally in Paris along with the Prime Minister, and on Saturday I joined people in Trafalgar square raising pens in solidarity with the “Je suis Charlie” cause.

In the attack, the terrorists targeted other peaceful religions, they targeted writers, and they targeted those whose job it is to keep us safe. In other words, they targeted both liberty and security, and the response of democratic Governments everywhere to these sorts of attacks must be to defend both. Governments need to keep our people safe so that we can enjoy the very freedoms that our democracy depends on.

Let me turn to the specific issues in the Home Secretary’s statement. I am concerned about the rushed way that she has made this statement today; I did not see it before coming into the House. I hope that she can set out what the reasons were and what has changed in the Home Office’s position this morning that meant that the statement was changed at late notice.

I welcome the action taken by the intelligence agencies and police to support their counterparts in Paris. I think the whole House will want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services and the counter-terror police, who do so much to keep us safe. It is important that they have the resources they need, and I welcome the resources that the Home Secretary mentioned.

As the Home Secretary said, the Government have going through Parliament right now the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which we have supported and continue to support, and which includes restoring the relocation powers for serious terror suspects that she abolished four years ago and for whose reinstatement we have called. She will know that the agencies have pointed to the ongoing threat in this country posed by the estimated 300 people returning from the conflict in Syria. Have any of those estimated 300 been prosecuted? Can she confirm that none of them is currently subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, even though these powers are supposed to be for dangerous suspects whose activity needs to be restricted to keep us safe? Are the Security Service and the police now reviewing all those cases to see whether TPIMs could help, especially with relocation powers restored, or whether there needs to be any further change to the TPIMs powers, which are different from the previous control orders? How many of the estimated 300 have engaged with the Channel programme? Does she agree that we should now make that compulsory for those returning, for which the Bill does not yet provide?

On access to dangerous weapons, the Home Secretary will know that there has been concern about reduced customs and border checks. What action is she taking to increase border checks for dangerous weapons?

The Home Secretary raised the issue of communications data. Technology is changing all the time, and that means that the law needs to keep up, in the capabilities of the agencies to get the vital intelligence we need and in the oversight that we need. In July, Parliament supported emergency legislation to ensure that the agencies and police could maintain vital capabilities. This month, the Commons supported extending those powers to ensure that IP addresses are covered in the same way as telephone numbers. In July, all parties agreed to support a review by David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism, of the powers and the oversight needed to keep up with changing technology.

The Home Secretary referred to the draft Communications Data Bill. That was rejected three years ago by the Joint Committee that the Government established to scrutinise it because, the Committee said, it was too vague, too widely drawn, and put too much power directly in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Committee recommended that the new legislation needed should be drawn up in a far more limited way, and that the Government should provide more evidence and clarity about what they wanted to achieve. Since then, the Home Secretary has not come forward with any revised proposals. She has not come to me to discuss such proposals or put them to Parliament, even though we have said that we were happy to discuss details with her. Given the urgency she says there now is, why did she not come forward with revised proposals after the conclusions of the Joint Committee three years ago?

In July, the Home Secretary was happy to agree to the statutory review by David Anderson, which is due to report before the election. Today she has not mentioned that review. Has she now discarded it, or will she be waiting for its conclusions?

This is an extremely important issue, and the detail—about the powers and capabilities that our intelligence agencies need, as well as about the safeguards and oversight that are also needed—matters. We agree that the police and the agencies need to get the intelligence to keep us safe and that they need updated legislation, and we also need safeguards and stronger oversight to make sure that powers are effectively and appropriately used.

I strongly caution the Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrats against setting up a caricatured argument between them about security on the one hand and liberty on the other, because we need to protect both in our democracy and we need a responsible debate on getting the detail right. The terrorists targeted both writers and police officers on that first day. The editor of Charlie Hebdo had police protection to protect his freedom of speech. That shows the strong link between our security and our liberty in any democracy.

We know that the most important thing to keep us safe in any democracy is making sure that we have the cohesive communities that can prevent hatred from spreading. We have supported extending Prevent by putting it on a statutory footing. I hope that the Home Secretary will now listen to the concerns we have expressed over some years about more needing to be done to have community-led programmes to tackle the hatred and to challenge the spread of extremism, including through social media, as well as in local communities and organisations. I hope that she will work with local government to that effect. Is she working with the Community Security Trust on tackling anti-Semitism, because we need to tackle all forms of extremism?

Terrorists try to silence us, to cow us and to divide us. Paris has shown, as millions marched and as we stood in solidarity with them, that we will not be silenced, and that we will not give into fear and into division as we defend our democracy. Although some were targeted in Paris, we know that this is about all of us: “Je suis juif”, “Je suis flic”, “Je suis Ahmed” and “Je suis Charlie”.

[Mrs May]

First, I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary for her late receipt of the statement. I apologised to her privately when we came into the Chamber, but I am happy to reiterate that apology on the Floor of the House.

I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to our counter-terrorist police—and, indeed, all our police—and our security and intelligence agencies. We cannot say often enough that these people are working day and night to keep us safe and to protect us. For obvious reasons, as members of our security and intelligence agencies, many of them are unseen and unknown. We are grateful to them for the work they do, and we should publicly recognise their important role.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions covering a number of issues. On reviews, there is no suggestion, simply because a review was not mentioned in my statement, that we have in any way side-tracked it. David Anderson is doing his work. As far as I am aware, he is undertaking discussions with relevant parties about the issues that he is looking at. Alongside that, our own Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting its work on questions of privacy, civil liberties and security. I think that those key reviews will be brought before the House in time to enable it to take account of them when it does the necessary job of looking at least at the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which is under a sunset clause to 2016. The House will obviously want to take account of all aspects of those two reviews.

The Government publish the number of people under TPIMs every quarter. On the question of whether somebody should be put on a TPIM, it is for the Security Service to initiate a request to me as Home Secretary. I of course look at the request, and if I agree to it, a court process is then gone through to ensure that such a decision is reasonable. As I say, it is for the Security Service to come forward with any such proposals.

The right hon. Lady asked about making Channel compulsory, and the Leader of the Opposition raised that during Prime Minister’s questions. We believe that Channel does important work, as does Prevent, which works with community groups. Decisions about whether individuals are put on a Channel programme should be taken case by case. We are very clear, as we have been in discussions on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in relation to temporary exclusion orders—they will ensure that people return from Syria on our terms, where that is appropriate—that we may seek to take action of various sorts in relation to individuals in the UK, but that what is appropriate for the individual concerned has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

On the question of firearms, it is for us to work with others in the European Union to consider the spread of firearms across European Union. As I said, the United Kingdom has some of the toughest gun laws, but major exercises have already been undertaken, primarily led by the National Crime Agency, to look at the availability of firearms in the UK. That process started before the terrible attacks took place in Paris.

On the draft Communications Data Bill, there is a difference of opinion among parties in the House about what powers should be taken by Government. We did in fact respond to the proposals from the Joint Committee, and we did in fact provide revised proposals in relation to the measures. I am clear, as is the Prime Minister, that we need to return to that issue. I believe that it is important to have the right powers available to deal with such matters.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked whether we speak to those at the CST. Of course we do so regularly. I have had a number of meetings with them, and the police of course have meetings with them to discuss the whole question of what protective security is available. Protective security was stepped up when the threat level was raised, but it has now been stepped up further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to applaud the work done by Staffordshire police. The issue of uninsured vehicles is a problem that affects people across the whole country, and I am sure that other police forces will want to look at the work of Staffordshire police force and its success.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to PC Neil Doyle, as well as his colleagues and his friends and family, and all police who take so many risks to keep us all safe?

James Dyson has called the Home Secretary’s new plan to expel overseas postgraduates “short-sighted”, and has said that it will lead to “long-term economic decline”. The Conservative former Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), has said that it is “mean-spirited” and will damage our exports and our universities. Even Conservative central office backed away from her policy yesterday, so does the Home Secretary stand by her plan? Does she believe that overseas graduates should all have to return home before they can even apply for a high-skilled job in British science or the NHS—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady will have heard my previous responses on that issue, and I am clear that our policies are right and ensure that the brightest and best are coming to the United Kingdom. Of course we want people who wish to come here to do genuine degrees at proper educational establishments, but the Government have been clearing up the abuse that was allowed to run rife with student visas under the previous Labour Government, and 800 colleges are no longer able to take in overseas students. We want the brightest and best to come to the UK, and that is exactly what our policies are destined to ensure.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has ducked the specific question of whether she wants overseas students to have to leave the country before they can apply for any high-skilled job in Britain. I hope that means that she is backing away from the policy and that it was simply a proposal from her special advisers—that is obviously why they have been banned from the Tory candidates list.

The Home Secretary needs to reflect on all her immigration policies because border checks have got weaker, asylum delays have risen by 70%, low-skilled migration is up, and her net migration target is in tatters, but the numbers of overseas university students fell last year. Criminals have been given citizenship, the Syrian scheme has been delayed, yet the Home Secretary claimed that her immigration policy is an achievement to be proud of. Will she tell the House whether she is proud of targeting postgraduates while illegal immigration gets worse? How proud is she of giving killers British citizenship while Syrian refugees are refused entry?

[Mrs May]

I will tell the right hon. Lady what I am proud of. I am proud that this Government have taken immigration seriously and looked across every route of migration into the United Kingdom. We have dealt with—and continue to deal with—abuse in the student visa system, which was allowed to increase significantly under the previous Labour Government, and non-EU migration is now at the levels of the late 1990s. That is a direct result of policies undertaken by this Government, and the Labour party needs to get its story in order. On the one hand people have been told to back off from conversations about immigration on the doorstep, yet on the other hand the right hon. Lady seems to want us to do a variety of things that her Labour Government failed to do when in office. We are dealing with the mess of the uncontrolled immigration system that was left by the previous Labour Government; this Government are getting to grips with our immigration system, unlike the Labour party.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are continually looking at that issue. Indeed, the Criminal Finances Board, under the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has looked into it.

I want to talk about those parts of the Bill that will enable us better to access criminal assets, because that is an important part of what we do. As I said, organised criminals are primarily motivated by profit, and we need to be able to do all we can to strip them of their ill-gotten gains and send the message that crime does not pay. In part, this is about more effective enforcement, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for dealing with modern slavery and organised crime, is currently overseeing the implementation of our plan to improve the recovery of criminal assets. We must also ensure that organised criminals are not able to exploit loopholes in our legislation to frustrate asset recovery and avoid the reach of the law, which brings me to the proposals in the Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill makes a number of significant changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. First, we are lowering the threshold for granting a restraint order—the means by which a defendant’s assets are frozen. It will now be easier to secure a restraint order immediately before effecting an arrest as the test for both will be aligned, thus removing the window of opportunity for a defendant to dissipate his or her assets. Secondly, we are halving the maximum amount of time that may be allowed by the court for payment once a confiscation order is made. That will mean that the victims of crime will receive recompense more quickly, and it will also further deprive criminals of the opportunity to live off or conceal their assets.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Can the Home Secretary tell the House why, under the current legislation, the use of restraint orders to freeze assets has dropped by a third since 2010?

[Mrs May]

The whole point of what we have been doing, in aiming to improve our ability through the Bill to get at assets and the other work being done by the Minister with responsibility for dealing with modern slavery and organised crime, which I have described, is to ensure that every part of the legislation we have is being operated fully and properly. [Interruption.] Well, the number of orders for over a particular sum of money has in fact been about the same for the past couple of years. The shadow Home Secretary is raising a point about the legislation that the Labour party put in place—the 2002 Act. What I am saying to her is that we have looked at how these things operate to see whether we might operate them better, and I am describing to the House precisely how we are improving that.

[Yvette Cooper]

The point is to make sure that legislation is enforced; we all support improvements to legislation but we also want to know that it is being enforced. Can the Home Secretary explain why the number of restraint orders used to freeze assets dropped from 1,878 in 2010-11 to 1,368 in the most recent figures? Frankly, her commitment to tackling the problem of the proceeds of crime looks rather weak if all she is prepared to do is change laws but never actually enforce them.

[Mrs May]

The number has been dropping year on year but it is understood—the prosecution agencies believe that this is the most likely explanation—that that is due in part to the Court of Appeal judgment in the 2011 case of Windsor v. the Crown Prosecution Service. The Court ruled that suspicion that the defendant had benefited from criminal conduct was not sufficient grounds under existing legislation to grant a restraint order. That is a legal interpretation of the previous legislation—the 2002 Act—and how it was being operated by the courts. We are reducing the test from a “reasonable cause to believe” that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct to a “reasonable suspicion”. We believe that will enable restraint orders to be applied at an earlier stage of the investigation. We have identified that a piece of legislation, as it has been operated by the courts, has had an impact that has led to a drop in the number of restraint orders, so we are addressing that in the legislation we are putting forward. I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), so I will now do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for declaring that the provisions in the Bill are quite powerful. The whole point is to try to increase our ability to deal with these issues. Obviously, judgments have to be made about any of the issues with which we are dealing, but until now it has been possible for people to use third-party assets and timing loopholes to ensure that their assets cannot be accessed. They can put the finances that they have made as a result of their organised crime out of the reach of the authorities.





It is important that we tighten that and increase our ability to confiscate the assets of crime. Decisions will be made by courts as part of these processes and they will be properly considered in relation to the individuals concerned, but I am also concerned about the civil liberties of all those who are the victims of organised crime. I think that it is our job to try to ensure that we reduce organised crime as much as possible, and dealing with the assets and profits of organised crime is one way of sending a clear message to criminals and ensuring that they desist or that it becomes less attractive for them to undertake such activities.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said something interesting about default sentences a few minutes ago. She said that if, as the Government expect, the provision raises money, they will extend it to sentences for those who owe less than £10 million. She will be aware that her party has today produced a rather dodgy dossier claiming to cost a Labour proposal that assumes that changing default sentences does not raise any extra money at all. Does she therefore think that her own dodgy dossier is nonsense?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady will have to try harder. We have indeed issued a document today that shows that the Labour party has committed to £20.7 billion of extra spending in one year alone, 2015-16. That means extra borrowing and extra debt for the future. It is no good her trying to rubbish the figures in that document. They are very clear, they have been tested and they have gone through the proper processes. The only dodgy figures come when Labour Front Benchers make all sorts of claims without funding their spending commitments.

In part 2 of the Bill we are strengthening the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to ensure that we have robust legislation in place to tackle cybercrime. In particular, the part creates a new offence so that the most serious cyber-attacks are appropriately punished—for example, those on essential systems controlling power supplies, communications or fuel supplies. Such cyber-attacks are already an offence under section 3 of the 1990 Act and attract a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. We do not believe that that adequately reflects the harm that can be caused and the new offence therefore provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment when a cyber-attack leads to loss of life, serious illness or injury, or serious damage to national security. When the attack results in serious economic or environmental damage or social disruption, a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment would apply.

Targeting and convicting those involved in the wider organised crime group, such as corrupt and complicit professionals, can prove difficult under current legislation. Part 3 seeks to address that. It creates a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group. Such activities may include services such as transporting persons or goods and providing storage facilities or, indeed, professional legal or accountancy services. Those who do that might know or at least reasonably suspect that their services are contributing to the activities of an organised crime group but choose to turn a blind eye and prefer to pretend that the business is entirely legitimate, asking no questions while taking their share of the rewards in the criminal enterprise. We must use all possible means to disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. The threat of prosecution and a sentence of up to five years will discourage complicit professionals and others who help such groups to function.

Offenders must be brought to justice, but wherever possible we must prevent people from being drawn into serious and organised crime and deter them from re-engaging in criminality. Civil preventive orders have proved effective in preventing, restricting or disrupting a person’s involvement in serious crime. To support such interventions, part 3 strengthens the framework governing serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions. Extending serious crime prevention orders to Scotland will bring the benefits of a unified regime across the whole UK. Updating the criteria for the granting of gang injunctions, which currently can be used to address only gang-related violence, will support early interventions to tackle gangs involved in the drugs market. That will allow gang injunctions to be used more widely to break down gang culture and help gang members to exit those destructive groups.

Part 4 deals with an aspect of the illegal drugs market wherein organised crime groups substantially increase their profits from the supply of illegal drugs, particularly cocaine, by adulterating the raw product with cutting agents. Typically, drug gangs use lawfully available substances, such as benzocaine, which mimic some attributes of the illegal drugs, but there are currently no bespoke powers available to law enforcement agencies to seize, detain and destroy such cutting agents. Part 4 addresses this gap. The process will be subject to appropriate judicial oversight to ensure that the interests of any legitimate owners of suspected cutting agents are properly protected.

Part 5 takes us into different territory. Here, we seek to strengthen the protection of children and vulnerable women. Crimes against children, especially very young children, are particularly heinous, and all the more so when they are perpetrated by the very people—their parents or carers—who are supposed to protect, nurture and love them. There has been a bespoke offence of child cruelty since 1868. It is now enshrined in section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, but the language of the offence is, in places, clearly antiquated. The Bill therefore updates section 1, in particular to make it explicit that the offence covers cruelty that causes psychological, as well as physical, suffering or harm.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I caution the hon. Gentleman about the terminology that he uses in relation to the power. He has used the term “exile”, but the proposal is not about saying that people cannot return. It is possible for people to return, but they will return on the basis that we have set out in the Bill. Their return will be managed and we will have some control over it.

In response to an earlier intervention, I said that the change that we were making to the threshold for TPIMs was from “reasonable suspicion” to “the balance of probabilities”. The change is actually from “reasonable belief” to “the balance of probabilities”. I apologise to the House for having given the wrong impression about that.

Aside from the diplomatic efforts that we must make and the work we must do with those in the region, I have always been clear that we would keep our terrorism laws and capabilities under review. As the House knows, the first and most important duty of Government is the protection and security of their citizens. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear to the House on 1 September, we must ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers that they need to keep us safe. The Bill will strengthen our existing powers so that we can disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight, as well as their ability to return to the country. It will enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those in the UK who pose a threat and it will help to combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism.

Part 1 of the Bill will provide the police and MI5 with two new powers that will significantly enhance their ability to restrict the travel of those suspected of seeking to engage in terrorism-related activity overseas. First, it will provide the police, or a designated Border Force officer under their direction, with the power to seize a passport at ports. That will allow them to disrupt the travel of individuals, and give operational agencies the time to investigate and assess whether long-term disruptive action should be taken, on a case-by-case basis. Such action could be taken through, for example, criminal prosecution; the exercise of the royal prerogative to refuse or cancel a passport; a TPIM; deprivation of citizenship; or deportation. The use of this power will be properly safeguarded through a range of measures, including the need for a senior officer’s approval; an additional check by a more senior officer independent of the investigation after 72 hours; an initial retention period of 14 days for the passport; and a court review of the ongoing need to retain a passport, where a judge can allow more time for the police to continue their investigation—up to 30 days. There will also be a statutory code of practice for officers on how to exercise the power, and we intend to publish this code for consultation shortly.

Secondly, the Bill will create a power to issue temporary exclusion orders, to which I have already referred in response to interventions. These orders can temporarily disrupt the return to the UK of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad, ensuring that when individuals do return, it is done in a manner that we control. This power will cancel an individual’s travel documents and add them to watch lists, notifying the UK if they attempt to travel. Depending on the individual case, it may also require the individual to comply with certain activities once they are back in the UK. There has been a lot of interest in the nature of this power, as we have seen already this afternoon, but I want to reassure the House that it will not render an individual stateless. All those concerned will have the right, which their citizenship guarantees, to return to the UK. But when they do, it will be on our terms—quite possibly in the company of a police officer. Once they are back in the UK, the police will interview them, in order to explore their activities abroad, and can make them subject to further requirements. We are discussing this proposal with other Governments, in order to agree how it will work best in practice. So far these discussions have been constructive, and this proposal is consistent with all our existing international legal obligations.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary clarify something so that we can understand the implications of the legislation? What are the circumstances in which she would not grant a permit to return?

[Mrs May]

These matters will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The point is to be able to manage the return of individuals who have been involved in terrorist-related activity abroad, and we are discussing how the power would be operated practically with a number of other Governments, as I have said. The point is to ensure that when somebody returns, they do so under control and on our terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The purpose of putting Prevent on a statutory basis is twofold. First, the statutory duty will now relate to a number of front-line institutions, as I have said, such as local authorities and universities. There is already some guidance that Universities UK and the National Union of Students apply to universities, as I have indicated. However, I believe it is important to ensure that there is that statutory duty on bodies such as universities, and the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make a direction to one of the bodies covered by that power if they are failing to exercise their statutory duty.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary clarify what she means by that? Could she envisage a Home Secretary making a direction in order to tell a university or institution not to allow somebody to speak?

[Mrs May]

That is not the intention of the duty; its intention is to ensure that the university or institution has in place a policy on matters relating to extremism. For example, they might have a general policy that they apply in relation to extremist speakers coming to their institution. The purpose of the power to make a direction in the Bill is to ensure that they are doing something like that, taking their statutory duty seriously. It is for those institutions that are failing to comply with the statutory duty that that particular power has been put into the Bill.

Alongside that statutory requirement in relation to Prevent, the Bill will also provide a statutory basis for the existing programmes for those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, known as Channel in England and Wales. That will enshrine existing good practice and help to ensure consistency across all local areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done at the national level. The Bill introduces a statutory duty on a series of organisations to do more, and those organisations should certainly work in partnership to prevent people from being drawn into extremism and terrorist activity. Given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about some of the gaps, particularly in relation to the Department for Communities and Local Government, there is a question about whether the duty should in fact extend to that Department, rather than simply to local organisations across the country.

In Committee, we will probe the Home Secretary further on what she intends to do with her power of direction. That is still unclear from the Bill, and it is unclear what she envisages putting in guidance. She said that guidance would be published alongside the Bill, but we have not yet seen it. I do not know whether it has already been published.

[Mrs May]

I have listened very carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary is saying about the Prevent programme. As I said earlier, one of the first things that the Government did when we considered the programme was to decide that it should no longer look simply at violent extremism, but at non-violent extremism as well. Does what she is saying mean that she agrees with the step that we took, and does she therefore accept that the previous Labour Government got it wrong in concentrating the Prevent programme only on violent extremism?

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right. The truth is that the Home Secretary’s handling of the whole thing has been chaotic from start to finish. We have had no proper opportunity to debate the subject and have a vote at the right time and we have had confusion about when we were going to have the votes at the wrong time. We had parliamentary confusion, votes in chaos, Tory MPs scuttling back from their dinners, champagne banquets abandoned and a humiliated Prime Minister returning to the House of Commons with his tails between his legs.

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

I think I heard the right hon. Lady say just a few moments ago that one of the measures she wanted to debate was the European Police College. Perhaps she has not noticed that CEPOL is not in the list of 35 measures that the Government are rejoining, because it has been “Lisbon-ised” and does not need to be in the list. It falls out of the opt-out altogether.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary knows that an awful lot of the measures she has removed from the 35 are in fact measures that she plans to continue to co-operate with. There is a whole series of different aspects of guidance and pledges for co-operation across the policing and Eurojust world that she plans to continue to co-operate with. However, she has told her Back Benchers that she will not co-operate with them at all so that she can promise them a grand repatriation, when in fact it is the equivalent of repatriating the “Yellow Pages”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am well aware that for a number of right hon. and hon. Friends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is key. I have been clear—as I was in previous debates—that the issue of our relationship with the European Court of Justice should be in the work that we will do as a Conservative Government after next May’s election to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. That, of course, is not in the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) today, and there is no reference to it or to the overall opt-out issue.

I think I am right in quoting the right hon. Lady as saying that the opt-out was an opt-in, opt-out “hokey cokey”. I remind her that that opt-in, opt-out hokey cokey was negotiated by the previous Labour Government. I am not sure from her comments whether she now supports our decision to exercise the opt-out, which, as I have said, the Labour Government negotiated, voted against last year, and have never said whether or not they would use. Is she congratulating the Government on successful negotiations in Europe and bringing back a deal that is good for the UK? Does support for our package mean that she supports the return of around 100 powers from Brussels and the largest repatriation of powers since this country joined the EU?

I am pleased that today’s motion supports all 35 measures, because last time the Opposition called a debate on this matter in June last year they highlighted only seven measures that they wanted us to rejoin. The list did not include Eurojust, which the right hon. Lady has now said that she supports, or the prisoner transfer framework decision, which allows us to send foreign criminals home to serve their sentences. It also left off the asset recovery office, which allows law enforcement to pursue the criminal proceeds of crime.

[Yvette Cooper]

Can the Home Secretary give a single example of a moment when she has put to Parliament the opportunity to vote on any of those measures?

[Mrs May]

I have made it absolutely clear, and I will repeat it again for the sake of any doubt, that the Government did not have to be bound by any vote in this House on the European arrest warrant. There was no legislative requirement. We were very clear—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We were very clear that the only measures that needed legislative motions in this House were those in the regulations. We would be bound by the vote on those regulations as a vote on all the other measures in the package of 35. As I have said, this is the sixth debate we have had on this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I did say to the right hon. Lady that I would take her intervention.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary now says that her position is that she does not actually have to offer the House of Commons a vote on anything and therefore we should be grateful for the 11 measures we got to vote on last week. When did she say that to Parliament? Is it not the truth that she said repeatedly, over many months, that she would give the House a vote on the measures? She did not say that she would not give the House a vote because she did not have to; she said she would give the House a vote. If she has changed her position, why did she not say that before?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady really needs to understand the difference between a requirement on the Government to bring a vote to this House and a decision by the Government to bring a vote to this House, which we did last Monday. I also say to her that for most people looking at these measures, the issues are whether they are important measures for the Government to opt back into and whether they are important measures for law enforcement. It sounds as though we have absolutely the same opinion on that and I would be happy to be able to get on to questions about the measures themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opting back into the European criminal records information system, which is one of the 35 measures we wish to opt back into, and to the exchange of criminal records is very important. We need to enhance our ability to exchange criminal records with other member states. Going back into Schengen information system II will also enable us to have more information of this sort at the border. We are doing a project with the Latvians and one or two other member states to improve our ability to deal with these issues, but there are challenges. For example, some countries have a different attitude from us to criminal records—in some countries, as soon as somebody is out of prison, effectively there is no criminal record—and as part of our discussions, we have to deal with those differences if we are to do what we all want to do, which is keep people safe.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position on opting back into the 35 measures. It is a pleasure to agree with the right hon. Lady so often in one week: I understand the Labour party thinks that immigration was too high and out of control under the last Government; that it was a mistake not to have the full transitional controls to stop significant migration from the new member states; and that we must take action to reform European free movement rules. As a final step, perhaps she could ensure that her party agrees with the Conservative party’s commitment to an in/out referendum so that we can get on with the good work of negotiating a better deal for the British people.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I assume the right hon. Lady wants to say that Labour’s position has changed and they support the Government on an in/out referendum.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the right hon. Lady tell us the level of net migration now and how it compares with her target—her “no ifs, no buts” promise?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell the right hon. Lady that the figure for net migration into the UK is down by a quarter from its peak under the last Labour Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it came down by a quarter under the last Labour Government and that net migration is at exactly the same level now as it was when she became Home Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Leicestershire police on signing up to the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme. I am very clear that the police should be using stop-and-search powers lawfully in a targeted, intelligence-led way. We want to ensure that local communities can hold their force to account for its use of the powers, and the scheme is part of a package of reform that will contribute to a significant reduction in the overall use of stop-and-search, but also the better use of stop-and-search and improved stop-to-arrest ratios. I also congratulate Leicestershire police on the fact that over the last four years crime has fallen by 22% in their force area.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I join the Home Secretary in passing on the thoughts and prayers of those on the Opposition Benches to the family and friends of US aid worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig, murdered in an act of vile barbarism by ISIL?

This morning, we learned that a British terror suspect has left Britain, reportedly to join ISIL. He was previously on a terrorism prevention and investigation measure which, under the Home Secretary’s reforms, ran out in January. We understand she had already taken his passport away. She has told us that

“there has been no substantial increase in overall risk since the introduction of TPIMs”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 25.]

She told us, too, that when TPIMs ran out either people were no longer at risk or there would be sufficient surveillance and restrictions by the police and Security Service to manage the risk. How come that has completely failed in this case?

[Mrs May]

Of course, this country is now facing a more severe threat than it has in recent years. That was reflected in the fact that back in August the joint terrorism analysis centre raised the threat level from substantial to severe. That reflected concerns about western attack plans that were being put together in Syria and elsewhere. As the right hon. Lady knows—I referred to this in my answer to the first topical question—the Government are looking at further legislation that is needed and we will be publishing a counter-terrorism Bill so we can take this through this House. I look forward to her supporting the Government in taking further measures to ensure that we can deal with terrorists.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary did not answer the question about what has happened to this man who has left the country to fight with our enemies, and I think Parliament has a right to know whether her change to the legislation made that possible. She talked about there being a more serious threat, but it is significant that there are hardly any TPIMs in use, raising serious questions about whether they are fit for purpose at the moment. Two terror suspects have absconded—one in a black cab and one in a burqa—because the Home Secretary removed the relocation powers and now another has absconded because there were not sufficient checks in place once the TPIM ran out. So will she agree as part of that legislation to reverse the Government’s position on the two main changes she made—first, to restore relocation powers and, secondly, to provide additional controls where needed once TPIMs run out, before any more terror suspects are able to run away?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady will know that both I and the Prime Minister have made it clear that in the new counter-terrorism Bill we propose to bring forward the Government will be looking at the issue of TPIMs and looking to see whether any further measures are necessary. A number of proposals in relation to TPIMs have been made by the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson, and the Government are looking at the package of proposals he has put forward.

Wanless Review

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the Wanless review.

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

In July I told the House that the Home Office permanent secretary had commissioned Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, QC, to conduct a review of two existing independent reviews into how the Home Office had acted—or failed to act—on information it had received in the 1980s about child abuse. The full report by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, QC, has been published today. A copy has been placed in the House Library, and I want to place on the record my gratitude for their thorough work.

In terms of the first review considered by Wanless and Whittam, which was about the extent to which the Home Office acted on the “Dickens dossier”, they say that

“we found nothing to support a concern that files had been deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse”.

In terms of the second review considered by Wanless and Whittam, which was about whether the Paedophile Information Exchange ever received any funding from the Home Office, they say they

“have seen no evidence to suggest PIE was ever funded by the Home Office because of sympathy for its aims”.

Wanless and Whittam have made three sets of recommendations for the Home Office, all of which relate to the way the Department deals with sensitive allegations, how officials pass such information on to the police and how the details are properly recorded. The permanent secretary has accepted all three sets of recommendations.

I want to make sure that we leave no stone unturned when it comes to the work Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam have undertaken. So I have written to them today to seek further reassurance that the police and prosecutors acted appropriately upon receiving information relating to the “Dickens dossier” or related matters from the Home Office. I have also asked them for a similar assurance about any such information that was passed to the Security Service, if any such information was indeed passed to it.

I should also make it clear that the Wanless and Whittam work is about how the Home Office responded to information relating to the “Dickens dossier”, how the police acted on any information passed their way and, because of concerns expressed by many people, including Members of this House, how the Security Service responded. Their work does not relate to wider allegations about child abuse or the failure of institutions—including the police, prosecutors, security and intelligence agencies, and Government Departments—because those are matters for the inquiry panel that I have established, whose work is now under way.

Many people who have made allegations relating to child abuse and the failure of the authorities to prevent abuse have been ignored for far too long. Some have even been written off and traduced as conspiracy theorists. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one with any information about child abuse should be ignored, no one should be written off or dismissed, and no one should be left to themselves. If we want to get to the bottom of what has been going on in our country for too long, we need to come together, work together, and listen to what survivors and witnesses have to say. That goes for all of us who are in positions of responsibility: the police, prosecutors, Government officials, Members of Parliament, public servants in a range of institutions, and people beyond those categories.

The Home Office permanent secretary commissioned Wanless and Whittam to establish what the Department did and did not know, and does and does not know. Their work shows that the original reviews did not cover anything up, but neither do they prove or disprove that the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s. Likewise, they do not prove or disprove that public money ever found its way to the Paedophile Information Exchange. That is no fault of Peter Wanless or Richard Whittam; they have been investigating old files, many of which seem no longer to exist. I know that that is a cause of frustration for everyone, but it is not the only aspect of this case. As several Members have pointed out previously, there are other allegations, other lines of inquiry and other possible evidence that need to be considered.

The right place for consideration of these matters—apart from live criminal allegations, which should be dealt with by the police—is the panel inquiry into child abuse that I have established. That inquiry will be comprehensive: the panel will look at institutions in this country, gain access to all relevant paperwork and take evidence from survivors and witnesses, so that we can expose what has been going on. It may take time, and I know that we have slipped twice in our attempts to get this right, but I am determined that we will succeed in doing so, and I know that the whole House shares my determination.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her response. As she will know, we supported her statement last week in which she told the House that she was delaying publication of the Wanless review because she wanted us to be able to scrutinise it properly. I put the urgent question today to call her to the House so that Members could do exactly that. It is unfortunate that the review was published only just before Peter Wanless appeared before the Select Committee. Given that there have been so many allegations of cover-ups and secrecy, I urge the Home Secretary to go the extra mile in keeping the House informed and making proper scrutiny possible. Everyone in the Chamber abhors the terrible abuse of children, both in the past and today. Survivors need support and justice, and children need protection right now.

The Home Secretary is right to thank Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam, QC, for their detailed work, which will need further consideration. We note their key conclusions: that they have found no evidence of systematic cover-ups, but that it is not possible to say that that never happened, because the information that is available remains very limited, and too little is still known about what happened and why. The Home Secretary is also right to accept their recommendations, and to ask further questions about the role of the police, prosecutors and the security services. Let me, however, ask her the following questions. The first concerns the remit of the review, which was narrow. It was a review of a review, which concluded in some areas that matters were not within the authors’ terms of reference. Has the Home Secretary asked them whether they came across any matters that should be further investigated, although those matters were outside their terms?

Secondly, can the Home Secretary clarify exactly how historic allegations about cover-ups are now being investigated? She referred to the work of the panel, but she will have heard, for example, the comments of journalist Don Hale, who says that he had a file of allegations from Barbara Castle, but it was removed by the police after threats and an approach from Cyril Smith. These are immensely serious allegations, so can the Home Secretary tell the House who is investigating them now—the police, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, this Wanless review, or the national overarching inquiry that has not yet started—because they must be investigated by someone? We presume that the police will be investigating specific allegations of abuse, but can the Home Secretary clarify who will be investigating specific allegations of cover-ups? Will that be the police or the inquiry, and if it is the inquiry, will it have the full investigative powers it needs?

Finally, the Home Secretary will be aware of concern from police forces across the country about the lack of resources they have for investigating both historical and current abuse cases. Will she tell us whether she believes the police and prosecutors currently have enough resources in place to properly investigate these terrible crimes?

There are still clearly so many unanswered questions and the Home Secretary is right that the whole House will unite in its determination to get to the truth. Survivors of abuse, and all of us, need to know that we now have the most effective possible system in place to pursue truth and justice and protect our children for the future.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: I did want this report to be published separately today. I thought it was appropriate to do so, rather than publishing it on the same day that I was making the statement about the panel inquiry, so that there are opportunities for this House to look at the document, which has been put in the Library. I recognise that hon. Members at this point will not necessarily have been able to look at the inquiry report as fully as I have, but obviously that opportunity will be open to them.

The right hon. Lady said the review terms of reference were too narrow. I disagree. The review was set up to give the public confidence that the reviews that had been commissioned by the permanent secretary were rigorous and fair, and the review confirms that they were. Unfortunately, of course, it does not prove or disprove that the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s, but, as I said, that is not the only aspect of this case, and we should not give up now.

The right hon. Lady asked about the historical allegations and how they were being dealt with. A number of historical allegations are already being dealt with and are under police investigation. For example, there is Operation Pallial in north Wales and there are also all the Operation Yewtree investigations around the Jimmy Savile case, and, indeed, we have seen some historical allegations against individuals being brought to court already and some people being prosecuted as a result of that work.

In relation to the specific question about Don Hale and the comments he made, I did not hear his whole interview on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning, but I recognise the allegations he has made, so my office has been in discussions with the Metropolitan police today and the Metropolitan police have agreed that they will now look into those allegations.

The right hon. Lady referred to investigating cover-ups. The point about the panel inquiry is that it will be looking at what the institutions did: it will look at what happened and ask, for example, why was it that children in care homes were abused to the extent that they were; why was it that allegations were not properly dealt with; and why was it that institutions—bodies of government, of the state—that were there and should have been protecting people, and investigating and properly dealing with allegations of criminality, did not do so? Sadly, obviously as we have seen in relation to the Rotherham inquiry and the work in Greater Manchester, some of these issues still pertain today. So that is what the inquiry will look at. Of course if it uncovers anything that relates to criminal activity that has taken place, it will be appropriate for that to be properly investigated by the police. I have said before that I am discussing the question of resources in relation to this, and I have already had a conversation with the national policing lead about these matters.

I want to confirm two further things. Some people have expressed concern about what evidence can be given to these inquiries in relation to the former officials who had signed the Official Secrets Act. I am very clear that the Official Secrets Act should not get in the way of anybody giving evidence to the panel inquiry or bringing forward any evidence that they have that is relevant to this issue. If anyone who knows something is worried about the Official Secrets Act, they should come forward and speak out.

Also, in their report Wanless and Whittam found that there was no inappropriate behaviour or cover-up when the Home Office recently reviewed these matters. However, as I said, that does not prove or disprove allegations about the Home Office in the 1980s. Their verdict is “case not proved”, rather than “not guilty”. I cannot stand here and say that the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up during the 1980s. There might have been a cover-up, and that is why we have set up the inquiry into child abuse. We are determined to get to the truth.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

No, I say to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Lady that I have been asked to explain the Government’s position, and that is what I intend to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear that there was no requirement under the Lisbon treaty or any legislative requirement to bring the package of 35 measures to this House.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary seems to think that the House should be grateful for what we have got, but she and the Prime Minister promised that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant. Will she now admit that, with the motion she has put before the House today, she has broken that promise?

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady will just let me continue, I will explain further to the House. As I have said, there is no requirement to bring any vote to the House. There is a requirement to transpose into UK legislation certain of the 35 measures that we will opt back into. That would normally have been done through the negative statutory instrument procedure in an hour-and-a-half debate upstairs in a Committee, not on the Floor of the House. That would normally have been done after 1 December, so after the date on which the Government had chosen to opt back in, and indeed after we had exercised our opt-in. We did not think that that was right either, which is why we have brought before the House an affirmative measure on a statutory instrument that shows the House the legislative requirements that will need to be made.

However, I have been very clear, the Government have been very clear, and indeed you, Mr Speaker, have been very clear—I am grateful for the clarification in your statement—that the debate we will be having on the motion on the regulations will be wide-ranging and, indeed, will include a debate on the European arrest warrant. I say to Members of the House that it is my intention to speak about the European arrest warrant when that debate takes place. I also say to right hon. and hon. Members that if they vote against this—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fact, I was attempting to be as clear as you have been that the vote on the next motion will be a vote on the regulations, which includes those measures in the package of 35 that we wish to opt back into which require to be transposed into UK legislation. But the Government are clear that we will be bound by that vote, and if this House chooses not to transpose those measures and votes against the regulations, it will be voting against the Government opting into all the measures, including the European arrest warrant.

My final point is this: we have the option now of a vote on the business motion. The decision for Members of the House is whether to vote against that business motion and have one and a half hours for debate on all these matters, or to vote in favour of the business motion and have four and a half hours for debate. I trust they will take the latter option.

[Yvette Cooper]

Mr Speaker, you pointed out how unusual it was for the Government also to reply to debates on a business motion, but is it not normal in a reply to respond to the points that have been made in the debate? In the debate it was clear that the Home Secretary promised a debate on the European arrest warrant and promised a vote on it, and she has not given it. Do you agree that that is not a reply to a business motion debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I think I have set out the position clearly and there is nothing at this stage for me to add, but Members will form their own view. That is the fairest thing I can say—Members will form their own view.

I think I am right in saying that the Home Secretary has concluded her speech.

Criminal Law

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The House is getting a chance today to debate the European arrest warrant. The House has been clear that it wished to have such a debate. We were very clear during the debate on the business motion that regulations are before the House, and the House will vote on those regulations. I have also been very clear about the Government’s position. We have brought those particular regulations before the House because they are the only ones that we need to transpose into UK legislation. I will come on to comment on the European arrest warrant. As I said earlier, I am very clear that the vote today relates to whether or not the UK opts back in to the package of measures that we have negotiated. The package comes together; it is not an a la carte menu from which one can pick and choose.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary telling the House that she disagrees with the ruling made by the Speaker—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point. It is one he has made to me on a number of occasions. I have addressed the two areas where people have sometimes said that alternative arrangements could be made. The first is that we would fall back on the Council of Europe convention of 1957. I have been absolutely clear in the remarks I have just made that there is one crucial aspect that would cause us problems: the length of time that extradition procedures would take. As the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee has just said, that could undermine public safety.

There is another aspect in which that would be problematic were we to be negotiating with other member states. Without the arrest warrant there are 22 member states in the EU, including France, Germany and Spain, that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK. In the past five years alone, more than 100 people from those countries have been returned to Britain to face justice, many for serious crimes including rape and murder. One of those was Andreas Ververopoulos, a Greek, who committed a violent and sickening sexual assault on a 16-year-old girl in Hampshire in 2007 and then fled home to Greece. In July 2013, Hampshire police linked him to the crime using DNA and an arrest warrant was used to return him to the UK. In April this year, he pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The judge in the case said it was

“an appalling attack on a young and vulnerable girl”.

After seven years of further suffering, the victim and the victim’s family finally saw justice done.

[Yvette Cooper]

I, too, have looked at that case. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an appalling example of a terrible crime. The European arrest warrant was rightly used in that case. Will she say why the EAW is not on the Order Paper?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows that I have answered that question previously.

The right hon. Lady is right that the case I cited was a particularly difficult and awful case in terms of the crime that was committed. Without the arrest warrant, the individual who committed that crime would still be in Greece today. Before it came into force, Greece did not surrender its own nationals. Indeed, it entered a reservation to the 1957 convention specifically barring the extradition of Greek nationals, so the victims of brutal crimes, such as in this case, would go on suffering. We owe it to them to heed the old warning that justice delayed is justice denied.

I want to come on to one final relevant point that was hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) earlier: the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This pass was sold when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) signed the Lisbon treaty. Our opt-out only applies to those policing and criminal justice measures that precede it. Since the Lisbon treaty came into effect, the UK has signed up to 90 new justice and home affairs measures, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ over them. We face the same choice today: whether to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ over the small package of measures that we wish to remain part of from 1 December, so that our law enforcement agencies can continue to use those powers to fight crime and keep us safe; or reject those measures and accept the risk to public protection that that involves. That invidious choice is the result of a poor treaty, badly negotiated. In my mind, however, it is clear: this is a vote about law and order, not a vote about Europe.

I am certainly no enthusiast for the European Court of Justice. The ECJ should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or our international relations. That is why, as I indicated earlier, 100 or so measures the Government have opted out of, and will not rejoin, include more than 20 minimum standards measures on sensitive matters such as racism and xenophobia. It is why we have opted out of, and will not rejoin, the EU-US extradition agreement. It is this place that should have the final say over our laws on these matters, and Her Majesty’s Government should be able to renegotiate such arrangements as they see fit.

I understand the concerns raised about the European Court of Justice in the many debates we have had on protocol 36. I believe we must look again at this matter in our renegotiations with the European Union before the referendum that a Conservative Government will deliver by the end of 2017. In the meantime, however, we must act in the national interest to keep the British public safe. We have therefore exercised an opt-out, which it seems no one else would have exercised. We have brought back more than 100 justice and home affairs powers that had already been signed away. We have listened to those who work tirelessly to keep us safe on which of the tools at their disposal are vital to their important work. We have gone to Europe and negotiated a good deal for the United Kingdom. We have won support from the Commission and other member states to remain part of a smaller package of measures in the national interest. Now we must vote to transpose those measures that require transposing and, in doing so, vote to seal the deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try. I will come to the issues that the Home Secretary has opted out of in a second, but the idea that the Home Secretary’s utter shambles today is the fault of the previous Labour Government is pushing the hon. Gentleman’s political argument to a ludicrous extreme.

The statistics are clear: the EAW helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists, and of the 1,057 people removed under an EAW last year, only 43 were UK nationals, and eight of those were connected to child sex offences. It is because the EAW and the other measures are so important that we should be having a vote on them now.

The Home Secretary has form. We saw it when she was asked about the net migration promise. No ifs no buts, the Prime Minister made a promise—a contract with the British people, he said—but she said it was no longer a promise but a comment. We saw it again today when she dismissed the Prime Minister’s promise to the House that there would be a vote on the EAW.

Frankly, the whole opt in, opt out process has been a con. It is an in/out hokey cokey back to where we started. On the measures to be opted out of, the Prime Minister promised the biggest transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain by opting out of more than 100 measures, but what powers in practice have been brought back? Britain will no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway; Britain will not sign up to having a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but the police and Border Force will still have one anyway; we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we will get someone to send it to us on the side; we will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures that apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway; we were already opting out of the European judicial network, and we will carry on opting out of it; and we will not be involved in setting up contact points to deal with the other countries in pursuing those responsible for genocide, but we will—quietly—let Europol know whom they should ring.

Time and again, the Home Secretary claims to be repatriating huge numbers of powers, when in fact she is simply opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate anymore or which cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out. So much for a repatriation of powers—it is a repatriation of other people’s phone numbers. She has taken back the Yellow Pages. Congratulations to her.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

Let her try and defend it now.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has said she disagrees with the opt in, opt out process. Will she remind the House which party was in government when it was negotiated?

[Yvette Cooper]

Given the shambles the Home Secretary has presided over today, the idea that she wants to make this about the last Labour Government is frankly ludicrous, and it makes her look silly. She decided what she wanted to opt into and out of, and she then claimed to the House that she had repatriated powers and safeguarded the hugely important things she is still too scared to give the House a vote on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Now that the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have referred to this document, it really must be put in the public domain. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has kindly put it in front of the House so that that we can all consider it.

That demonstrates the chaos we are in. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet communications to Government Back Benchers were very clear that it was.

Let me now give the Home Secretary the opportunity to agree from the Dispatch Box that there will be a vote—an additional vote—on the European arrest warrant before the Rochester and Strood by-election. Let me give way to the Home Secretary so that she can do this. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] She has not done so, and that is really disappointing. Let me give her one further opportunity to do so, because it is a huge concern for this House if we do not have the opportunity to put the European arrest warrant beyond legal doubt—we know the mischief lawyers will make through judicial reviews. Let us have a chance to give a strong signal that we support all 35 measures, not just the 11 that appear on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary saying from a sedentary position that we will do that by voting for this motion, because Mr Speaker has said that it is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. We are therefore acting on advice from the House. I urge the Home Secretary again to stand up and say that she will withdraw this motion and give us the opportunity to vote on the full 35. I will let her do so.

[Mrs May]

indicated dissent.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to tell the Home Secretary that this puts the House in an extremely difficult position. She has effectively said that Ministers are just going to make it up. The Speaker has been very clear that this motion does not include a vote on the European arrest warrant. The right hon. Lady has said that she is going to reinterpret this in any way she chooses. That is an irresponsible way in which to treat this House. If she brings this motion back tomorrow, with all 35 measures included, we will support it. We will work with the business managers, we will support it, we will vote for it. Then there would be no doubt that we had categorical support for all 35 measures. The Home Secretary should do that tomorrow. We will get it through—there is plenty of time. Will she do that tomorrow?

If the Home Secretary will not do that tomorrow, she is playing fast and loose with the criminal justice system and fast and loose with this Parliament. On that basis, Mr Speaker, I think we need further debate now, and to return to the issue tomorrow. We have loads of time tomorrow. There is plenty of time for the Home Secretary to do this tomorrow. We could get it all in place. On that basis, I move that the Question be not now put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting that out so clearly, and she is obviously deeply concerned about that point. She intervened on me earlier in relation to a particular case, and I would add to that that while, of course, in any individual case it is up to the independent police and prosecution services to choose what to do, if we were not in the European arrest warrant it would, as she has indicated, be harder for us to extradite people who had committed offences in Northern Ireland and who were now in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland has been very clear that if there is any operational gap at all between being in the European arrest warrant and opting back in to it, which there would be if we reject the package of measures, that would have serious consequences because it would be assumed that the arrangements currently in place would no longer be extant.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is time tomorrow to debate this, and we would then be able to vote on the whole package of 35 measures, support all of them and have no operational gap by 1 December? Will she confirm there is time to do this tomorrow?

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady is concerned about the operational gap, she is perfectly able to vote for the regulations we have put before the House tonight. She talks about wanting to have time for debate. I say to her that we had time for debate and what has happened is she has raised another motion that is interrupting that time for debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Yes, I did say I would give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend, as I have been saying throughout the debates on the various motions tonight, that the Government have been very clear about why they have brought the regulations forward in the form they have done in relation to UK legislation, but we are also very clear that if this House votes in favour of the regulations, then it is endorsing the package of measures the Government have brought forward to ensure we can maintain the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with matters they need to deal with.

[Yvette Cooper]

So determined are we that the House should be able to debate and pass these regulations and the rest of the 35 measures that we will not jeopardise those regulations. We want to have a vote tomorrow. The business managers can agree, and will agree, to have a debate and vote on all the measures tomorrow. If not, the Home Secretary can have our Opposition day debate in order to do it then, so there is no gap and we can get all these measures voted on in this House.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady doth protest too much. If she wishes to have a debate and to vote on the regulations, that option is open to her tonight. However, she has chosen to play politics with the matter and tried to curtail the debate. As we have heard from the Speaker’s answer to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), a significant number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate on the regulations. The Speaker has granted latitude regarding the subjects that Members may speak about, and we are able to debate the European arrest warrant and other matters that are not in the regulations.

It is open to the House to have that debate but, sadly, the right hon. Lady has chosen to take a step that could curtail the debate and ensure that the regulations are not put before the House, in which case it would not be possible for Members to have their say on these important matters. She and I agree on the importance of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I might disagree on how some of them should be finalised and on whether we should be party to the measures, but I am clear that, at this point, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate and vote on measures that relate to law and order in this country. These are important decisions for the House to make, and I have clarified for the House the exact form of the regulations.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement to the House today.

Two years ago this month, the Home Secretary came to the House to announce investigations into abuse in north Wales care homes. I asked her then if she would set up an overarching inquiry into child abuse. In July this year, she rightly agreed to do so and said that she wanted it to start as quickly as possible. Four months later, that inquiry has not started and has been mired by confusion. I therefore welcome the changes she has announced today and her apology to survivors of abuse for the things that have gone wrong.

This House will be united in our determination that this inquiry should get back on track. For too long, children have not been listened to when they called for help. From the BBC to the national health service, from care homes to the police, from local councils to national Governments of all political parties, no institution or organisation should be complacent about how they may have failed in the past, or might be failing even now, to make sure that children are heard and protected, that criminals are brought to justice, that problems are not covered up, and that survivors get the support they need. No one should be in any doubt about the deep damage that abuse causes to those survivors for the rest of their lives. To get the inquiry back on track, we also need to recognise the things that went wrong, because it is vital that it does not fail again.

First, much more work is needed to involve survivors. I welcome the further announcements the Home Secretary has made today. The Home Secretary was specifically asked in July by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) how survivors would be involved. In July, she said that that was up to the chairman of the inquiry. However, I think that that approach from the Home Office has been what has caused some of the current problems. As she has recognised today, Ministers need to engage directly themselves with survivors on the impartiality of the chair and the work and purpose of the inquiry before it starts. I welcome her commitment now to meet survivors, in particular to develop additional support and counselling, and to establish a survivors’ forum or liaison group to ensure that their voices are heard. She will know how important it is that this liaison group or forum works effectively. Will she specifically consult survivors in those meetings on the terms of reference and on the issues the inquiry should focus on before it starts?

Secondly, on the choice of chair, I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals to consult more widely. Will she ignore those siren voices who say it is not possible to find someone who is not a close contact of those whose decisions may be investigated by the inquiry? She will know that other sensitive inquiries have managed to do important work without going wrong and without being derailed, including the Hillsborough and Soham inquiries, and the current Northern Ireland inquiry into child abuse.

Thirdly, on transparency, the inquiry has to address concerns about whether there have been institutional cover-ups. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that it was very unwise of Home Office officials to become involved in redrafting Fiona Woolf’s letters? Will she tell the House whether Ministers or special advisers saw those earlier letters, or were involved in redrafting? Will she make sure that no one in the Home Office is involved in drafting any disclosure letters for the next chair?

I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Wanless review report will be published next week. Will she make a statement to the House on it? She will know that there will be considerable interest from all parties in the House. This is not just about the past. We know that abuse is happening now on an unacceptable scale. Will she therefore ensure that there is much greater transparency on child protection work today, particularly the work of the National Crime Agency, to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes again and are not storing up more problems for children in future?

Fourthly, on the progress of the inquiry, I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to getting the panel moving before the chair is appointed and to keeping open the need for it to be a statutory inquiry, because it is vital that it can get access to all the information and testimony it needs.

This is an extremely important inquiry. The Home Secretary has done the right thing to recognise that things have gone wrong, and we will support her in the action needed and whatever it takes to get things back on track and ensure that the inquiry works. However, let me also urge her not to forget the scale of the problem of child abuse and exploitation happening right now and the weaknesses in the child protection system today. We need a fearless and robust examination of how children have been let down, and we will support her in making sure that happens; but we also need strong action to protect children and make sure they are heard in future. She is right that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity; it is important, not just for survivors but for our children today, to make sure that this historic opportunity is not lost.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone and approach she has taken to this matter. As I said in my statement, across the House we all feel that we have an opportunity to do something that can deal with the terrible abuses and crimes that have taken place in the past and to learn the lessons that are necessary for the future. As we have seen with the recent reports into Rotherham and the report about Greater Manchester from the hon. Member for Stockport, these issues have not gone away. We continue to see abuse taking place and we continue to see failures, sadly, in our institutions—some of them the very institutions that children should expect to be able to trust to protect them from these sorts of crimes.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions. On engagement with survivors, as I indicated, I will be meeting with survivors groups. The secretariat to the panel inquiry has also started some separate meetings with survivors groups already. As I indicated, there will be further opportunities for such meetings and for some open forums in different parts of the country, where it will be possible for people to come forward. I recognise the importance of that process; it is an important part of the work that the panel inquiry will be undertaking.

I believe it will be possible to find an individual who is able to chair the inquiry. Of course, it is necessary that that individual has the confidence of the survivors and the skill set required to lead a team, which is what the panel inquiry is all about. This is not about one person as chairman making decisions; it is about a team of people with different expertise and experience—some on the panel are survivors of child abuse themselves, as I have said—coming together to ensure we can get to the truth.

The right hon. Lady asked a question about the drafting process for the letters and whether I was aware of it. I was not. I have checked with my special advisers; they were aware only that a letter was being written. They had no knowledge of its different iterations and had no part in drafting or redrafting the letter.

The right hon. Lady made reference to the need for transparency in a number of areas and in relation to the National Crime Agency as well. The work that the National Crime Agency has been doing—particularly the now over 700 arrests we have seen in Operation Notarise—is an important sign of the seriousness with which it takes these issues. As she will be aware, the director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, has made a number of comments about the significance and the size of the potential problem we face in this country. It is shocking. I am sure every Member of this House is appalled by the scale and nature of these crimes. I believe the National Crime Agency is being open about the work it is undertaking on that.

We owe it to the survivors of historic child abuse, as well as to those who might be subject to child abuse today, to ensure not only that the panel inquiry is doing its work, but that those involved in criminal investigations today are bringing perpetrators to justice.

Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary about the removal of foreign national offenders.

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

I am grateful to the National Audit Office for its report on managing and removing foreign national offenders. As the report makes clear, this problem has beset successive Governments. Let me begin by being clear that foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in this country should be in no doubt of our determination to remove them from it. We removed more than 5,000 foreign criminals from the UK last year, and have removed 22,000 since 2010. I also want to make it plain that, as in many other areas, it falls to this Government to tackle the problems of the past. Quite simply, the Home Office did not prioritise the removal of foreign national offenders before 2005.

It will take time to fix the problems that we inherited. Chief among them, as the NAO report makes clear, are the legal barriers that we face. The countless appeals and re-appeals that have been lodged by criminals attempting to cheat the system cost us all money and are an affront to British justice. That is why we passed the Immigration Act 2014 to clamp down on that abuse. New powers from the Act came into force this week to cut the number of grounds on which criminals can appeal their deportation, from 17 to four, and to end the appeals conveyor belt in the courts. From this week, criminals can no longer appeal against a decision that their deportation is conducive to the public good.

These reforms build on other measures that we introduced in the summer, which are already speeding up the deportation process. In July we introduced new powers to stop criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation. We have also changed the law so that, where there is no risk of serious irreversible harm, foreign criminals will be deported first and have their appeal heard later. For those who do have an appeal right, they will be able to appeal only once. These new powers are radically reforming the deportation process, rebalancing human rights laws in favour of the British public rather than the criminal.

We are also pursuing joint working between the police and immigration enforcement. Operation Nexus has helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. Alongside tougher crime-fighting measures, improved protection at the border and greater collaboration between police and immigration enforcement officers, the Immigration Act is helping us to deliver an immigration system that is fair to the people of this country and legitimate immigrants, and tough on those who flout the rules. The Home Office will look at the NAO’s recommendations carefully and work with the other agencies involved as we continue to build that system.

[Yvette Cooper]

When people come to Britain, they should abide by the law, and the whole House wants to see foreign criminals being deported. The Prime Minister told us that more of them would be, and promised that that was a major priority for his Government. Instead, fewer foreign criminals are being deported each year than was the case in 2010. There were 375 fewer deportations, a drop of 7%, and fewer deportation orders are being served; there has been a drop of 6% since 2010.

It is no good blaming appeals and human rights. The National Audit Office has found that more than a third of failed removals were the result of factors within the Home Office’s control. They include failures to fill in the forms, failures to get the necessary papers and even failures to book the plane tickets that were needed. It is no good blaming the last Government either, because the NAO audit of this Government’s action plan has found poor use of IT, a lack of communication, failure to use the powers available, cumbersome and slow referral processes, inefficiency in processing, over-complicated arrangements and an action plan that it says

“lacks a sufficiently joined-up and structured approach.”

Nearly 40% of cases had avoidable processing delays.

More foreign criminals have disappeared, too. About 190 absconded last year, and there has been a 6% increase since 2010, yet according to the NAO report, there are only 11 staff working on 700 cases, 10 of whom are very junior. Why does the Home Secretary have so few staff working on such important cases? Will she publish the details of the crimes that those 190 people committed?

The NAO also says that we have worse systems than other European countries for preventing foreign criminals from coming in in the first place. The warnings index has not been modernised, and we are one of only four countries in the European economic area that is still not part of the Schengen information system. Our joining it was delayed because of the Home Secretary’s decision to exercise the opt-out on co-operation with Europe and because she is faffing around with her Back Benchers over opting in and opting out. This is putting border security at risk.

The Government are simply not doing enough. Let us take the case of the convicted killer Rohan Murdock who was able to stay in this country in 2012 because, in the judge’s words, the Home Secretary did not “put up a fight”. So it is no good blaming the past or the others; she has been Home Secretary for four and a half years. The system is still failing on her watch and fewer foreign criminals are being deported than when she started. The tough talk is simply not enough. When will she start putting up the real fight we need to get more, not fewer, foreign criminals deported back home?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that that is a staggering response from the representative of a political party that is still debating whether it even needs to respond to the public’s concerns about immigration. I am sorry that she adopted the tone she did. This is a serious subject and we need to recognise and accept the challenges and respond to them. But the NAO report makes it clear, as I said in my opening statement, that this is a long-standing problem—her party did not face up to it when it was in power.

The report also makes it clear that, unlike the Labour party, we have a plan to deal with the problem, and that plan is working. We have removed 22,000 foreign national offenders since 2010. The NAO report makes it clear that the time taken to deport FNOs is reducing. It notes that the number of removals increased by 12% over the past two years,

“largely because of a change in the Department’s approach to deportation”.

It praises Operation Nexus—the work between the police and the immigration enforcement command—which has helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals in its first two years. We are the first Government to adopt a cross-government strategy on dealing with foreign national offenders. We want to increase the number of removals, reduce the number of foreign offenders in the UK and tackle the barriers standing in our way. Again, the NAO recognises that removing foreign national offenders

“continues to be inherently difficult”.

The report makes it clear that our efforts have been “hampered” by a “range of barriers”, including the law.

The main problem we face is the rise of litigation; we have seen a 28% increase in the number of appeals. That is why we have made the changes that I have set out in the Immigration Act to cut the number of appeals and why we have made it possible for someone to be deported before they can appeal. Those are the most significant changes to deportation appeals since 1971 and far more than we ever saw from the Labour party when it was in power for 13 years. But those things can take us only so far and we are also faced with the impact of the human rights legislation passed by the right hon. Lady’s Government. Only the Conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and fix our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights, which is why we need a majority Conservative Government.

I do recognise that we face challenges and that we have some issues relating to processes to address. That is why I scrapped the UK Border Agency—Labour’s creation—and since then we have seen a change in the attitude being taken by immigration enforcement. But we will not turn these things around overnight. We have expressed our desire to rejoin the Schengen information system, because it can be a tool we can use in dealing with these FNOs. But we have moved on from the days before 2009 when, under the previous Labour Government, there was no mechanism to trace absconders—there is now a team to do that.

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that if she is going to take on an immigration issue, she really needs to look at her party’s record before she does so. Her party opened the floodgates; her party sent out the search parties and said there was no obvious limit to immigration; and her party passed the human rights legislation that made it difficult to deport foreign criminals. The Opposition still will not say that the level of immigration is too high, they still will not say it has to come down and they still defend the Human Rights Act. Perhaps when she says sorry for those things, the public might start to listen to her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary and the whole House will want to express to the families of David Haines and Alan Henning our thoughts and prayers. Both men were helping innocent people caught up in conflict, and that is how we will remember them.

ISIL’s actions are barbaric—killing and torturing anyone who gets in its way—and the Home Secretary is rightly concerned about British citizens who are going to fight, but may I ask her about those who are returning? Will she tell the House whether the Government agree with reports that between 200 and 300 people have returned after fighting to Britain and whether the police and Security Service believe that they know who and where those people are? She referred to only 24 people being charged. Will she tell the House whether any of the others are now subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures and what proportion of them are engaged in the Channel deradicalisation programme?

[Mrs May]

I echo the right hon. Lady’s comments about the absolutely brutal beheadings of David Haines and Alan Henning and, of course, of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the two Americans who have been beheaded by ISIL. Our thoughts are with all their friends and families at this very difficult time.

The Government are, as the right hon. Lady knows and as I have just said in a previous answer, looking at a number of extra powers that we can introduce to deal with these issues and with those who are returning, as well as preventing people from going to Syria in the first place. Some people have returned from Syria—not all of them will have been involved in fighting, of course—and the Security Service and our police do everything that they can to ensure that they maintain the safety and security of citizens here in the United Kingdom. They do an excellent job, day in and day out.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer, but it would be helpful to have more information, as and when she is able to give it, about the scale of the problem and what is being done. More action is needed against those returning. Has she looked at making it a requirement that those returning from fighting engage with the Channel deradicalisation programme? When TPIMs were introduced, she took the decision, which we opposed, to remove relocation powers; can she confirm that she will reintroduce those powers at the earliest opportunity—before Christmas—in the legislation that she plans to bring forward?

[Mrs May]

We are looking at a number of ways of dealing appropriately with those returning from Syria. Part of that will be through measures brought forward in the legislation to which I referred. As the Prime Minister made clear in the House, we are looking at the question of relocation, and at exclusion zones and the extent to which they can be used. We will put Channel and Prevent on a statutory footing, but it is important that we look on a case-by-case basis at what action is appropriate for returning individuals, rather than assuming that one route is always the right way of dealing with them. Of course, in the consultation on the legislation, the right hon. Lady will be appropriately briefed, on Privy Counsellor terms.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on child sex abuse in the light of the Alexis Jay report in Rotherham.

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

Professor Alexis Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 is a terrible account of the appalling failures by Rotherham council, the police and other agencies to protect vulnerable children. What happened was a complete dereliction of duty. The report makes for shocking reading: 1,400 children—on a conservative estimate—were sexually exploited, raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities, abducted, beaten and intimidated. Like the rest of the House, I was appalled to read about these victims and the horrific experiences to which they were subjected. Many have also suffered the injustice of seeing their cries for help ignored and the perpetrators not yet brought to justice. There can be no excuse for that.

Last week, I spoke to the chief constable of South Yorkshire police to receive an update on the live investigations into child sexual exploitation in south Yorkshire and the force’s plans to ensure that victims and witnesses receive the highest levels of care and support. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss ongoing investigations in detail, but I can tell the House that there are currently a number of investigations covering several hundred victims in south Yorkshire. We must ensure that these perpetrators are brought to justice.

Rotherham is just the latest in a line of harrowing revelations about the sexual abuse of children. It is because of cases such as these that we are establishing an independent panel inquiry to look into the way state and non-state institutions have treated child sexual exploitation. Later this afternoon, I am meeting Professor Jay to discuss her report and make sure that her findings and all the lessons of Rotherham feed properly into the work of the panel inquiry. That inquiry will, of course, take time to investigate the historic failings of state and non-state institutions, but we will not delay in taking action now to protect children who are at risk of sexual exploitation. All local authorities, working with other public bodies such as the police and health and children’s services, have a responsibility to keep our children safe.

This report raises a number of issues that will need immediate action from Rotherham in particular. National Government must also, and will, assist. That is why I will chair meetings with other Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Communities and Local Government to look at what happened in Rotherham. We will consider the findings of Professor Jay’s report and consider what the state at every level should do to prevent this appalling situation from happening again. The meeting will build on the existing work of the Home Office-led national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which is bringing the full range of agencies working in this area together to better identify those at risk and create a victim-focused culture within the police, health and children’s services.

The issues raised in Professor Jay’s report are ones that have been running through the work of the national group. It has already taken a number of practical steps that will help to tackle failures such as those found by Professor Jay in Rotherham. For example, we have published new guidance for the police and Crown prosecutors on investigating and prosecuting cases of child sexual abuse, which moves the focus of investigations away from testing the credibility of victims on to the credibility of the allegation. We have given the police new powers to request information from hotels suspected of being used as locations for child sexual abuse, and powers to close premises where child sexual offences have been or are likely to be committed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) for his campaigning work in this area. We have provided training for private security workers to spot signs of child sexual exploitation. We have piloted pre-trial video cross-examination for vulnerable witnesses, ensuring that the process of giving evidence is less traumatic, and we published a new victims’ code in December last year. We will do more.

Professionals tell us, and Professor Jay’s report suggests, that co-located teams involving the police, children’s services, health services and others are a successful model for mitigating the risk of children slipping through the safeguarding net. We will therefore consider how best to support that work. Effective multi-agency safeguarding work will help to identify and support those at risk of sexual abuse and to bring offenders to justice.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shares my concerns over the failings by Rotherham council that have been identified. This includes the inadequate scrutiny by councillors, institutionalised political correctness, the covering up of information and the failure to take action against gross misconduct. My right hon. Friend is minded to use his powers under the Local Government Act 1999 to commission an independent inspection of the council’s compliance with its best-value duty, with a particular focus on its corporate governance and service arrangements. In parallel, he is considering the implications of the report’s findings for all local authorities in England.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has already discussed these issues with the chief social worker and is looking at how better to support victims and children at risk. The Department of Education will consider the skills required by social workers and others to intervene effectively with those at risk of abuse and ensure that existing skills development work specifically addresses support for children who are at risk of sexual exploitation.

The Department of Health-led work into the mental health and well-being of children and young people will include a specific focus on the mental health and psychological well-being of victims of sexual violence and abuse, and consider the particular needs of those subject to exploitation.

I am clear that cultural concerns—both the fear of being seen as racist and the disdainful attitude to some of our most vulnerable children—must never stand in the way of child protection. We know that child sexual exploitation happens in all communities. There is no excuse for it in any of them and there is never any excuse for failing to bring the perpetrators to justice. The abuse of children is a particularly vile crime and one that the Government are determined to stop. We have made significant strides since 2010. We have important work under way but we will learn the lessons from Professor Jay’s report to ensure that we are doing all we can to safeguard children and to prosecute the people behind these disgusting crimes.

[Yvette Cooper]

In Rotherham 1,400 children were groomed, raped and exploited; 1,400 lives were devastated by abuse. Criminals, rapists and traffickers have got away with it and may be harming other children now. The council, social services, the police—people supposed to protect our children—failed time and again to keep them safe. Alexis Jay’s report is damning. It is never an excuse to turn a blind eye to evidence of children being abused. It is never an excuse that vulnerable girls may have consented to their own abuse. It is never an excuse to use race and ethnicity or community relations as an excuse not to investigate and punish sex offenders. That is why the Government need to act.

First, what is being done to ensure that the victims get the support and help that they need now? Secondly, what is being done to catch and prosecute those who committed the dreadful crimes? The Home Secretary will know that there is considerable concern that South Yorkshire police do not have the capacity to pursue both historic investigations and current child protection. What is she doing to ensure that all forces have the resources they need and give child exploitation and protection the priority they deserve?

Thirdly, what is being done to investigate the failings in the police force at the time? The Jay report found:

“the attitude of the Police at that time seemed to be that they were all ‘undesirables’ and the young women were not worthy of police protection.”

The chief constable is right to agree to an independent investigation of South Yorkshire police, which we called for, but can the Home Secretary tell the House why that is not being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

Fourthly, what is being done on accountability? The leader of the council has rightly stood down. The Labour party has started further disciplinary action against individual councillors, but is the Home Secretary concerned that the police and crime commissioner has not stood down and that there appears to be nothing in the legislation to hold him to account? Will she say what the Government can do to ensure that appropriate disciplinary action is taken against individuals involved? What is being done to find out what other institutions, including the Home Office, were informed?

Where is the overarching inquiry? It is two years since we called for it. It is two months since the Home Secretary agreed to it, but we still have no chair and no terms of reference, despite the seriousness of the issue. This is not just about Rotherham. If we look at Oxfordshire, Rochdale, the abuse by Savile ignored or covered up in the BBC and the health service, north Wales care homes, and allegations around Westminster and Whitehall, we see that this is about every town and city in the country. It is about every community. Time and again, it is the same problems: children not being listened to, victims treated as though they were responsible for the crimes committed against them, and institutions that just looked the other way.

This is not just historic; it is happening today. That is why we need the overarching inquiry urgently in place. But we also need to go further. Child protection has rightly been strengthened over many decades but it has not yet gone far enough. I agree with the Home Secretary that action is needed by different Government Departments and different councils, agencies and police forces across the country, but I also call on her to consider changing the law because we need mandatory reporting to underpin a culture change, so that no one ever feels that they can just turn a blind eye or walk away when children are at risk. That means that Parliament and Government cannot turn a blind eye, too, and that is why all of us need to act.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of points. The last point was about mandatory reporting. I recognise that this is an issue that has been raised, and we are looking at it, but it is important in doing so that we properly look at the evidence of whether it is effective in protecting children. In some other countries, with mandatory reporting the number of reports goes up significantly, but many of those reports are not justified, and that diminishes the ability to deal with the serious reports and protect children. So it is a very complex issue. It is a serious question, and we need to look carefully at countries such as Australia and the United States, where there is mixed evidence of its effectiveness in improving the ability to deal with these issues.

The right hon. Lady asked about Home Office involvement. A report into child prostitution was funded by the Home Office and conducted by the university of Luton, which is now part of the university of Bedfordshire. As I understand it, the researchers were not employed by the Home Office, although the Home Office was providing funding. Since the connection first came up, the Home Office has been looking at the files to ascertain exactly what happened, and many Members will have heard the researcher herself being quoted on television and radio broadcasts in relation not only to her experience at Rotherham but the suggestion that she did inform the Home Office. The Home Office is looking into that internally. When that work has been completed, Richard Whittam and Peter Wanless—who have already been in the Home Office looking at the process of how what was called the Dickens dossier and the files on that were dealt with—will be looking at that process to make sure that it has been conducted absolutely properly.

The right hon. Lady asked about the overarching inquiry. As Members will be aware, I made an appointment for the chairmanship of the inquiry, but the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss felt that she should withdraw from that. I hope we will soon be in a position to announce the chairman of the inquiry, but we have been taking our time because of the concern expressed about ensuring that the individual who does the job is somebody whom people throughout the communities concerned can have confidence in. We have been deliberately taking our time to ensure that we get the right chairman, and in due course the right panel, to deal with this inquiry.

The right hon. Lady asked what was being done in terms of investigations. I indicated in my statement that I have spoken to the chief constable of South Yorkshire Police, which has a number of ongoing investigations. I have talked to him about resources and the impact on the force, and he is able to support the work currently being done. As he has announced, he will be bringing in another, independent force to look at these issues and whether further action needs to be taken as a result of what the police did over the period of time covered by the Jay report.

In relation to the question of the police and crime commissioner, I have to say this to the right hon. Lady. She made some points that were an attempt to raise political issues around the police and crime commissioner. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will just calm down, I will respond to the point the right hon. Lady made. The police and crime commissioner is an elected individual, accountable to the electorate in the ballot box. That was the point of setting up the police and crime commissioner —that they are accountable to the electorate in the ballot box—but I would also make this point to the right hon. Lady: the Labour party chose the Labour councillor who was responsible for children’s services in Rotherham, and who had stood down in 2010 following the failings there, to be their candidate for PCC. So I suggest that they think carefully before starting to raise that particular issue.

Police Reform

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Our long British tradition of policing by consent depends on our maintaining and ensuring the very highest standards of integrity and professionalism in British policing. The international reputation of our police is high. We know about the bravery and integrity of many officers across the country, but we also know that when policing goes wrong, it can cast a deep shadow over all that excellent work and undermine consent and confidence, too. That is why we have called for much stronger action on standards in policing. Lord Stevens is leading a major independent commission on the future of policing, which recommends radical reform. The reforms include: a new stronger police standards authority, replacing the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, with the power to launch investigations without referral and make sure that lessons are learned; chartered registration for every police officer; the ability to strike officers off the register; high professional and ethical standards against which officers must be measured throughout their career; public misconduct hearings; and a new Police First scheme to bring bright graduates, especially from technology backgrounds, into policing and many further reforms.

Today the Home Secretary has announced not strong reforms but a series of reviews—three reviews and one consultation. Many are welcome as far as they go. We welcome stronger action on whistleblowers, with greater protection for whistleblowers and transparency for the public. We welcome more support for police leadership, although she will be aware that when West Yorkshire tried her existing proposals on direct entry, none of the dozens of people who applied met the right standards. We agree that the complaints procedure and disciplinary system need to be reformed because they are not working, but these reviews just do not go far enough. Why not get on with it and introduce a proper register of chartered police officers? I am glad that she has agreed with our call for public disciplinary hearings, but, again, why not get on with disciplinary reform and hand it over to the College of Policing, giving it the power to hold public hearings and to strike people off? Why waste time on piecemeal reforms of the IPCC and the complaints procedure, when the truth is that they need to be replaced?

We have repeatedly called on the Home Secretary to replace the IPCC. The IPCC is supposed to be able to deal with things that go wrong in policing. It is better than the Police Complaints Authority that it replaced, but it has failed in its remit because it lacks the powers, capacity and credibility it needs. It failed on Ian Tomlinson. It failed on the Stephen Lawrence case and had to apologise to the family as a result. It failed to set out the clear lessons to be learned from a series of death in custody cases, including the Camm case in West Yorkshire. It has failed to deal with the problems from plebgate, and is still failing even to make a decision on whether to investigate what happened at Orgreave more than 12 months after a complaint was raised. How many reviews does she need to tell her that this system is not working? If she answers only one of my questions today, will she explain why she will not just admit that the IPCC is failing and needs to be replaced by a much stronger body?

The one thing that the Home Secretary is not reviewing that she should be is her flagship policing reform of police and crime commissioners. She spent £100 million—enough for several thousand constables—on elections in November, and only 15% of voters turned out. Now she is about to spend nearly £4 million of taxpayers’ money on a by-election in the middle of August. What will the turnout be then? How low will turnouts have to fall before she admits that she got those flagship police reforms wrong?

The Home Secretary also claimed that her other policing reforms were working, but the HMIC has today admitted that neighbourhood policing is now being eroded. Prosecutions and convictions are falling for violent crime, rape, domestic violence and child sex offences—even though all those offences are going up. There were 7,000 more violent crimes last year, but 7,000 fewer people were convicted of violent offences. She is failing to reform the police to deal with new and growing crimes. There has been too little action on online fraud, which is growing exponentially. On online child abuse, the National Crime Agency has details of more than 10,000 suspects, but it has no plans to investigate them all, to arrest them or to bar them from working with children because it admits that it does not have the capacity and systems in place to cope.

In the face of those challenges, what are the Home Secretary’s police reforms? The answer is lots more reviews. I am glad that she is moving in the direction that we called for and we are keen to work with her if she will agree now to go much further, but so far we have standards that are not high enough; enforcement that is not strong enough; police and crime commissioners no one wants to vote for; fewer police on the beat; fewer criminals being caught; and less justice for victims. The Home Secretary’s reviews are too little and too late. We will work with her if she goes further. We need not just reviews but reforms that work.

[Mrs May]

Yet again, the shadow Home Secretary has given us a completely confused response on Labour’s policy on a whole range of issues. Let me touch on some of the specifics that she mentioned. She asked why we do not have a register of police officers, but I have to say to her that the Labour party was in Government for 13 years, and if it thought that that was so important, why did it not do something about it? It did not even do anything about the police officers who were struck off and who, once they had departed one particular police force, were able to join another. We have introduced the register of struck-off police officers, so, unlike Labour, we are taking action.

The shadow Home Secretary talked about Labour’s proposal to merge the inspectorate of constabulary with the IPCC. I have to say that that would be a profound mistake. The inspectorate under this Government has become more independent of the police and of the Government. It has delivered hard-hitting reports on stop and search, the recording of crime statistics and domestic violence. Later this year, it will publish, for the first time, annual inspection reports of every constabulary in the country so the public can understand how their local police force is performing. Only today we have seen one of the most transparent and fair reports ever published by HMIC, so we should not be taking any risks in abolishing the inspectorate. Of course we do need to look at police complaints and the role of the IPCC, which is why I have just announced a consultation on changing the whole system of police complaints from end to end—from minor complaints to the most serious. It is a sensitive matter, which is why we will consult on it properly and get the policy right rather than jumping to some risky merger of HMIC and the IPCC, as Labour has proposed.

The right hon. Lady also mentioned the matter of the police and crime commissioners and the by-election for the PCC in the west midlands. Labour has been in Opposition for more than four years. There is less than a year to go before the general election, and she cannot even make up her mind about whether or not she supports the idea of police and crime commissioners. On the one hand, she tells us that Labour is happy to have police and crime commissioners, but on the other she says that they were not a very good idea. She really needs to make up her mind as to whether or not Labour supports police and crime commissioners. Somehow, among all this, she seems to be making the point that with the reviews and consultations that I have announced, there is not enough action on police reform. Again, I wish she would make up her mind. Does she or does she not want police reform? I remember the days when she called police cuts and police reform “the perfect storm”. If what she says amounts to a genuine conversion to the ranks of those who believe in police reform, I welcome her belated conversion.

The right hon. Lady also refers to the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. I do not know whether she has read today’s report, but the lesson is perfectly clear: police reform is working and crime is falling. The police are leading the way across the public sector by demonstrating, whatever the Labour party says, that it is possible to do more with less.

Let me quote what the inspector of constabulary says about police cuts:

“Police forces in England and Wales are to be congratulated. The vast majority have risen to and met the considerable challenge of austerity, with plans in place to save over £2.5 billion over the last four years—while protecting the front line as best they can and making sure that the public still receive an effective service.”

Yet again on that issue, as on so many such as police and crime commissioners and police reform, what we hear from the shadow Home Secretary is nothing more than confusion and chaos. She needs to get her story straight about whether she, like me, wants to build on the excellent police that we have in this country and to ensure that we give them the support that they need to carry on doing an effective job of cutting crime day in and day out.

Child Abuse

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about child abuse.

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

The sexual abuse of children is an abhorrent crime which the Government are absolutely committed to stamping out.

In my statement to the House last week, I addressed two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s, the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. As I informed the House on 7 July, the whole Government take the allegations very seriously. That is why I announced two inquiries last week.

The first is a review led by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with the support of Richard Whittam, QC, of the original investigations that Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, commissioned last year into suggestions that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse in the early 1980s. Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam will also look at how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them, and examine another recent review into allegations that the Home Office provided funding to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam are in post and work on the review has begun. Its terms of reference were placed in the Library of the House last week, and I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks.

Last week, I also announced a wider independent panel inquiry to consider whether public bodies and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The Home Office has appointed the head of the secretariat to the panel, which will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman.

As the House will know, I asked Baroness Butler-Sloss to act as chairman of the panel and she agreed to do so. However, having listened to the concerns that were raised by victim and survivor groups and by Members of this House, Lady Butler-Sloss subsequently came to the conclusion that she should not chair the inquiry. I was deeply saddened by her decision to withdraw, but I understand and respect her reasons. She is a woman of the highest integrity and compassion, and she continues to have an enormous contribution to make to public life.

Work is ongoing to find the right chairman and members of the panel, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible so that this important work can move forward. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that the terms of reference for the inquiry are considered carefully. That is why it is right that we should wait until we have appointed a new chairman and a panel, and discuss the terms with them.

I want this inquiry to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth of what happened and ensuring that we learn the necessary lessons to protect children and vulnerable people in the future. As I said, child abuse is an abhorrent crime that can scar people for life, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. We are working across Government to ensure that victims of historic child abuse who come forward in response to our overarching inquiry get the support and help they need. Our message is clear: the Government will do everything they can to allow the full investigation of child abuse whenever and wherever it occurred, to support victims of it, and to bring the perpetrators of this disgusting crime to justice.

As Members will be aware from the announcement we heard yesterday about the outcome of the National Crime Agency’s operation, which was reported in the media, child abuse is a crime that continues today. I think that that operation shows our relentless commitment to pursue those engaged in online child sexual exploitation, and it was unprecedented in its degree of co-ordination, with the NCA leading and co-ordinating law enforcement efforts that involved 45 police forces across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It has been ongoing for the past six months. People from all walks of life have been indentified, including those in positions of trust, and 660 arrests have been made and more than 400 children safeguarded or protected.

Crucial in investigations of online sexual abuse, and matters of this kind more generally, is the question of access to communications data. The Government are committed to tackling the threat to children online, which is why the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which was passed by this House on Tuesday and is currently before the other place, is important. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies continue to have access to another vital tool of communications data. Without access to communications data, the investigative capabilities of public authorities in relation to online child abuse would be significantly damaged, and vital evidence would be inaccessible. If companies do not retain that data and we cannot access it, it will become impossible in future to carry out such operations.

In other areas, the Government are also looking at what actions we can take in relation to this reprehensible crime. That is why in April last year, the Government established a national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, led by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The cross-Government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the recent cases that have emerged and the resulting reviews and inquiries, and as a result of its work we now have better guidance for police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multi-agency safeguarding hubs.

The Home Office will do everything it can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre command of the National Crime Agency works with police forces to investigate child sexual abuse, and has access to specialist officers who could be called on to assist in complex cases. CEOP is already providing support to forces in the robust investigation of child sexual abuse.

For some time, this House has been considering issues arising from historic cases of child abuse. The news yesterday of more than 600 arrests by the NCA, and ongoing investigations into current incidents of child abuse, show that this is not just a problem of the past but is with us today. The Government will do everything they can to work to stamp out child abuse, but there is a wider question for us as a society about how and why these appalling crimes are still taking place today.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the update she has given the House. She is right to condemn this vile crime that hits vulnerable children and can wreck lives. I also welcome the announcement that the National Crime Agency has safeguarded 400 children and arrested 660 people for child abuse offences as part of a major operation involving many police forces. The House will want to commend the police for that work, and recognise the role of online intelligence and communications data that we discussed earlier this week.

However, The Times reports today that the same investigation has in fact identified more than 10,000 suspects who are not currently being arrested or pursued through the criminal justice system. It appears that those are in addition to today’s crime statistics, which also show a 20% increase in reported sex offences, a 65% increase in reported child abuse images, and a 27% increase in reported rape. While car crime may be falling, the reports of these serious, often hidden, crimes are going up, and people will be deeply shocked by the scale of online crime that is growing alongside the internet. At the same time, there has been a 9% drop in prosecutions for child sex offences and a 75% drop in the number of convicted criminals who are barred from working with children as a result of the Government’s policy changes. There are real concerns about chaos at the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is not providing consistent information about the number of people being barred.

Let me ask the Home Secretary the following questions. Can she confirm that the National Crime Agency has identified more than 10,000 suspects as part of its investigation? What is happening to those 10,000 suspects now? Is it true that the police have decided that they do not have the capacity to pursue them? How many of them does she think pose a direct risk to children? Will they be barred from working with children? Can she confirm that there has indeed been a 75% drop in the number of convicted sex offenders who are being barred from working with children? Does she believe that the police and the NCA have the capacity to deal with the scale of this growing crime? Will any of these issues be covered by the child abuse inquiry, which currently has no chair and no terms of reference?

The Home Secretary will know that I have raised concerns with her over the past few years that the child protection system is currently not strong enough to deal with the scale of the problem that we face. Will she now urgently review Government policy and resources, particularly around online abuse, as well as on the wider issues around child abuse, and rethink the barring system approach? Will she agree to come back to this House in September with an urgent action plan to deal with this very serious crime?

[Mrs May]

First, may I say that the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to commend the work of police forces, the National Crime Agency and CEOP command? This work is not easy for police officers to undertake. It is very difficult for those who have to look at the evidence of child abuse images. We should recognise the valuable and important work they do, and the work that goes on around them to ensure that perpetrators and others involved in this horrendous crime are brought to justice.

I have made it clear that the work of NCA investigations is ongoing. I am therefore not in a position to indicate anything in relation to how many suspects they might be looking at or the action I might take against those suspects. Those are operational matters and decisions for the NCA to take in consideration with the various police forces involved, but I can assure Members that this is an ongoing investigation.

The right hon. Lady referred to a number of matters, for example the increase in the number of sex offences being reported. That is indeed the case, but what I think we are seeing in the figures is a number of people coming forward with historic cases of sex offences. While that does have an impact on the figures, I think we would all welcome the fact that there are more people now who feel comfortable in being able to come forward with allegations of these sorts of offences. For too long, people have felt that they would not be believed, and have been hiding their own experiences and keeping them to themselves, rather than surfacing them. It is important that they are coming forward. In some of the historic cases that have gone to trial, some perpetrators have been brought to justice. They have been charged and prosecuted as a result of people coming forward.

We are, of course, making sure that resources are available. In my response to the right hon. Lady’s question, I indicated that CEOP resources, which are specialist and expertise resources, are being made available to other police forces. The child abuse inquiry is being set up to ensure that we can learn the lessons from the various reviews that have taken place into historic cases. As part of that, I expect it will want to look at what is happening today: whether the lessons from the past are already being dealt with, or whether there are still gaps in what we need to do. Obviously, one of the areas that has increased in recent times is online abuse.

At the Prime Minister’s summit in November last year, we made it absolutely clear that we are determined to stamp out online child sexual abuse. That is why we have worked with industry to ensure that search engines block images, videos and pathways to child abuse from blacklist search terms used by paedophiles. We are developing a child abuse image database, which will help officers to work more effectively together to close the net on paedophiles and ensure that internet companies can better identify, block and remove illegal images. We have also established the UK-US taskforce to counter online child exploitation. Through that, we are drawing on the brightest and best minds in the industry, law enforcement and academia to stop the internet being used to abuse children. We saw from the National Crime Agency’s operations yesterday the value of setting it up as a strong crime-fighting organisation that has already shown its ability to root out perpetrators of this sort of crime, to deal with them and ultimately to bring them to justice.

Communications Data and Interception

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the detailed legal and security briefing with which her officials have provided me.

We agree with the Home Secretary that a temporary and urgent solution is needed as a result of the European Court judgment in April, because otherwise the police and intelligence agencies will suddenly lose vital information and evidence this summer. It would be too damaging to the fight against serious and organised crime, to the work against online child abuse, and to counter-terror investigations to risk losing that capability over the next two months while Parliament is in recess, and that is why we need to act.

However, as the Home Secretary will appreciate, there will be serious concern, in Parliament and throughout the country, about the lateness of this legislative proposal, and about the short time that we have in which to consider something so important. That lack of time for debate makes the safeguards that we have discussed particularly important, and I want to press the Home Secretary on some of them. It also makes it essential for the Government to engage in a wider, public debate about how we balance privacy and security in an internet age.

The European Court judgment has clearly created an immediate problem for companies that hold billing and other communications data to which the police have access under warrant when they investigate crimes. Action needs to be taken in the short term simply to allow them to continue to do what they have been doing, in a way that complies with the European Court judgment. The communications data need to be properly used under safeguards, but they are also vital to serious criminal investigations and to protecting the public. The police use them to find out with whom a suspect or criminal may have been conspiring to commit serious crimes, or to radicalise a terror suspect. They are used in 95% of all cases of serious and organised crime that reach the prosecution stage. When children go missing, the police can contact their mobile phone companies and find out where they were last. That helped them to find out that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were close to Ian Huntley’s house when their phone was switched off, and it helped to convict him of their murder.

The data also help the police to identify people who are sending online vile images of children who are being abused. An investigation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre resulted in the arrest of 200 suspects, and found 132 children who were at risk of abuse and needed to be safeguarded. However, it was able to reach those suspects and those children only because of communications data. The legislation is certainly needed, and the information is certainly needed. The legislation is a more restricted version of the existing data retention powers. It is because we recognise how crucial the evidence is that we believe that it would be too damaging to lose it over the summer.

We also recognise that there is a problem for some companies that provide communications services here in Britain but whose headquarters are based abroad, and which have asked for clarification of the scope of the legislation, as a result, again, of recent court cases. Companies should not be left in limbo or put off from complying with warrants when national security is at stake, for example, simply because they are concerned about whether it is lawful to do so because of the location of their headquarters.

We will scrutinise the detail of the legislation, and we will debate the safeguards that are necessary, but we agree that the legislation is needed now. However, I am concerned about its late arrival. The European Court judgment was in April, and the legislation has been published just seven days before the end of the parliamentary session. I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that it risks undermining confidence for issues as important as this to be left until the last minute and rushed through on an emergency basis rather than being given more time. We recognise the timetable of the European Court judgment and we recognise, too, the information she has provided to us in the Opposition over the last week about her proposals, but she will also recognise the importance of Select Committees being able to take evidence, and being able to consider these proposals, too.

The short time for Parliament to consider this makes the safeguards we have argued for and agreed even more important, so the Home Secretary is right to make this temporary legislation. It means that Parliament will need to revisit this issue properly next year, with detailed evidence and the chance to secure a sustainable longer-term framework. She is also right to add further restrictions to the way in which the legislation will work, and I ask her for further clarification on this, because she will know we discussed, for example, narrowing the scope of some of the measures, as well as narrowing the number of organisations that will be able to access the data, and I would like to ask her for an update on those discussions, and whether she was able to produce that narrowing in practice.

We look forward as well to working in Parliament to make the new privacy and civil liberties board work effectively, but one of the most important safeguards is the Government’s agreement to an independent expert review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, for which the Home Secretary will know I called this year. The legislation was drawn up in 2000. As a result of the communications data revolution, the law and our oversight framework are now out of date. New technology is blurring the distinction between communications and content and between domestic and international communications, and raising new questions about data storage. We need to reconsider, therefore, what safeguards are needed to make sure people’s privacy is protected in an internet age, and we need stronger oversight, too.

Previously the Government have resisted this proposal for a RIPA review, and I am glad that they have now agreed. I have suggested the review should be done by the independent counter-terrorism reviewer, David Anderson. Will the Home Secretary tell me whether that will be possible and also ensure that he will have the resources and capabilities and expertise he needs to be able to produce a thorough report which can recommend the reforms that we need but that can also give confidence to the process?

There are three other areas, which we have raised with the Home Secretary, and where it would be helpful to see whether we can go further: first, in asking the interception commissioner to provide reports every six months on the operation of this legislation while it is in force; secondly, in strengthening the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has the same powers as Select Committees to call and compel witnesses and by having an Opposition Chair; thirdly, the longer-term reforms to overhaul the commissioners to provide stronger oversight. Again it would be helpful to have the Home Secretary’s response to those proposals.

Most important, however, we need a wider, longer public debate on these issues, which so far the Government have refused. The majority of people in Britain rightly support the work of the intelligence agencies and the work the police need to do online to keep us safe, but there are growing concerns as a result of new technology and the Snowdon leaks about what safeguards are needed and whether the framework is still up to date. The fact that the Communications Data Bill was so widely drawn last year also raised anxiety and undermined trust in the Government’s approach.

The Government must not ignore those concerns or they will grow and grow. It is vital to our democracy—both to protecting our national security and to protecting our basic freedoms—that there is widespread public consent to the balance the Government and the agencies need to strike. President Obama held such a debate last year. We have urged the Government to lead such a debate now. I hope that the agreement to the RIPA review will now allow that widespread cross-party approach to having that open debate about the safeguards for both privacy and our security that we need, because we cannot just keep on doing short-term sticking plaster legislation in a rush, without the proper consideration of the privacy and security balance modern Britain wants to see.

We will scrutinise the detail of this Bill as it goes through Parliament next week and we will support it, because we know the police and intelligence agencies need this information to fight crime, protect children and counter terrorism, and I hope we can also agree to the wider national debate that we need about how we safeguard our security and our privacy in an internet age.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the support she has shown for the emergency legislation and I am grateful for the recognition across the House that we need to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies, and our police and law enforcement agencies, have available to them the powers they need to be able to do the job we all want them to do in catching criminals, preventing terrorism and catching terrorists. There is also a recognition that, as we have said, and as the sunset clause shows, this is meeting a gap now; it is ensuring that those bodies have the capabilities they have until now been able to rely on and that those are able to continue in the face of the legal challenges that have arisen.

The right hon. Lady made a number of points. First, on the timing, the European Court of Justice judgment did indeed come in April, and, obviously, we have been spending quite a time since then looking at the most appropriate way to respond. But to any Members of the House who think it would have been possible to put these changes into normal legislation—into another Bill that is going through the House or into a separate Bill that was not fast-tracked—I say that that timetable was not available to us; it was always going to be necessary for this to be fast-tracked legislation in order to ensure that those capabilities are retained.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Select Committees wanting to be able to look at this measure. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I briefed six Select Committee Chairmen yesterday, and today I am publishing a draft version of the Bill. The Bill will be formally introduced on Monday, but I thought it was appropriate to publish it in draft today, as that gives that little bit of extra time for people to be able to look at it. As I have said, I am aiming to make the maximum amount of background supporting information—the regulatory impact assessments and so forth—available to Members of the House, so that people have as much opportunity as possible within the short timetable to be able to look at the various issues.

The right hon. Lady asked whether there was any narrowing in the scope of the powers. The Bill makes something absolutely clear in relation to the issues of intercept. There have always been three areas of scope—national security, serious crime and economic well-being—and the Bill clarifies that economic well-being is there in the context of national security. Just for the avoidance of doubt, the Bill makes it clear that that is the context in which that has been used; it is related back to national security.

The right hon. Lady raised a point about the ISC and its chairmanship. Of course, the House has relatively recently debated the ISC’s structure and its relationship with Parliament. She has raised a specific point about the chairmanship and where that person should be drawn from, and I recognise the strength of view that she and the Opposition have on the matter. Hers is not a policy that we have, but it is open to the House to debate these matters should Members wish to do so.

Finally, let me deal with the review that is to take place. The right hon. Lady made a number of points about that, referring to it as a RIPA review. I should be absolutely clear with the House that it is not just a review that will look at RIPA and ask whether we need to tweak that; as I said, the review will look at the interception and communications data powers we need, as well as the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated in the context of the threats that we face. That is important because we know that there are new challenges, through new technology, to our capabilities, and the threat context that we face is developing. RIPA came through in 2000 and we would want any legislative changes that the Government make after the next election to stand the test of a reasonable amount of time; we would not want to have to keep coming back to them. That is why this review has to be that wider review about the powers we need against the threat context we have and about the legislative and regulatory framework in which those powers and capabilities are regulated.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the proposal that David Anderson should undertake this review, and I am pleased to say to the House that I have been able to speak to him this morning and that he is willing to undertake it. I think that is very good, given his expertise and his knowledge and understanding of these issues. He and I have been very clear in our conversation. We have not yet been in a position to sit down and discuss terms of reference and the resources he would need, but I am absolutely clear, given the nature of the review that I have just set out, that we need to make sure we get the terms of reference right and that he has the resources and support necessary to be able to do the job that I think everybody across this House wants him to do.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is a point that has come up in some of the deliberations of the Committee that has been looking into the matter, and it is a point that I have looked at seriously. There is a judgment to be made here. By definition, if somebody is in slavery, the chance of their being able to get out of slavery to go to work for another employer is pretty limited, if not non-existent. In changing the way that the visa operated, one of the things we did was to try to ensure that there was a proper contract between the employer and the individual who was being employed, but I recognise that this is an issue. I suspect that it will be subject to greater debate and discussion as the Bill goes through the various stages in this House and another place.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary knows, we strongly support the legislation, but on that point, I understand that in its research the charity Kalayaan found that since the visas were changed, 60% of those on the new domestic workers visa were paid no salary at all, compared with 14% on the original visa. That is a worrying increase since the visa change. Has the right hon. Lady looked at that research?

[Mrs May]

Yes, we have been looking in detail at the research that has been undertaken. We have taken the issue and the points that have been made seriously. I suspect that this aspect will be subject to further, more detailed discussion as the Bill goes through its various stages in this House and another place. The number of people who were identified by the charity—which, by definition, can only look at those who come to it—is fairly small. We need measures that will protect those who are being brought in as overseas workers and will not open up some other avenue for people to be brought in. We need to enable people to work properly for an employer, not effectively be placed in modern slavery.

We all have the same aim. The question is which regulatory track makes most sense. I continue to believe that the current arrangement is the right one. I am sure that it will be subject to considerable discussion as the Bill goes through its various stages.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

First, may I welcome the Home Secretary’s words about her visit and about the terrible loss of young lives in the middle east, and also her tribute to Bob Jones, who, as she knows, was a very kind and thoughtful man as well as a great public servant, and is a friend who will be missed by very many of us?

May I also join the counter-terrorism Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), in remembering the 52 people who were killed on 7 July 2005 and pay tribute to their families and also the 770 people injured that day? That is why the whole House and the whole country recognises the continued need for vigilance against terrorism and those who want to kill, maim or divide us.

The Home Secretary will shortly outline her response to calls for action against historical child abuse, but let me ask her about the child protection system today. Since she changed the law, there has been a 75% drop in the number of people barred from working with children even though the number of offences against children has gone up. Why has it fallen so much, and is she worried about that?

[Mrs May]

There has, indeed, been a fall in the number of people who are automatically barred from working with children. That fall has taken place since 2010 because we did change the system: I think we restored some common sense to the barring regime, because the scheme is now focused on groups of people who work closely with children or other vulnerable groups. Unless they have committed the most serious offences, we no longer bar people who do not work with those groups, such as lorry drivers or bar staff. They were barred under the old scheme, and I do not think those bars did anything to help keep children safe, but anyone working closely with children is still barred and that is the important point.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have listened to the Home Secretary’s response and I have to say I find it very troubling. What is to stop a lorry driver who is convicted of a very serious offence applying to work with children or becoming a volunteer in the future? The figures show the numbers who have been barred have dropped from 11,000 to 2,600. That means there are people who have been convicted of sexually assaulting a child, possessing or distributing abusive images of children, grooming or trafficking who are not being barred from working with children in future, and there has also been a serious drop in the number of those who are barred on the basis of intelligence about grooming even where convictions have not been secured. I really would urge her to look again at this because I am concerned that this system is exposing children to risk.

[Mrs May]

We all want to ensure that the system we have makes sure that those who will be a risk to children are not able to work with children, but I repeat the point I made in response to the right hon. Lady’s first question: under the previous scheme a large number of people found themselves automatically barred who were not directly working with children and were not working closely with children. The new scheme that we have has, in fact, barred some people who would not have been barred under the old scheme. The Disclosure and Barring Service can now pick up and consider serious offences by those who apply for criminal records checks to work with children and those in the new update service, so I say to her that the scheme we have introduced does actually mean some who would not have been barred under the previous scheme are today barred from working with children.

Child Abuse

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Child abuse is a terrible, devastating crime that traumatises children when they are at their most vulnerable and ruins lives. Perpetrators need to be stopped and brought to justice. Too often, the system has failed young victims, not hearing or believing them when they cried out for help, and failing to protect them from those who sought to harm them. There have been particularly troubling cases of abuse involving powerful people and celebrities, and the failure of institutions to act. As Members in all parts of the House and from all parties have made clear, when allegations go to the heart of Whitehall or Westminster, it is even more important to demonstrate that strong action will be taken to find out the truth and get justice for the victims.

The Home Secretary is right to announce today that she has changed her position on and response to child abuse, but I want to press her on the detail. We need three things: justice and support for victims; the truth about what happened and how the Home Office and others responded; and stronger child protection and reforms for the future. First, any allegation that a child was abused, even decades ago, must be thoroughly investigated by the police. Will she tell us whether all the allegations uncovered or put forward in any of these investigations will be covered by Operation Fernbridge? Will the files that she said had been passed to the police go to Operation Fernbridge? We understand that it has only seven full-time officers working on it. Does she think that they have the resources and investigators they need? She referred to the importance of prosecutions when there have been child sexual offences. She will know that prosecutions have dropped in recent years. Does she believe that that is cause for concern, when recorded offences have increased?

Secondly, we need to know what happened when the allegations were first made decades ago. The Home Secretary will know that former Cabinet Ministers have said that there may have been a cover-up. The previous response from the Home Office was not adequate; the 2013 review to which she referred was not announced to Parliament, did not reveal that more than 100 files had gone missing, and has never been published. Will she tell the House whether she or other Ministers saw that review, and whether they were told about the missing files?

I welcome the involvement of Peter Wanless, who is well respected, but will the Home Secretary clarify whether this is simply a review of a review, or whether it will look again at the original material? Will this review have the power to call for further information, range more widely, and interview witnesses if necessary? She talked about publication of the review; does she mean the original 2013 review, the new review, or both? It would be very helpful to have transparency.

Thirdly, as the Home Secretary will know, I raised the issue of the need for an overarching inquiry directly with her in Parliament 18 months ago, when she made a statement about abuse in care homes in north Wales. She and the Prime Minister rejected the need for such an inquiry at the time, but I welcome her agreement to it now. There is currently a range of reviews and investigations in care homes, the BBC, the NHS and now in the Home Office. Also, more recently, there is an inquiry into events in Rochdale and Rotherham. At their heart, they all have a similar problem: child victims were not listened to, heard or protected, and too many institutions let children down. Reform of those individual institutions must not be delayed, but isolated reforms are not enough. An inquiry needs to draw together the full picture to look at the institutional failures of the past and to examine the child protection systems that we have in place that may continue to fail children today. An inquiry must also be able to take evidence from the public, in public, as the Hillsborough review was able to do. I welcome her comments on that and her decision to keep under review whether an inquiry has the powers it needs and whether a public inquiry is needed.

An inquiry must also cover the child protection system in operation today. The Home Secretary’s answer in Question Time to my question on the 75% drop in the number of criminals barred from working with children suggests that the Home Office is still too complacent in that area. I urge her to include the vetting and barring system and the current child protection system in the overarching review. It is important that we do not have systems in place that store up future child protection problems.

The cases that have emerged involving child abuse and sexual assaults by high-profile, powerful people and celebrities have been deeply disturbing, as has the failure of the system to stop them and to protect children and young people today. Previously, the Home Office had not done enough to respond, but I welcome the further steps that the Home Secretary has announced today. She will understand that that is why we seek assurances that the investigations will now be strong enough. She and I will agree that we need justice for victims, the truth about what happened and a stronger system of child protection for the future. People need to have confidence that the process will deliver justice for past victims and protect children in the future.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady shares my concern to ensure that we have proper safeguards and protection for children in the future and that not only are lessons learned but that action is taken as a result of those lessons being learned following the various reviews into both historical and more recent cases of child sexual exploitation.

The right hon. Lady asked whether all the matters that are felt to be for the police to investigate will be matters for Operation Fernbridge. Actually, a number of investigations are taking place across the country into historical cases of child abuse; it is not appropriate that all those investigations will be in relation to Operation Fernbridge. The National Crime Agency, for example, is leading on Operation Pallial, which is the investigation into potential sexual abuse in children’s care homes in north Wales, and other investigations are taking place elsewhere. All allegations do not necessarily go to a single force; they go to whichever force is the most appropriate to deal with the particular cases and to ensure that people can be brought to justice.

The right hon. Lady asked about the number of prosecutions and offences, which is a matter that is most properly for my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, but she will have noticed that he is on the Treasury Bench and has noted her comments.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims answered a parliamentary question in 2013—in October 2013, I think—in which reference was made to the missing 114 files.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked what I had seen as Home Secretary. I saw the executive summary of both the interim report and the final report commissioned by Mark Sedwill. I did not see the full report for very good reason: the matters that lay behind the report were allegations that senior Members of Parliament—and, in particular, senior Conservative Members of Parliament —may have been involved in those activities. I therefore thought that it was absolutely right and proper that the commissioning of the investigation and the work that was done should be led by the permanent secretary at the Home Office, not by a Conservative politician.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about lessons learnt. Some of those lessons are already being acted on. As I mentioned, the national group that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention is leading has already brought forward proposals on how the police and prosecutors could better handle these matters, and it will continue with its work. That will of course feed into the work of the wider inquiry panel that I am setting up. I want it to look widely at the question of the protection of children. I want it to ensure that we can be confident that in future people will not look back to today and say, “If only they had introduced this measure or that measure.” We must ensure that the lessons that come out of the various reviews that are taking place are not only properly learned, but acted on.

Passport Applications

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely recognise that some people have been suffering delays and have not received their passports within the three weeks. I say to the hon. Lady and to her right hon. and hon. Friends that it is important that people out there who are applying for their passports understand what the situation is—and the situation remains that, thanks to the very hard work of Passport Office staff in passport offices up and down the country, the vast majority of people are getting their passports within three weeks. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has spoken about an individual case, and other Members are raising individual cases, too. I understand why they are doing so, and I shall explain later how we hope to enhance our ability to deal with MPs’ queries on these matters and, as far as possible, to ensure that people are able to travel when they have booked their travel, and that they are able to get their passports in time.

[Yvette Cooper]

I noticed that the Home Secretary said that the proportion of straightforward applications being processed on time had dropped from 97% previously to 89% over the last couple of weeks, so the situation is getting worse. Will she clarify exactly what she means by “a straightforward application” and what proportion of passport applications are not “straightforward”?

[Mrs May]

The vast majority of applications are straightforward: renewal or replacement applications for which the forms have been properly completed and all the required documents are available. Those applications are processed more easily than first-time applications because the individual has all the information that they need to provide. It is the case that first-time applications take longer than three weeks, and we have always been clear, as the Passport Office has always been clear, that first-time applications take longer because, of course, an interview is needed. That is part of the security that was introduced for passports, and I think we were absolutely right to introduce it. I shall see if I can get a precise figure for the right hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

There are a number of issues that I shall address later in my speech, but let me say this to the hon. Lady. We want a passport system that ensures that people can apply for their passports and receive them within a reasonable time. The majority of those whose applications are straightforward are receiving their passports within the time scale that has been set, but when we deal with passport applications, it is important for us to carry out the necessary checks. Sometimes information will not have been submitted, or someone will not have filled in the form correctly, and it will be necessary to contact the person again. That means that delivering the passport will take longer.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said a few moments ago that 3.3 million passport applications had been received, as opposed to 2.95 million last year. One would expect foreign residents to account for at least half that increase, as a result of her decision to close the international centres. Can she tell us what proportion of the increase in demand is due to overseas applications, and what proportion is due to applications from domestic residents?

[Mrs May]

I shall come to the figures relating to the number of foreign applications, and to the issues that have been raised about whether this is all due to overseas applications, which it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. When I was at the passport office in Peterborough, staff told me that a number of people, on hearing the publicity, had been contacting them about what was happening. These were people who would be getting their passports within the time frame, but their anxieties had been raised by what they had been hearing about the Passport Office. As I said, we must be clear that while some people have not been getting their passports within the normal time frame and while some people have been having difficulties in relation to their travel—we have been taking steps to alleviate that, as I announced last week—the vast majority are still receiving their passports within the three-week period. It is important that we provide that reassurance to people.

Before I deal with some of the Opposition’s claims about what is behind the surge in demand for passport applications, I should emphasise that it is clear that HMPO’s modelling failed, and we will need to address that. Likewise, there will undoubtedly be measures that we will need to take to improve the productivity and efficiency of the organisation in future. I have already said that I am considering removing HMPO’s agency status so that it can be made directly accountable to Ministers. I want to correct some of the claims that have been made in the past week or so. First, it is not true that this happened as a direct result of the decision to move the processing of overseas passport applications to the UK. HMPO and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimated that demand for overseas passport applications would be between 350,000 and 400,000 per year. Coincidentally, the surge in demand for passports represents about 350,000 more applications than last year. The vast majority of the surge is caused by domestic applications.

Secondly, it is not true that the delay in processing applications was caused by staff reductions. In fact, over the past couple of years, staff numbers in HMPO have risen, not fallen. On 31 March this year, HMPO had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff, up from 3,260 in 2013 and 3,104 in 2012.

[Yvette Cooper]

Of the 350,000 to 400,000 additional passports applied for in the past six months, what proportion is from overseas residents?

[Mrs May]

I will get the exact figure checked and give it to the right hon. Lady.

The Opposition have repeatedly compared current staffing levels with those in 2010 but, as they well know, HMPO was not just a passport office in 2010. It was called the Identity and Passport Service because of the previous Government’s plan to maintain an identity database and introduce identity cards. One of the first things this Government did in 2010 was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database. The Opposition know therefore that their comparison with 2010 does not stand up to scrutiny.

Thirdly, it is not true that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am coming close to the end of my speech.

Mark Sedwill will also be reviewing HMPO’s agency status and looking at whether HMPO should be brought back into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.

Passports are important security documents, but they are also the important means by which people live their lives. Likewise, the numbers we have talked about today are not just statistics but people who want to know that they will get their passports in time for their holidays and for other pressing travel plans. As I said, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; she has been very generous. She obviously has not been able to get the precise figure that I asked for before she sits down. I hope that the Minister for Security and Immigration will be able to get that before he stands up. As I understand it, she said that the Passport Office is experiencing 150,000 domestic applications and 9,000 overseas applications. Given the figures that she has also given us about the 2.95 million last year and the 3.3 million this year, those figures suggest that the overseas applications account for at least half the increase in applications that we have seen. Can she say whether that is the case, and will she take one final opportunity to tell us whether she will refund the extra fees that people have paid in order to get their passports on time? They have already paid the fee. Will she refund it?

[Mrs May]

Of the 3.3 million figure, about 6% are overseas applications. That is why I said what I did about the surge that has been coming through.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed. To anybody who is unable to travel because of delays caused by HMPO, the Government are sorry. It is important to remember that the vast majority of people—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have indicated to the right hon. Lady that I will get her some more precise figures—

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said that the figure had gone up from 2.95 million to 3.3 million. That is about a 10% increase. She has now said that 6% of that was overseas applications. They were not happening in previous years. Therefore, there has been only a 4% increase in domestic applications. Can she confirm those figures?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is wrong on that, which is why I suggested that it is perhaps better if I set out the figures to her in writing so that she is absolutely clear about them, rather than trying to make back of the envelope calculations in the Chamber.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of people are still receiving their passports within the expected three weeks, but the Government are putting in place measures to make sure that HMPO can process passport applications without the delays we have seen. HMPO staff are working tirelessly. The pinch points are being addressed, more staff are being trained and brought on board, and the measures I announced to the House last week are being implemented. More passports are being issued, and people who need to travel urgently can have their application fast-tracked without charge if their application has been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks.

We are not going to be able to wish this problem away or fix everything overnight, but the measures that the Government are taking mean that HMPO can get to grips with its work load, meet the demand that it is facing and make sure that the public get the service they deserve. That is why the House should vote against the Opposition’s motion and vote with the Government today.

HM Passport Office

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Passport Office.

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

Her Majesty’s Passport Office is receiving 350,000 more applications for passport applications and renewals than is normal at this time of year. This is the highest demand for 12 years. Since January, HMPO has been putting in place extra resources to try to make sure that people receive their new passports in good time, but as the House will know there are still delays in the system. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the number of straightforward passport applicants who are being dealt with outside the normal three-week waiting time is about 30,000.

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has 250 additional staff who have been transferred from back-office roles to front-line operations, and 650 additional staff to work on its customer helpline. HMPO is operating seven days a week and couriers are delivering passports within 24 hours of their being produced. From next week, HMPO is opening new office space in Liverpool to help the new staff to work on processing passport applications.

Despite those additional resources, it is clear that HMPO is still not able to process every application it receives within the normal three-week waiting time for straightforward cases. At the moment, the overwhelming majority of cases are dealt with within that time limit, but that is, of course, no consolation to applicants who are suffering delays and are worried about whether they will be able to go on their summer holidays. I understand their anxiety and the Government will do everything they can—while maintaining the security of the passport—to make sure people get their passports in time.

There is no big-bang single solution so we will take a series of measures to address the pinch points and resourcing problems that HMPO faces. First, on resources, I have agreed with the Foreign Secretary that people applying to renew passports overseas for travel to the UK will be given a 12-month extension to their existing passport. Since we are talking about extending existing passports—documents in which we can have a high degree of confidence—this relieves HMPO of having to deal with some of the most complex cases without compromising security.

Similarly, we will put in place a process so that people who are applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children can be issued with emergency travel documents for travel to the UK. Parents will still have to provide comprehensive proof that they are the parents before we will issue these documents, because we are not prepared to compromise on child protection, but again this should relieve an administrative burden on HMPO.

These changes will allow us to free up a significant number of trained HMPO officials to concentrate on other applications. In addition, HMPO will increase the number of examiners and call handlers by a further 200 staff.

Secondly, HMPO is addressing a series of process points to make sure that its systems are operating efficiently.

Thirdly, where people have an urgent need to travel, HMPO has agreed to upgrade them: that is, their application will be considered in full; it will be expedited in terms of its processing, printing and delivery; and HMPO has agreed to upgrade those people free of charge.

All these measures are designed to address the immediate problem. In the medium to long term, the answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews—[Interruption.]

[Mrs May]

As I said, in the medium to long term the answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews: first, to ensure that HMPO works as efficiently as possible, with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes; and, secondly, to consider whether HMPO’s agency status should be removed, so that it can be brought into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers, in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.

[Yvette Cooper]

This has been a sorry shambles from a sorry Department and a Home Secretary who cannot even bring herself to say that word. Government incompetence means that people are at risk of missing their holidays, their honeymoons and their business trips. Every MP has been inundated with these cases and it seems that she has not even known what was going on.

There has been a huge turnaround in the things the Home Secretary has to say since two days ago, when we asked her the same questions. On Tuesday, she told us that the Passport Office was meeting all its targets; on Wednesday, she told us that maybe it needed more staff; and today she says that maybe it needs some changes in policy too. On Tuesday, she told us there was no backlog; on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said there was. On Tuesday, she said, “it is not true” that staff numbers have been cut; on Wednesday, her own figures showed that they have been cut by 600; and now she is having to put them back.

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary told us the only problem was rising summer demand, but now we find out that she took over passports for foreign residents from the Foreign Office in April, even though diplomats warned that it was not working. On Tuesday, the Minister for Security and Immigration said that security was not being compromised, and now we find out that on Monday security checks on addresses and counter-signatories were dropped; and Ministers claim that they did not have a clue what was going on. Well, that much is certainly true.

Can the Home Secretary tell us now how bad the situation is, not only for the straightforward cases but for all the other cases, and what she means by “straightforward” cases anyway? How long will it take to get the system back to normal? When all her changes are in place, what can families across Britain expect? When did she first know there was a problem? MPs have been warning about this issue for ages. Why did she not know that those security checks were being dropped? Surely she has spent the past week asking for details about everything that has been going on. Or perhaps she has not, because the truth is that she did not know what was going on. She has come to this late. She has not had her eye on the ball. She has been distracted by other things.

It is really unfair on people who have saved up everything for their holiday, only to see it wrecked by the Home Secretary’s incompetence. Will she now apologise to those facing ruined holidays, business trips or trips back to Britain? Will she get a grip on her Department and sort it out?

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of issues. The Passport Office started to receive increased numbers of applications not just in recent weeks, but from the beginning of the year, so it took action to increase the number of staff available to deal with them. From January to May, over 97% of applicants in straightforward cases received their passport within three weeks, and over 99% received them within four weeks, but of course that means there were applicants who did not receive their passport within the normal expected time. That is why the Passport Office has been increasing the number of staff throughout this period and will continue to do so, as I have indicated.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the difference between straightforward and more complex cases. A case is straightforward when all the information is there and the application form has been properly filled in, signed and so forth. In those cases it is possible to deal with a straightforward renewal very quickly. [Interruption.] The problem comes when the right information is not there or the correct forms have not been sent in—[Interruption.]

Home Affairs

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the service provided is now under a new contract. A greater range of facilities is now available to individuals— for example, the advice phone line.

Of course, one of the key issues in dealing with modern slavery is being able to identify those who have been subject to it or to human trafficking. That is why it is so important to train our Border Force officials to spot people who may have been trafficked when they enter the country, and it is why the national referral mechanism review will crucially look at identification. At the moment we know, in a formal sense, who is referred to the NRM, but we fear that there are many more victims of slavery and/or trafficking, as I said earlier.

Crucially, more arrests and more prosecutions will mean more victims released from slavery, and more prevented from ever entering it in the first place. At the same time, we must improve and enhance protection for victims and give them the support they need to recover from their ordeal. The Modern Slavery Bill—the first of its kind in Europe—will substantially strengthen our powers to tackle this crime. It will do so by doing three things. First, it will ensure that measures are in place so that law enforcement agencies and the judiciary can crack down on offenders and give them the punishments they deserve. Secondly, it will provide vital new policing tools to help prevent further cases of modern slavery. Thirdly, it will ensure that victims receive the protection and support they deserve during the judicial process and in accessing vital victim support services.

Currently, modern slavery and human trafficking offences are spread across a number of different Acts. The Bill fixes that by consolidating and simplifying existing offences in one single piece of legislation, providing much needed clarity and focus and making the law easier to apply. Punishments will now fit the crime, with the maximum sentence available increased to life imprisonment. Slave-drivers and traffickers will have their illicit gains seized and, wherever possible, used to make reparations to victims. A new anti-slavery commissioner will drive an improved and co-ordinated response. The Bill will also introduce a statutory defence for victims who are compelled to commit a crime as a direct consequence of their slavery, alongside other measures to enhance protection and support for victims.

The Bill has benefited considerably from pre-legislative scrutiny and the detailed evidence heard during that process. I am enormously grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and other members of the Committee for their unstinting dedication and I share with them a determination to see an end to modern slavery. We have listened to the Committee’s findings and, where practicable, have put forward proposals to address its key concerns. A detailed response to its work has been published today. However, as I indicated earlier, stamping out modern slavery in Britain will require more than legislation alone. Law enforcement must play a robust and effective role in tracking down, arresting and prosecuting offenders. That is why I have made tackling modern slavery a priority for the National Crime Agency, and at our borders I have established specialist teams to help identify and protect victims being trafficked into the country.

Victims must be at the heart of everything we do, so I have ordered a review of the national referral mechanism, as I indicated in response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). Recognising the particular needs and vulnerabilities of child victims, I am putting in place trials for child advocates. The Bill gives those advocates a statutory basis and the status they need to support and represent the child effectively. We are also encouraging businesses to look at their supply chains and ensure that they are free from trafficking and exploitation.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary clarify that point about child guardians? Will the Bill include statutory provision to bring in child guardians, or simply the permissive power to do so depending on the trials, the length of which we do not know?

[Mrs May]

The Bill will provide the enabling legislation that we undertook to provide when the Immigration Act 2014 was going through this House, following an amendment made in another place. We are doing it that way because we want to see what the best model is for child advocates; there are differences of opinion over which model will work best. We are therefore including an enabling power to ensure that we adopt the best model when that becomes clear from the trials.

Extremism

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on her conduct regarding the Government’s action on preventing extremism.

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

The Government take the threat of extremism—non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism—very seriously. That is why, in line with the Prime Minister’s Munich speech in 2011, I reformed the Prevent strategy that year, and it is why, in response to the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, the Prime Minister established the extremism taskforce last year.

The Prevent strategy we inherited was deeply flawed. It confused Government policy to promote integration with Government policy to prevent terrorism. It failed to tackle the extremist ideology that undermines the cohesion of our society and inspires would-be terrorists to murder. In trying to reach those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting. Ministers and officials sometimes engaged with, and therefore leant legitimacy to, organisations and people with extremist agendas.

Unlike the old strategy, this Government’s Prevent strategy recognises and tackles the danger of non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism. Unlike the old strategy, the new strategy addresses all forms of extremism. Unlike the old strategy, there is now a clear demarcation between counter-terrorism work, which is run out of the Home Office, and the Government’s wider counter-extremist and integration work, which is co-ordinated by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Unlike the old strategy, the new strategy introduced explicit controls to make sure that public money must not be provided to extremist organisations. If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law and participation in society, we should not work with them and we should not fund them.

Turning to the issue of the unauthorised comments to the media about the Government’s approach to tackling extremism and the improper release of correspondence between Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary undertook a review to establish the facts of what happened last week. As the Cabinet Secretary and Prime Minister concluded, I did not authorise the release of my letter to the Education Secretary. Following the Cabinet Secretary’s review, the Education Secretary apologised to the Prime Minister and to Charles Farr, the director general of the office for security and counter-terrorism. In addition, in relation to further comments to The Times, my special adviser Fiona Cunningham resigned on Saturday.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Education Secretary will shortly make a statement about Birmingham schools, but last week the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary turned this instead into a public blame game about the Government’s approach to tackling extremism. There are important questions about the oversight and management of these schools, which the House will debate shortly. There are also real and separate concerns about the Government’s failure to work with communities on preventing extremism and about the narrowness of the Home Secretary’s approach.

Both issues are complex and require a thoughtful, sensitive approach and for Ministers to work together, just as Departments, communities, parents, local councils and the police need to do. Instead of showing leadership on working together, the Home Secretary and Education Secretary chose to let rip at each other in public, making it harder to get the sensible joint working we need. That is why the Home Secretary needs to answer specific questions about her conduct in this process, particularly about the letter she wrote to the Education Secretary, which the Home Office released and which has made it harder to get that joint working in place.

The Home Secretary has said that she did not authorise the publication of the letter on the Home Office website, but why did she not insist that it be removed, rather than leaving it in place on the website for three days? She wrote that letter and sent it after she had been advised that The Times newspaper had briefing from the Education Secretary. Did she write that letter in order for it to be leaked, and did she authorise its release to the media? Section 2.1 of the “Ministerial Code” makes it clear that

“the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees, including in correspondence, should be maintained.”

Did she and her Department breach the “Ministerial Code”?

Secondly, the Home Secretary made it clear in her letter that she disagreed with the Education Secretary’s approach. She said:

“The allegations relating to schools in Birmingham raise serious questions about the quality of school governance and oversight arrangements in the maintained sector”.

Does she stand by her claim that the oversight arrangements for Birmingham schools under the Education Secretary were not adequate?

Thirdly, the Home Secretary’s strategy on preventing extremism has been criticised from all sides—not just by the Education Secretary—for failing to engage with local communities and for having become too narrow, leaving gaps. She now needs to focus on getting those policies back on track, because it matters to communities across the country that there is a serious and sensible approach to these issues and joint working at the very top of the Government.

The reason why the Home Secretary needs to answer these questions about her decisions last week is to assure us that she and the Education Secretary will not put their personal reputations and ambitions ahead of making the right decisions for the country. We cannot have a repeat of the experiences of last week. It is shambolic for the Government, but it is much worse for everyone else.

[Mrs May]

On the specific allegations of extremism in schools in Birmingham and the wider question of how we confront extremism more generally, there are very important issues that I will come on to, but I should perhaps first remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few facts.

Under this Government, foreign hate preachers such as Zakir Naik and Yusuf al-Qaradawi are banned from coming to Britain. Under her Government, they were allowed to come here to give lectures and sermons, and to spread their hateful beliefs. In the case of al-Qaradawi, he was not just allowed to come here; he was literally embraced on stage by Labour’s London Mayor, Ken Livingstone.

I have excluded more foreign hate preachers than any Home Secretary before me. I have got rid of the likes of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. The Government do not give a public platform to groups that condone, or fail to distance themselves from, extremism. For the first time, we are mapping out extremists and extremist groups in the United Kingdom. We make sure that the groups we work with and fund adhere to British values, and where they do not, we do not fund them and we do not work with them. None of these things was true when the Labour party was in power.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the “Ministerial Code”. I can tell her that, as the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister concluded, I did not break the code. As she has no evidence for suggesting I did, she should withdraw any allegation of that sort.

The right hon. Lady asked about the letter, its presence on the website and why action was not taken, but action was taken immediately, because the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate, and he did.

The right hon. Lady referred to schools in Birmingham. I am afraid she will have to wait for my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to make his statement; he will do so shortly, and answer questions about school inspections and oversight arrangements.

I would just say this to the right hon. Lady: I am responsible for the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy and, within that, the Prevent strategy, but she seems to misunderstand how the Prevent strategy works, so I think I should perhaps explain it to her. The Home Office sets the Prevent strategy and it is up to the rest of Whitehall, including the Home Office, as well as the wider public sector and civil society, to deliver it. There is always more to be done, things we can improve and lessons we can learn, but we have made good progress under this Government. Yes, we need to get to the bottom of what has happened in schools in Birmingham, but it is thanks to this Education Secretary that the Department for Education has, for the first time, a dedicated extremism unit to try to stop this sort of thing happening.

The shadow Home Secretary repeated her complaint that Prevent has become too narrowly drawn under this Government, but she does not seem to realise that we took a very clear decision back in 2011 to split Prevent into the bit that tackles non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism and counter-terrorism, and the Government’s integration strategy, which is quite consciously run out of the Department for Communities and Local Government. If what she is suggesting is that Prevent and integration work should go back to being together and being confused, she needs to think again because her Government’s approach was damaging and caused a lot of resentment among many British Muslims.

As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, said at the time we made that change, it follows

“the eminently sensible objective of keeping the ‘prevent’ strand of counter-terrorism separate from the ‘integration’ initiatives of DCLG.”

He continued:

“I completely agree with what the Home Secretary has said about Prevent.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1011.]

The shadow Home Secretary should listen to her right honourable colleague.

What has happened in Birmingham is very serious indeed, and the Education Secretary will set out his response in due course. We need to do everything we can to protect children from extremism and, more generally, to confront extremism in all its forms. The Government are determined to do that. However, it is quite clear from what the shadow Home Secretary has said today that on extremism, like on so many other things, the Labour party would take us backwards, not forwards.

Stop-and-Search

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of the statement.

It is four years since the Equality and Human Rights Commission report described serious problems with the way stop-and-search was being used, describing disproportionate and inefficient use of stop-and-search and raising concerns about racial discrimination, because we know that, as the Home Secretary herself said, young people from ethnic minorities are six times more likely to be stopped. Since then there has been strong support across the House for reform, and it is welcome that the Home Secretary has finally come forward with proposals, but these proposals are extremely limited. They do not match up to her previous promises and they do not go far enough.

We all agree that the police need to have powers to stop and search individuals suspected of crime or to prevent a serious threat. Officers have to deal with serious problems such as teenagers in gangs carrying knives and organised criminals carrying guns or stolen goods or dealing deadly drugs, and intelligence-led targeting of suspected criminals helps to cut knife crime and youth murders. The right hon. Lady and I agree that too many searches, however, have not been targeted at all. Last year there were a million stop-and-searches; of those, only 10% led to an arrest. That means hundreds of thousands of stops and searches led only to resentment.

The Home Secretary and I agree that resentment creates barriers between communities and the police, particularly in ethnic minority communities that are most affected. That is bad for the innocent people who are regularly and unfairly stopped, bad for the police because it is an expensive waste of time, and bad for community safety because it undermines the very relationships we rely on for policing by consent.

The Home Secretary has powerfully described the problem, but four years on her proposals are very limited. They are welcome but they do not match the scale of the problem that she herself has described. A new assessment for police officers using stop-and-search is sensible and welcome. Revising the code of practice is fine, but it is not clear why she could not have done that straight after the EHRC report four years ago. Commissioning the College of Policing to review training is sensible, but she could have done that last July. A new “best use of stop-and-search” scheme that sounds very sensible will be only voluntary.

What about the things that we called for? Why is the Home Secretary not banning the use of targets given to police officers to stop and search a certain number of people? Why will she not put the guidance on race discrimination on a statutory basis? Why will she not insist that all forces abide by case law, rather than some? That is what she called for five months ago. She wrote to the Prime Minister in December saying that she wanted to change the law on section 60 stop-and-search

“so that the test for the power’s use is ‘necessary’ and ‘expedient’”.

We agreed, but instead all she is introducing is a voluntary scheme. She said then that she would raise the authorisation to a senior officer and strengthen the test for using the powers. We agreed. Instead, she has a voluntary scheme that forces do not even have to sign up to. Her plans have been frisked of serious substance and we need to know why the Home Secretary has backed down.

The right hon. Lady’s advisers have blamed regressive attitudes in No. 10, but why has she listened to them? She was right and they were wrong. These proposals are too weak and the Home Secretary has given in. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the voice of ethnic minority communities? Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the impact on good policing, and why is he blocking sensible reform? Why is the Prime Minister not listening to his Home Secretary?

[Mrs May]

That was a disappointing response from the shadow Home Secretary, but it was characteristic of her. She complains that we are not going far enough and seems to imply that Labour would like to go further on stop-and-search, but perhaps I could remind her of some of the facts.

When Labour was in power, overall stop-and-search powers were not curbed; they were extended. Perhaps she has forgotten the stop-and-search powers introduced by the Terrorism Act 2000—powers extended by her Government and limited by this Government. When Labour was in power, section 60 powers were not curbed; they were extended. Has she forgotten the decision to extend the reasons for the police to be able to use section 60, the extension of the time limits for section 60, or the decision to reduce the rank of the authorising officer from superintendent to inspector for authorising section 60—powers extended by her Government and now limited by this Government?

When Labour was in power the PACE codes of practice were not strengthened; they were weakened. Has the right hon. Lady forgotten the date when breaching the PACE codes ceased to be a disciplinary offence? That date was April 1999, when her party was in power. Checks and balances were weakened by her Government and strengthened by this Government. When Labour was in power, no-suspicion stop-and-search did not go down; it went up. Section 60 stops went from fewer than 8,000 in 1997-98 to 150,000 in 2008-09, but down to 5,000 last year. [Interruption.] Stops under the Terrorism Act went from 32,000 in 2002-03 to 210,000 in 2008-09, but down to zero last year. No-suspicion stop-and-search was up under her Government but down under this Government.

When Labour was in power the overall use of stop-and-search did not fall; it went up from just over 1 million in 1997-98 to more than 1.5 million in 2008-09 and down to 1 million last year, so overall stop-and-search under the right hon. Lady’s Government went up and it has gone down under this Government. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), a former policing Minister, was commenting from a sedentary position earlier. Speaking in 2008, he boasted: “We have increased stop and search powers”.

In 2007, when the Home Affairs Committee recommended:

“Alternatives to stop and search that might help the police engage better with young people should be considered”,

Labour’s Home Office replied, “We disagree.” Let us not rewrite Labour’s history when it comes to stop-and-search.

This is a serious subject. It is about the relationship between the public and the police, and it is about police time. The right hon. Lady mentioned a few issues to which I will turn. She mentioned the EHRC report from four years ago and seemed to imply that there had been no Government action since then. In fact, I have been working with HMIC, the Association of Chief Police Officers, chief constables and, in particular, the Metropolitan police since I became Home Secretary. I refer to my earlier point that the powers were extended under the right hon. Lady’s Government and have been reduced and limited under ours.

The right hon. Lady asked about the issue of officers having targets to stop and search people. I am clear that that is entirely unacceptable, and in my letter to chief constables I have told them that any such targets should be abolished.

The right hon. Lady asked about section 60 and why I was not introducing legislation now. She commented on the need to change the law so that stops can be used only when they are necessary to prevent incidents involving serious violence, rather than expedient. She obviously did not hear what I said in my statement and she obviously does not appear to know that the case law established in Roberts effectively does precisely that. There is no longer any need to legislate in that respect. The right hon. Lady commented on legislation to bring in action, but what we are doing will bring in action this summer, whereas legislation, as she well knows, would take a considerable amount of time.

The right hon. Lady talked about some of this just being voluntary. The Metropolitan police has signed up to it. I say to her that if she wants to see these changes and the “best use of stop-and-search” scheme extended, she should be encouraging the Labour police and crime commissioners in metropolitan areas to adopt these exact proposals, and I hope she will do just that.

I am afraid the right hon. Lady has just shown a complete lack of credibility on this issue as she carries on complaining and playing party politics. Whenever I have raised this subject in the past, she has said nothing about it. She only got interested in it when it appeared in the newspapers and she thought she could play party politics with it. She can play party politics, but I am interested in the national interest. I am clear that stop-and-search should be used less. It should be targeted and it needs to be used fairly. If that does not happen, we will bring back primary legislation. The difference between her party’s record and that of mine and this coalition Government is clear: we are serious about stop-and-search reform and she is not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am clear that people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 should be taken to police stations only in truly exceptional circumstances. I am pleased to say that the work we have been doing with the Department of Health and the triage pilots involving health workers going out with police officers in certain parts of the country are already bearing fruit, with fewer people being taken to police cells as a place of safety. The Health Secretary and I have already commissioned a review of the operation of sections 135 and 136 because we want to ensure that appropriate support and provision are available for people who are experiencing mental health problems, and to ensure that they are dealt with in an appropriate way.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

New figures show that in the past 15 months there has been a 7% drop in the number of sex offences being taken to court, at a time when the number of such offences being reported to the police has gone up by 16%. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 9% drop in convictions for violent crime, even though the number of recorded violent crimes fell by only 1.5%. The Home Secretary has said that her police reforms and policies are working. Why, then, are more criminals getting away with it on her watch?

[Mrs May]

I challenge the right hon. Lady’s comments. The basic issue here is that the overall number of crimes has been falling, which is why some of the figures relating to the number of people being taken to court are falling. When concerns are raised in relation to how the police are dealing with domestic and sexual violence, of course we take action to look into the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims said earlier, we have seen good movement in the figures relating to the way in which rape is being dealt with, particularly in relation to the number of successful prosecutions.

[Yvette Cooper]

But the Home Secretary’s action is not working. Fewer rape cases are going to court, as are fewer domestic violence cases, fewer child abuse cases and fewer sexual offence cases, even though the numbers of sexual offences and domestic violence and child abuse cases being reported to the police are all going up. According to analysis by the House of Commons Library, the resulting drop in convictions is the equivalent of 13,000 more violent offenders, 3,500 more sex offenders, 13,000 more domestic abusers and 700 more child abusers getting away with their crimes. This is happening on the right hon. Lady’s watch. Those are the facts. The number of cases going to court is going down in areas where the recorded crimes are going up. What is she doing about it? She is the Home Secretary. Why will she not act to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government are already taking action to tackle rogue websites which masquerade as legitimate Government services, exaggerating the nature of the services they provide or deliberately underplaying the services that people can get for free or at a lower cost from official sources. The Government Digital Service is leading a cross-government exercise with organisations such as the Advertising Standards Authority, the National Trading Standards Board, Which? and search engines to raise awareness of the issue and ensure that enforcement action is taken, where appropriate. Ministerial colleagues have also met Google to discuss the enforcement of its policies for advertising on its search results pages. Google will continue to support us by removing misleading adverts and by closing the accounts of repeat offenders.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on his promotion and his ability to generate headlines in his new job, and welcome the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) to her post in the home affairs team.

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the Lawrence family, who have had to endure further betrayal with the information from the shocking Ellison review last week. Twenty-one years after the death of Stephen Lawrence, reforms are needed so that those failures do not continue to cast a long shadow over the vital and valiant work that so many police officers do each day and, in particular, so that we can build confidence among the black and ethnic minority communities. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that the Independent Police Complaints Commission should now be replaced with a new, stronger police watchdog? Will she tell me whether she agrees with the four proposals I made in my letter to her on reforming stop and search—on section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; on section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; on race discrimination; and on banning targets?

[Mrs May]

Of course it is important that we ensure that the IPCC is able to deal with the cases of complaints against police officers. I have been concerned for some time about the fact that the police have, in effect, been investigating serious and sensitive complaints against police officers themselves. That is why I am changing the arrangements for the IPCC, increasing its resources and ensuring that in future it will be taking on the serious and sensitive cases. It is also why we have provided a number of other new powers to the IPCC to ensure that it has the capability it needs. However, as I said on Thursday, I am of course continuing to look at this issue.

I assure the right hon. Lady that we do need to look at stop and search. I have consulted on it and the Government are now finalising the package we wish to put in place in response to that consultation.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer, but given the seriousness of this, I urge her to go further and faster, both on the IPCC, which is simply not strong enough, and on stop and search. She and I agree that its targeted use is really important, but too many searches are simply not targeted at all. We have not heard anything from her since her statement in July; the critical Equality and Human Rights Commission was four years ago; and we are told now that reform is being blocked by regressive attitudes in No. 10. It turns out that the Prime Minister said before the election that he wanted to

“free the police to do far more stopping and far more searching.”

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Prime Minister or is she losing the argument within the Government?

[Mrs May]

What we all want is to ensure that stop and search, a particularly valuable tool for the police, is properly used by the police. The recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which I requested, found that the stop and search powers were not being used properly in far too high a percentage of cases—about a quarter of the cases it looked into. Stop and search is important and a very valuable tool; when it is used properly and well targeted, it has the right impact. I am pleased to say that the Metropolitan police have already started to make some changes in their operation of stop and search, which is having some impact.

Ellison Review

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement that the Home Secretary has made and the work of Mark Ellison in drawing up this extremely important but serious and disturbing review. The findings of the Ellison review are extremely troubling and the Home Secretary’s statement today is serious.

Nearly 21 years ago, a young man of 18 was killed by racist murderers. Stephen Lawrence and his family were denied justice then and it is clear that they have been denied justice ever since. The findings of the Ellison review are all the more serious because, in the 21 years since, repeated attempts have been made to get to the truth and to deliver justice but, despite all those attempts, that still has not happened. We in this House should show our support today for the Lawrence family in their continued determination to get to the truth and to justice, but we also know that no family should have to keep fighting in this way for so many decades.

Let me touch on some of the key findings that the Home Secretary has set out. First, she said that the Ellison review stated that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of the officers involved in the Lawrence investigation acted corruptly, but that has never been fully investigated. This is extremely serious and a full investigation is needed of the outstanding lines of inquiry identified by the Ellison review. I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation that this will now be looked at by the National Crime Agency, and also her confirmation that links with the Daniel Morgan inquiry will be pursued. Will she ensure—I am sure she will—that the House and the Lawrence family are kept updated with the timetable and course of this investigation?

Secondly, the Ellison review found that the full information about corruption and internal corruption investigations was not given to the Macpherson inquiry, and also that the Macpherson inquiry may have come to different conclusions as a result. It found also that the Metropolitan Police Service’s record keeping was a “cause of real concern” and that key evidence was the subject of “mass shredding” in 2003. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the NCA looks at whether information was wilfully withheld from the Macpherson inquiry or whether it was wilfully destroyed, and also looks at the wider issue of record keeping within the Metropolitan police?

The Home Secretary will be aware that we have asked before for an updated Macpherson-style review of progress since the original inquiry, because clearly a lot of changes were made as a result of the Macpherson inquiry. Does she not think this would be timely and that it would be an opportunity to look again at the conclusions of the review and whether they would have been different in the light of this further information?

Thirdly, the review found that undercover operations were carried out against those around the Lawrence family, and that information from those operations was given to those within the Metropolitan police who were involved in the legal case brought by the Lawrence family. It states:

“The reality was that N81 was, at the time, an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS.”

The review also found that the SDS, as the Home Secretary mentioned, was inappropriately and unjustifiably reporting on Duwayne Brooks. These findings are deeply disturbing. The Ellison review describes these operations as completely improper and wholly inappropriate, but the whole House will be shocked and we should condemn it in the strongest terms.

The Home Secretary is right: these revelations may mean that there have been miscarriages of justice. So I welcome her decision to instigate a public inquiry into the activities of the SDS. She will know that we have called for an inquiry into undercover policing, and it is right that there should be one. The Home Secretary is right to say that intelligence is a vital part of policing and the Ellison review says so, but it needs to be within a clear legal framework with proper safeguards in place. It is clear that that did not happen in these investigations and operations by the SDS against the Lawrence family and those linked to them at the time. We do not know how wide these miscarriages may go, but we cannot have a branch of policing that operated in this way, against the very ethos of policing and justice that it was charged with protecting and that the vast majority of police officers across the country have signed up to. Will the right hon. Lady discuss further not just with the family but with others on the Opposition Benches what form that public inquiry should take? We would welcome further discussions on that.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to keep pursuing the truth. The Macpherson review was set up to get to the truth in the first place. It is important, too, that we should also keep pursuing justice. Will she ensure that in pursuing all these lines of inquiry, consideration is given to any lines that could lead to prosecutions of the further suspects in Stephen Lawrence’s murder?

Finally, I urge the Home Secretary to consider going further in the reforms that she talked about towards the end of her remarks. There is a serious question about whether the IPCC was able to investigate in the way that the Ellison review has done when it carried out an inquiry in 2006. The IPCC is the independent body charged with such investigations and should be able to get to the truth, but it was not able to do so. It is bad for justice and for policing not to have a credible body able to get to the truth the first time round.

I agree with the Home Secretary about the importance of force-level professional standards. She will know that forces have raised concerns that resources are being transferred from force-level professional standards in corruption investigations to the IPCC. Clearly, both need to be able to do that important job.

I also ask the Home Secretary to go further on the oversight of undercover policing. Clearly that will be considered in the public inquiry, but I urge her to look, in parallel, at further safeguards. As she will know, we have previously suggested additional safeguards, including on pre-authorisation for longer-term operations, because the current oversight regime has clearly not been effective enough in preventing some of the problems that have arisen.

I also ask the Home Secretary to look at the implications for the Hillsborough inquiry. As she will know, when we had the discussion three weeks ago, we also raised concerns about whether there was inappropriate surveillance or intercept against the Hillsborough families. It is hugely important that we get to the full truth about that and that it comes out at the earliest possible opportunity.

Twenty-one years later, no one should underestimate the gravity of the institutional failure two decades ago or the seriousness of the continued institutional failure to get to the truth. The Home Secretary has rightly said that we need to get to the truth. Police officers do a vital job, helping to keep the public safe every day. They need public trust and confidence, and we all need truth and justice. Three weeks ago she made the statement about the failure of the criminal justice system to get to the truth and to get justice for the families of Hillsborough victims decades ago, and today we have heard about that failure over the murder of Stephen Lawrence decades ago.

Families should never have to wait decades to get to the truth. Everyone must recognise that, unless we get to the truth and get justice, these tragedies will continue to cast a long shadow over the vital work that our criminal justice system and the police need to do. We owe it to the families, but we also owe it to confidence in the justice system.

[Mrs May]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady’s comments on the significance of the review. Of course, as she said, it is not alone in identifying problems with how cases have been treated; the Daniel Morgan case and the results of the Hillsborough Independent Panel also revealed failings that had taken place. As she said, it is absolutely imperative, in order to ensure that there is trust and confidence in the police, which is vital for us all, that we deal with these failings appropriately and get to the truth.

As the right hon. Lady and I have said, the results of the Ellison review are truly shocking. I suspect that it will take hon. Members some time to examine all the aspects that Mark Ellison has brought out, but the extent to which the report shows that a deep failure occurred at the time of the incidents and behaviours he examined is obvious from the remarks I have made today. It is therefore necessary that we follow that up by a number of different routes.

With regard to the timetable for the further investigation I have referred to the director-general of the National Crime Agency, I will of course be happy to keep the House informed of the results and how it will be taken forward. I would expect the director-general to look at the various issues the right hon. Lady referred to when considering how the investigation should take place and what is necessary to ensure that prosecutions, if they are required, can take place.

I do not think that it will be possible for us to discuss the form of the public inquiry properly until we have seen more of the next stage of Mark Ellison’s work, which is considering the wider issue and the question of miscarriages of justice. However, I will of course want to ensure that the public inquiry has the right terms of reference and that it is able to conduct the job that we want it to do and that the Lawrence family will obviously be concerned that it does. At the right time, I think that it will be appropriate to have discussions about the form of the public inquiry and its terms of reference.

On the IPCC, as the right hon. Lady said and as I said, Mark Ellison finds that its inquiries and work were not adequate and that it did not find the corruption that is alleged to have taken place. I have already given the IPCC more resources, more power and more of a task. The right hon. Lady referred to transferring resources from professional standards departments. That is a reflection of the fact that we are transferring work to the IPCC. One concern that people have always had is about the police themselves investigating serious complaints against them. That is why we are transferring that responsibility to the IPCC and the resources to undertake it.

On the safeguards on undercover policing, we have recently made changes to enhance them so that although longer-term deployments—anything over 12 months—must be authorised by a chief constable, undercover deployments can be authorised by an assistant chief constable. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners must be notified of all deployments, so the oversight framework is already stronger.

The right hon. Lady rightly raised the concern of Hillsborough families that they may have been subject to inappropriate surveillance. I understand that a formal complaint has been made to the IPCC about that, and that it is considering how best to investigate the concerns that have been raised.

There is much still to be done. Change has taken place over the years but sadly, what we have seen today is that it is necessary to continue the inquiries and investigations to ensure that, for the sake of the family particularly and for all of us and our trust in the police, we get to the truth.

Hillsborough

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome the points she has made updating the House on the progress made in getting justice for the families of the 96 people who lost their lives at Hillsborough.

This year we approach 25 years since that dreadful day. I pay tribute, alongside the Home Secretary, to the Hillsborough Family Support Group, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope for Hillsborough, which have shown such determination in their campaign for their loved ones. None of us should underestimate the strength they have shown and what they have endured over the last quarter of a century, or how difficult it is still for them as the inquest approaches—something that no family would ever want to go through. We should show them our respect and our support in their pursuit of justice.

In October 2012, when the Home Secretary last addressed the House on the disaster, we all welcomed the independent panel report and paid tribute to the panel, led by Bishop James Jones. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the work he did to establish it, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know spoke to her about giving today’s statement, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), and colleagues in all parts of the House who continue to support their constituents in the pursuit of justice.

The list of failures exposed by the panel at that time was extensive, shocking and deeply distressing—the failure to improve the safety of the ground in the years before Hillsborough; the holding of the game at a ground without a safety certificate just four years after the Bradford fire; the failure to organise crowd safety; the failure to close the tunnel; the failure to help fans speedily; and also the failure to be honest about what happened and to investigate, and the falsehoods that were perpetuated afterwards. This House came together to make clear our view that it was a betrayal of victims and their families.

Since the panel’s report, I welcome the overturning of the original coroner’s verdict, at the instigation of the Attorney-General, and the plans to reopen the inquest next month. I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to our proposal for more powers for the IPCC and her decision to provide more resources for such a substantial investigation. I welcome the work by the Stoddart and IPCC inquiries and the substantial investigations that are under way. She is right to highlight the importance of support, including information and legal support for the families, but let me ask her some further questions about developments.

The Home Secretary will obviously know the importance of the inquest to everyone and the concern at how long everything takes. Can she assure the House, first, that the inquest will start on 31 March and that every effort is being made to ensure that all evidence and papers are in place, and that there are no further delays? Secondly, will she tell the House what more she is doing to ensure that every police force organisation and agency provides full disclosure to the Stoddart investigation and the IPCC, and does not simply wait to be asked for information? She will know the distress it has already caused to find that important and shocking information was never revealed to the independent panel—the pocket books she referred to—but also that far more police and witness statements were altered.

We have heard, for example, the disturbing testimony of one witness, who was a teenage student at the time. He told the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme that he was threatened with prosecution for complaining about failings by South Yorkshire police, saying:

“I’m a 19-year-old boy, three weeks out of Hillsborough, traumatised, and he’s threatening me that he’s going to put together a case for wasting police time because he didn’t like my evidence”.

I know that the Home Secretary would agree with me that it is a matter of deep concern that full information was not given to the panel at the time and would welcome the work done by the investigations to get more evidence since, but will she give a direction to all forces to provide all information related to the Hillsborough disaster to the two investigations?

The Home Secretary will also be aware of concern among the families about surveillance operations against families in the aftermath of the tragedy. I understand that the IPCC is not currently investigating those claims or concerns. Will the Home Secretary commit today to ordering the release of any material on surveillance, including intercept surveillance, of Hillsborough families in the aftermath of the disaster to the IPCC?

Thirdly, will she update us on the progress that has been made on the wider investigations that go beyond the inquest and on decisions on prosecutions? Clearly, the main focus of the investigations has been preparing information for the inquest, but what progress has been made in investigating criminal wrongdoing? According to what timetable does she believe files will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service from the IPCC and the Stoddart investigation?

Finally, will the Home Secretary reassure us that the IPCC will have the resources it needs and that she will ensure that the inquiries work effectively alongside each other? She will know that concerns have previously been raised about co-ordination between the inquiries. Will she keep that under review to ensure that the investigations are fully co-ordinated?

The last quarter century has been immensely difficult for the families of the 96, and they know that the coming months will be very hard, too. The House should pay tribute to them and to their faith and determination over a quarter of a century, as well as to those who have stood by them, particularly the people of Liverpool. We should strain every sinew to ensure that they get justice now.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and echo her point about how difficult it will be for the families when the inquest starts to have to relive the tragedy yet again. None of us can fully appreciate how difficult and traumatic that will be for the families and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.

As for the date of the inquest, as I said in my statement, Lord Justice Goldring has said that the fresh inquest will start on 31 March. That is obviously a matter for him and not for me as Home Secretary, but I am sure from the way he has conducted matters so far that he will recognise the significance of the inquest over which he will preside and the importance of ensuring that it goes ahead according to an appropriate timetable.

The right hon. Lady asked about disclosure, what information is available to the two investigations and what information was not made available to the panel. The panel saw some 450,000 documents from more than 80 organisations, so it did an extremely good job and, having seen all that evidence, it was able to come up with its shocking results about what had happened at Hillsborough. However, everybody has been perhaps not surprised but disappointed that further documents have emerged as a result of the two investigations, particularly the police pocket notebooks and other such documents. I have written to both Dame Anne Owers, as chairman of the IPCC, and Jon Stoddart—they are in charge of the investigations and it is up to them to amass the information they need—to ask whether they were having any problems getting material and whether it would be helpful for me to write to the chief constables of all police forces to ask them to look for any material that they might have.

The right hon. Lady asked about possible undercover operations and although no formal complaint or allegation has been made to the IPCC, it is aware of the concerns and is considering how best to address them. It is reviewing the material on Hillsborough so if it discovers any evidence in its investigation that suggests that surveillance such as that which has been suggested took place it will pursue that evidence.

I recognise, particularly given what has happened over the past 25 years, that everybody is keen to ensure that there should be no sense that the timetable is not be followed appropriately. I discussed the matter with Operation Resolve and the IPCC when I was in Warrington. They are keen to ensure that at every stage they do everything properly so that there can be no opportunity to challenge their results. We would all agree that that is appropriate, but it takes time to do that. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I am making resources available to the IPCC and we talk to it and Operation Resolve regularly about what is necessary.

I was pleased to see—I am going to use the term appropriate again—the appropriate level of co-ordination between the two investigations. They are considering separate issues, although of course the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation, and they are working together in a manner that is fit and proper, ensuring that everything that is being done is being done in a way that will ensure that people have confidence in the results when they come out, whether they result in criminal charges or other findings.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I am going to make some progress, because time is very tight.

The Home Secretary has become terrified of her own legislation. Even though Parliament has had hardly any business, she has kept the Bill away from the House and has then tried to rush it through in four hours today. We have had just four hours to debate a series of important amendments. On our proposals to tackle the impact of immigration on jobs and growth, and to take stronger action on the minimum wage and agencies that exploit immigration, there has been no debate today. On the proposals of Tory Back Benchers on Bulgaria and Romania, there has been no debate today. On the workability of the housing proposals, there has been no debate today. On the fairness of the appeal proposals, there has been no debate today. A series of amendments has been tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but none of them has been debated today.

What have we had instead? The Home Secretary pulled out of her hat, at the last minute, a new power on citizenship, with no consultation and no scrutiny, in a desperate attempt to distract her own party, but it failed. She then stood up for an hour and a half—I have to admire her resilience—to kill time, without even knowing what her position was on the key new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady was not here for the whole debate on Report, perhaps I should enlighten her on what happened. Yes, I did speak for an hour and a half, but I took a large number of interventions, including many from Labour Members.

Syrian Refugees

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We have long had cross-party agreement about humanitarian aid for those suffering in the region as a result of the dreadful conflict and crisis in Syria. I believe that now we can come together with cross-party support for helping the most vulnerable civilian refugees, too.

Compassion and common sense have prevailed over the Government’s resistance last week. Britain is rightly providing help and assistance to the majority of refugees that have claimed sanctuary in the neighbouring countries—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—and is rightly leading international efforts, but the Opposition and many others have argued for some time that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or survive in the camps: the abandoned children, torture victims, women who have been abused and those who need medical help.

We have all heard the heart-rending stories of children burnt by chemicals, families torn apart, fathers executed and mothers raped, so when the UN asked us and other countries across the world to provide sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and 18 other countries stepped forward to help it was simply wrong of Britain to refuse. It is a tribute to the support of Members from all parties in this House, to the charities that have campaigned on the subject and to the UN that the Home Secretary has bowed to the pressure before the Opposition day debate this afternoon. It is a reversal of her position last week, but she is right to have listened and I am glad that she has done so.

I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to helping the survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those who have suffered sexual violence. Let me now ask the Home Secretary a series of questions about her announcement today. First, I welcome her announcement that these places will be in addition to the places provided by the UN to the existing UN gateway and mandate programmes. Countries such as France, Finland and Austria have each agreed to take about 500 refugees, and the Netherlands 250. The right hon. Lady has not set a specific figure, but can she confirm that she expects Britain to provide similar levels of sanctuary?

Secondly, can the Home Secretary confirm that the refugees to whom Britain offers sanctuary will also have access to specialist help and support—for example, working with many of the excellent charities that help those who have suffered great trauma and abuse?

The right hon. Lady says that much of the programme will in fact be delivered by the UNHCR, and she will know that all the things she says she wants to do—the three principles she set out—are possible within the UN Syria programme. Some countries within it have set specific figures; some, such as the US, have not set what she would call a quota, but are still operating within the UN programme. So my third question is: is what she has announced effectively the UN programme, but with a different name?

Fourthly, will the Home Secretary agree to look again at her net migration target? I am sure she agrees with me that there is a world of difference between immigration policy and border control on the one hand, and giving sanctuary to those fleeing persecution on the other. Refugees are included in her net migration target; does she agree that they should no longer be?

I believe that there is now cross-party agreement in support of helping the vulnerable refugees whose lives have been wrecked by the Syrian conflict, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Britain has a long history of helping those who are fleeing terror and persecution. We should stand together in this House and support that tradition now.

[Mrs May]

I think this is an issue on which Members from all parties across the House can genuinely come together and welcome the steps—all the steps—taken by the Government to provide aid and support to those suffering from the terrible humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict in Syria.

The right hon. Lady asked several questions, the first about the numbers. We have not set a figure. As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we expect several hundred refugees to come, but we have not set a quota precisely because we want to look at particular needs.

It is particular needs that drive the answer to right hon. Lady’s second question, about specialist help and support. We will of course look to the arrangements we have used for the gateway programme, for example, to see the extent to which we will be able to relocate refugees in line with our existing structures and relationships with local authorities, but there will be people, identified on a case-by-case basis, who need very particular assistance—perhaps very particular medical assistance. We will of course seek to ensure that that is provided for those individuals.

The scheme I have announced is, I think, in the spirit of the UNHCR programme, but it is not technically part of it. The UNHCR has welcomed what we are doing—[Interruption.] I have to say to the Opposition Front Benchers that I think they are trying to make an argument where we do not need to have one. We took a very simple decision. We wanted to create a scheme that gives us greater flexibility and enables us to focus clearly on the issues on which the Government as a whole have been focusing, particularly women and girls at risk and preventing sexual violence. I hope that the whole House accepts that the scheme will offer genuine benefit to some of the most vulnerable people who have been displaced from Syria, and that it will welcome the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the Police Federation initiated the review. He wanted properly to review the federation’s role and whether it represents officers properly. Obviously, a number of key recommendations have come forward. It is important that the federation has had the review. If any changes require Home Office input, we stand ready to work with the federation on them.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary refused to come to the House to answer a question on vulnerable Syrian refugees, and sent the Immigration Minister to convey to the House her decision that Britain would not provide sanctuary to any of the vulnerable refugees, torture victims, abandoned children and others whom the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged her to help. He told us that to do so was simply a “token”. Twenty-one MPs asked the Home Office to change its position and sign up to the UN programme, and each time the Minister said no. As a result of the pressure that the Home Secretary has been put under, and in advance of the vote on Wednesday, has she listened, and is the answer now yes?

[Mrs May]

First, the United Kingdom has a fine record in terms of the amount of money we are providing in humanitarian aid—it is the largest sum of money of any of the European Union countries. We have also accepted in the past three years several thousand asylum seekers from Syria. That is another way in which we are appropriately offering support. Through the mandate programme, we have the ability to take refugees who have family connections here and whose families are willing to support them. However, I am working with the Foreign Secretary to look at what further support can be provided by the Government. Further announcements on that will be made in due course.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. As she will know, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that aid to the region is vital. The majority of people will be helped through that, but the UN and others have made it clear that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or even to survive in the camps. That is why it is so important to provide extra help. This is not an either/or.

Let me press the Home Secretary specifically on the UN programme. She will know that there is huge flexibility within the programme on the numbers of people whom Britain can offer to help, on Britain’s ability to do security checks on those coming forward, and on Britain’s ability to specify who and what kinds of refugees it can support. Will she therefore tell the House now whether she will agree in principle to sign up to the UN programme—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

This issue is of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are looking at the most appropriate way for us to provide support and enhance the support we are already giving. As I said in answer to the right hon. Lady’s first question, I am working with the Foreign Secretary, and announcements will be made in due course. She wants an answer from me today, but I can assure her that she will have a response from the Government in advance of the House considering the Opposition motion on Wednesday.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because David Anderson has consistently said:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”

As I said at the beginning of my speech, that option, without charge or prosecution, has already been struck down by the highest courts in the land.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). He specifically said that the independent reviewer has said:

“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”

to terrorism-related activity. The Home Secretary has just claimed that the Government had to get rid of relocation because it kept getting struck down by the courts, but the independent reviewer has said the complete opposite. He has said that the courts supported the principle of relocation. Will she now make clear her view: does she simply think the independent reviewer is wrong or will she now withdraw her previous comments?

[Mrs May]

I will repeat precisely what I said a few minutes ago, which is that what the right hon. Lady never tells this House is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases. The point is that she and others speak about relocation in this House as if it was never queried, but it was; in four cases it was struck down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am going to make some progress as I have taken quite a few interventions.

We continue to believe that the best place for a terrorist is behind bars. As I have said, if the police and Security Service find any individual engaging in new terrorism-related activity, the police will seek to have them prosecuted. If that is not possible, it is open to the police and Security Service to recommend that a new TPIM notice should be imposed.

In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim, I said that I would talk about the new powers that we have introduced. We have not just given extra money to the police and Security Service; we have strengthened their powers. In April last year, in a written statement to the House, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who we believe want to travel abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorist training or other fighting. That has significantly enhanced the security services’ powers in this area and the prerogative has already been used on several occasions, helping to disrupt terrorist suspects who want to travel abroad to gain skills or contacts that they could use to plot attacks in this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

In the cases of several of the six people expected to be released from TPIMs this month, the concerns raised were that they would travel abroad to be involved in terrorist activity. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether that power has been used to remove the passports of any of those who are coming off TPIMs this month?

[Mrs May]

I will not go into operational detail, but what I will say to the right hon. Lady is that it is open to the Security Service and police to make a request for the royal prerogative to be exercised in those cases where they think it is appropriate to do so.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary answered this question when she was asked about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, and specifically about his passport—she initially gave an incorrect answer to the Home Affairs Committee, which she then corrected. If she was prepared to answer a question about his passport, why is she refusing to answer legitimate questions about the attitude towards the passports of these suspects?

[Mrs May]

I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would have been able to distinguish between the information given to this House about the passport of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed and the question of whether the royal prerogative has been exercised.

Given the conflict in Syria, powers to disrupt terrorist travel are now particularly vital. The UK already has some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with suspected terrorists and those suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity, both in the UK and abroad. We will not hesitate to use every power at our disposal. If a terrorist suspect is a dual national, I will consider deprivation of their British citizenship, and the Government are considering strengthening our legal powers in that area. If a suspect is a foreign national, the Government can exclude them from the UK. This Government have excluded more foreign hate preachers than ever before.

We will further increase our efforts to remove foreign nationals from this country where they threaten our national security. After this Government finally secured the deportation of Abu Qatada—who was, of course, one of the original Belmarsh detainees—we introduced the Immigration Bill to make it easier for us to get foreign terrorist suspects out of our country. The Opposition failed to vote for that Bill on Second Reading.

As well as tackling foreign terrorist suspects, we are doing more to stop home- grown extremism. This summer, we saw events that shocked the nation, with the horrific killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich and the murder of Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham. Last month the Prime Minister announced new measures to tackle extremism, with the outcome of the extremism taskforce, which was established in the wake of those tragic events. That built on the revised Prevent strategy, which we extended to cover all forms of extremism, including non-violent extremism. We have already had success in restricting extremist speakers. Many events with extremist speakers have been referred to the police, some have been disrupted, and in other cases, venues have been persuaded not to host speakers with extreme views.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are some people whom it is not possible to deport or prosecute. That is the sentence I opened my speech with. That is precisely why we have the TPIM measures as possibilities to be used for certain individuals.

In addition to the other measures I have spoken about, more than 21,000 items of illegal terrorist content have been taken down from the internet. As I have mentioned, we have excluded more preachers of hate from this country than ever before. While some Labour politicians positively welcomed the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London, under this Government foreign hate preachers are not welcome here.

We are stopping terrorist suspects travelling abroad, we are depriving them of the option of coming back, we are deporting foreign terrorist suspects and we are doing more to tackle home-grown radicalisation.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered the basic question about whether these six men still pose a risk. Let me ask her about one of them, the man known as CD. She has told us plenty about him before and has said plenty to the courts. She told us plenty about Magag and Mohamed. Why does she not simply tell us now whether she believes that CD still poses a risk that he will pursue terrorist-related activity—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady and to the House that of those individuals who are coming off their TPIMs, the police and the Security Service have made a proper risk assessment and have put in place measures to ensure that they are dealing with those individuals in the way that they believe is appropriate. Those are decisions that they take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me the opportunity to welcome joint action at local level. I commend Wyre borough council, Lancashire police and publicans for their work. I am pleased to say that we will announce shortly a number of local alcohol action areas, which will seek to tackle alcohol-related crime and health harms, and diversify the night-time economy beyond businesses centred on selling alcohol.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary is sending our sympathy to those who have lost loved ones or been affected by the tragic helicopter crash in Glasgow. We pay tribute to the emergency services who are still working hard to help people.

The Home Secretary will be aware that before the election the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape, domestic violence and child abuse was going up year on year as a result of the bravery of victims and hard work by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Government agencies and support workers. The police recognised today that the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape has fallen since the election, even though more crimes are being recorded. The number of cases being referred by the police to the courts has dropped by 33% since the election. Will she tell the House why that has happened?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the figures; they are a concern and the Government are looking at them. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention will be taking this issue forward. As he said in response to an earlier question, there was a meeting at the Home Office between Ministers and the Director of Public Prosecutions a couple of months or so ago to look at the issue and find out where the problem lies. Historic incidents are now being reported— we have seen a number of reports of claims of crimes in relation to Operation Yewtree and others—but it is right that we look carefully to ascertain what the issue is. That is exactly what the Minister for Crime Prevention will be doing when he takes this matter forward with the incoming Director of Public Prosecutions later this week.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to say that there seem to be a lot of meetings that are just not working. The trouble is that this is not just about rape: prosecutions and convictions are down for domestic violence and child abuse, too, even though the number of reported crimes in those areas is also increasing. The police are referring 13% fewer domestic violence cases and 28% fewer child abuse cases to the courts since the election, before which the figures were going up. Those are shocking figures: there are more crimes and more serious offenders are getting away with it. The police are being hollowed out and specialist units cut. The Home Secretary said three years ago that tackling violence against women was her priority. I urge her to start treating it as such.

[Mrs May]

I note that we are seeing higher conviction rates for rape, and we should all welcome that. I tried to answer the right hon. Lady’s question in a way that was serious and sensible. This is a matter that we need to be concerned about and consider, but we cannot know what the answer is until we have identified why, for example, we have seen fewer referrals from the police. Until we—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is muttering from a sedentary position and making certain assumptions. I take a simple view: it is right and proper to consider the causes behind these figures. Only when we do that will we be able to ensure that the action we take will address the issue. I repeat that she must recognise, as I am sure she does, that the figures for higher reports of violence and abuse include a significant increase as a result of historical operations—

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on Romanian and Bulgarian accession.

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

In June 2005, the previous Government signed accession treaties with Romania and Bulgaria, and in doing so they granted all Romanians and Bulgarians the right to come to Britain. The treaties came into effect in 2007, and as a result the seven-year transitional controls relating to free movement will end on 1 January 2014. From that date, Romanians and Bulgarians will have the right to largely unrestricted free movement across Europe.

Unlike the previous Government, who chose not to apply the transitional controls for countries such as Poland and Hungary in 2004, this Government are doing everything we can to ensure that we are prepared for this latest extension in EU free movement rights. First, we are making use of the full seven years available to us to impose transitional controls, something the Labour party failed to do in 2004, which meant that Britain was the only major economy in Europe to grant full access to its labour market to millions of Poles, Hungarians and others.

Secondly, we are tightening the European immigration regulations to ensure that we do not gold-plate EU free movement rules. We are therefore amending the regulations to create a statutory presumption that a European’s right to reside here ends after six months unless they can prove that they are actively seeking work and stand a real chance of finding it.

Thirdly, we are taking action to limit the pull factors that attract people to come to Britain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is introducing a three-month delay before a European jobseeker can claim benefits and a new minimum earnings threshold to ensure that EU nationals are genuinely working in the UK before they can access benefits. He is also developing a tougher six-month test to assess whether benefit claimants have a genuine chance of finding work. That will apply to all EU nationals who come here to look for work and those who have already worked here. Those changes will come into effect as soon as possible in the new year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is ensuring that, wherever possible, the NHS claims back the cost of treating Europeans from their home country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will issue new statutory guidance to ensure that local authorities set a residency requirement, or a minimum period of residence in a community, before a person qualifies for social housing.

Fourthly, we are ensuring that there is a full and proper operational response to the challenges brought by that extension in free movement. We are working with the police, local authorities and other agencies to identify Europeans who are rough-sleeping and not exercising their treaty right to be in the UK. Where appropriate, those people will be removed. We are also changing the European immigration regulations to introduce a 12-month bar on their return to Britain, unless they can prove that they have a proper reason to be here.

Fifthly, I have lobbied other member states in the Council of Ministers about the abuse of free movement, and there is a growing coalition of support for change. In April this year, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, along with Britain, wrote to the European presidency and the Commission to make the case for change. Although I am pleased that the European Commission has at long last admitted that there is a problem, it is still refusing to do anything meaningful about it.

Those are the measures we are taking to prepare us for the extension of free movement in January, but in the long term there is much more we need to do. The Prime Minister made it clear at the beginning of the year that any future Government he leads will seek to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU before we hold a referendum, and that referendum will ask the people whether we should be in or out. As I have made clear in the past and reiterate today, that renegotiation must address the problems caused by free movement. Now, in her reply, the shadow Home Secretary needs to tell the House whether she agrees with that renegotiation and referendum and whether she agrees that the renegotiation must address the problems caused by free movement.

[Yvette Cooper]

For generations, people have come to this country and worked hard to contribute to Britain, building some of our biggest businesses and even becoming Olympic medal winners, but the principle of contribution is an important one, and the controls on immigration must be fair to those who live here. That is why we called for stronger restrictions on benefits for new arrivals from the EU, including proposals eight months ago to strengthen the habitual residence test to make it clear that people should not be able to claim benefits when they first arrive. We also said that the framework for the free movement of labour should be looked at again.

At the time, the Government dismissed those proposals, but eight months later they have changed their minds. That is welcome, but will the Home Secretary say why she did not bring those proposals forward at the time? It is now the end of November, and accession for Romania and Bulgaria will occur in a month’s time, so will she tell the House which of these measures will be in place by the beginning of January, when the transitional controls for Romania and Bulgaria end? Will the restrictions on jobseeker’s allowance be in by January? Will the housing benefit restrictions be in by January? Will the minimum wage fines be in place by January? If not, why not? We called for these proposals eight months ago, so why the delay?

We all agree that transitional arrangements should have been in place for the A8 countries. At the time, the Conservative party voted for A8 accession even without transitional arrangements. The Home Secretary’s party also supported the Romanian and Bulgarian accession agreement. The Prime Minister has today claimed that the rules on transitional controls should have been changed at that time, but he did not argue for changing transitional controls then and failed to do anything about changing transitional controls when this Government endorsed Croatian accession in 2011 with exactly the same transitional control rules in place. Will she explain why the Prime Minister failed to act in 2011, given what he has said today?

Neither are the Government doing anything about the impact of accession on the workplace. Most people from Europe come to Britain to work, not to claim benefits, and 1 million British citizens live and work elsewhere in Europe too, yet there is a serious problem of low-skilled migrant workers being exploited, undercutting local workers and responsible businesses too. That is bad for everyone, yet she is doing nothing about it. We have urged her to take action, against recruitment agencies that target only foreign workers; against factories that segregate shifts by nationality; against the loophole in the minimum wage that means migrant workers are put into overcrowded tied accommodation to get round the rules; and against employers in the care sector, for example, who have recruited heavily from abroad but failed to train or to pay the minimum wage. Each time she has refused, so what is the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister doing to address those problems for wages and jobs? Nothing.

All parties should take a responsible approach to immigration. We will not enter an arms race of rhetoric. Instead, we need practical measures to address people’s concerns. We are glad that the Prime Minister has adopted our proposals on benefit restrictions, but the Government should not have delayed them for eight months so that they will not be in place for January. It is not enough, either. They need to take action over jobs and wages now.

[Mrs May]

The hypocrisy of the Labour party is absolutely staggering. [Hon. Members: “Out of order!”] The party that despite all the evidence and expert advice—[Hon. Members: “Out of order!”]

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Parliament will be deeply concerned about the Home Secretary’s statement. Obviously, all hon. Members want the police and the Security Service to have all possible help to apprehend Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed as soon as possible. The Home Secretary says that Mr Mohamed poses no direct threat, even though he is widely reported in the media to have attended terror training camps, procured weapons and planned attacks. He has walked away from a terror suspect order in a very simple disguise, and the Home Secretary has no idea where he is. He is the second man in 10 months who has absconded while subject to a TPIM. There were only 10 such men to begin with, and two have now gone: one in a black cab and one in a disguise. The Opposition called for controls to be tightened, for the legislation to be revisited and for lessons to be learned. None of that has happened. The Home Secretary has done nothing.

Since control orders were strengthened some years ago, no one absconded—since 2007. Lord Carlile, the former counter-terror reviewer, has said:

“nobody absconded while subject to a relocation order”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2013; Vol. 742, c. 20.]

However, since the Home Secretary got rid of relocation orders and control orders and introduced the weaker TPIMs, two terror suspects have vanished. Ibrahim Magag was previously relocated to the west country. The Home Secretary’s decision brought him back, and he disappeared. Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed was previously relocated outside London. The Home Secretary’s decision brought him back and he, too, has disappeared. Her policies brought those two terror suspects back into contact with their old networks and with people who could help them to disappear, and made it easier for them to run off.

Last time the Home Secretary said there was plenty of money for the added surveillance needed, so was Mr Mohamed under active surveillance when he entered the mosque, or was it just ordinary CCTV? His case was in court on Friday—he was accused of tampering with his tag—but why did the Government drop the case? Were the tags faulty? Were there other charges?

The Home Secretary said that Mr Mohamed was under a TPIM to stop him travelling overseas. What did she plan to do next year when his and all the other TPIMs ran out?

TPIMs apply to a very small number of difficult cases. Everyone recognises that there is no perfect answer and that there will always be challenges, but this Home Secretary has made it easier for serious terror suspects to disappear. That is irresponsible. She was warned about changing the law and weakening controls. She was warned that more people would abscond and they have done so—twice—but still she will not act. The question on everyone’s lips is: how many more warnings does the Home Secretary need?

[Mrs May]

This is a serious issue, but the right hon. Lady’s response was beneath somebody who is supposed to understand these matters.

The right hon. Lady referred to the money available for surveillance. I understand that she briefed Sky News this morning that she would tell the House of Commons that there have been cuts to the funding for monitoring and surveillance. I notice that she has dropped that from her argument, because the truth, as she well knows, is that as part of the TPIM package the Government introduced in 2011 we did not cut the surveillance budget for the police and Security Service but increased it—by tens of millions of pounds per year. We did not cut the budgets for counter-terrorism, policing and the security service; we protected them.

The right hon. Lady asked about the lessons learned from the Magag case. I can confirm that there was a review of that case, which was shared with David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who mentioned it in his annual review. All the recommendations of that review have been acted on. I can also confirm that a similar review will be conducted of this case.

The right hon. Lady referred to the changes in TPIMs. They are, of course, time-limited, but time limits have nothing to do with this case, as the subject was still bound by the terms of his TPIM. What she never tells the House when she makes this point is that 43 people who were subject to control orders have now exited those control orders. The truth is that even before time-limited TPIMs were introduced, the courts would not allow people to be left permanently on control orders. When the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was asked whether he had concerns about time limits, he said:

“I do not think so.”

[Yvette Cooper]

What about relocations?

[Mrs May]

I will come on to the relocations.

The right hon. Lady talked about tagging. GPS tags are used to provide information on the location of TPIM subjects and the tags that are used for TPIMs are significantly better than the ones they replaced, which had no ability to track subjects outside their homes. In this case, the police believe that the tag functioned exactly as it should have done, but it will be one of the aspects considered as part of the review of the case, and I should tell the House that I have been advised that this abscond does not raise any new operational issues with the tags.

The right hon. Lady also talked about relocation, but she knows that if someone is determined to break the terms of their TPIM or control order, there is little to stop them doing so in one place or another. David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people up in a high security prison.”

Unless the right hon. Lady is proposing the introduction of such draconian laws—and I thought she had conceded long ago that 90 days was too long—she should accept what David Anderson says. There will always be the risk of an abscond.

The shadow Home Secretary talked about the control order regime as though it never allowed any absconding by its subjects, but during the six years that control orders existed, there were seven absconds and only one of those seven people was ever found again. The idea that somehow control orders prevented absconds is not true. Even if we wanted to go back to the days of control orders, we would not be able to do so. The powers available under control orders were being steadily eroded by the courts, and the system was becoming unviable. Unlike control orders, TPIMs have been upheld consistently by the courts, so we now have a strong and sustainable legal framework to handle terror suspects.

The police and security service have always said that there has been no substantial increase in overall risk since the introduction of TPIMs, and despite the implication of what the right hon. Lady said, we have increased by tens of millions of pounds the annual budget for surveillance by the police and security service—and we have also given them new powers. In April this year, in a written statement, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals whom we want to prevent from travelling abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorism training or other fighting. That power has already been used on several occasions since it was introduced. As for foreign nationals, the Immigration Bill will make it easier for us to get them out of the country, By the way, the Opposition failed to vote for that Bill on Second Reading.

The idea that under this Government the police and Security Service have fewer powers to keep us safe is just wrong. The idea that they have less money to keep us safe is wrong. The right hon. Lady should take her responsibilities seriously and support the police and Security Service in the important work that they do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in the Immigration Bill, we will ensure not only that a better process will be put in place to deal with situations where people come here for a very short time, use the NHS and should be charged but the charges are not being retrieved, but that those who come for a temporary period and may use the NHS will actually contribute to the NHS. That is only fair to hard-working people up and down the country. We will be looking, in particular, at the issue of students, and we have been very clear that we will set the surcharge for the use of the NHS at a rate that is competitive, because a number of other countries across the world do exactly this and at a higher charge.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in thanking the police and all the emergency services for their excellent work in response to today’s storm. I know that the House will also want to send sympathies to the families of those who are reported to have tragically lost their lives as a result of the storm.

It is because the police do such a valued and vital job that it is also important to have effective investigations when things go wrong, so that they do not cast a shadow over the excellent work that so many police officers do each day. So does the Home Secretary agree that in order to do that, it is time to replace the police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, with a new organisation with stronger powers?

[Mrs May]

I join the shadow Home Secretary in sending condolences to the families and friends of those who, it is reported, have lost their lives as a result of the storm, and she is right in saying that the whole House will wish to pass our sympathies on to those who have lost loved ones. On her question, I think it is right that we beef up the IPCC—that we give it a greater ability to deal with serious and sensitive cases and complaints that have been made against the police, rather than seeing so many of those complaints referred back to the police for their investigation. I think the public are concerned at the number of cases where they see the police investigating themselves, and the Government are committed to increasing resources at the IPCC. We have given it new powers and, if necessary, we will continue to do that.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary’s response is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Let us consider some of the problems we have seen for the IPCC. So far, the IPCC has proved that it is powerless to direct action in the case of West Mercia police; it is powerless to get seven former police officers to come to interview over Hillsborough; and it is unable to keep the confidence of families over the Mark Duggan case, over undercover policing and Stephen Lawrence, or over the death of Ian Tomlinson. Surely the Home Secretary agrees that the public need to have confidence not only in the police, but in the watchdog, in order for an effective job to be done? The resources are not sufficient, and the watchdog needs the powers to be able to launch its own investigations and ensure that lessons are learnt. That is the best way to ensure that a shadow is not cast over the excellent work the police do. We have been urging her to do this for more than a year now, so why will she not introduce these reforms to give the watchdog the much stronger powers that it needs?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows full well that not only the issue of the investigation of complaints against the police, but the whole question of the integrity of the police goes further than simply the IPCC. We have taken a number of steps: for example, the register of struck-off police officers, which will be introduced as a result of action taken by this Government. It is exactly the sort of thing that would have helped in respect of the police officer involved in the issue relating to the Ian Tomlinson death, to which she referred. This Government are taking action on the IPCC. We are going to increase the resources, we are increasing the powers for the IPCC and we will ensure that it will be investigating the serious and sensitive cases which currently are passed back to the police. I think it is right that these investigations are done by a body that is not the police themselves.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

As we have said before, the problem with a net migration target is that it encourages more British people to leave the country or to remain in other countries. The Prime Minister has promised—no ifs, no buts—that he would reach the net migration target of tens of thousands by the time of the election. On the Government’s own figures, net migration is going up.

We believe that the pace of migration matters. It is right to support measures that will bring the level of migration down, but we must also have serious measures to tackle illegal immigration and to ensure that the system is fair, including in its impact on employment and the workplace.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us whether she regrets using the divisive ad vans in the first place.

[Mrs May]

I have already answered a question about the ad vans. Given that the shadow Home Secretary has not answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) asked about net migration, perhaps she will answer my question. Does she accept that the level of migration under the last Labour Government was too high?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said that the pace of migration was too fast. It is right to have measures to bring the level down. We have said that many times. The Home Secretary has had every opportunity to apologise for the divisive ad vans, which she has admitted were a serious problem. I will give her another opportunity to intervene to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to make some progress on the measures that are in the Bill, even though a lot of the measures that we need to tackle illegal immigration are not in it. Let us consider the Bill before us. Some measures are sensible and we will support them. Some are confused and we await illumination on how the Government plan to make them work. Some areas raise genuine concerns, and in other areas the Government are not going far enough, particularly on the labour market and on illegal immigration.

I am glad that the Bill includes stronger action against sham marriages. Indeed, we called for those measures. Like the Government, we listened to the concerns of registrars about cases where they feared abuse, but had too little time to ensure that investigations took place. We also called for stronger enforcement powers for UK Border Force officials. The problem is that the UK Border Agency does not use the powers it has in practice at the moment and enforcement has been getting worse.

The Home Secretary talked about biometrics. We agree that there are some loopholes that should be closed for taking fingerprints, but she needs to explain why her Home Office Ministers endorsed stopping the fingerprinting of stowaways at Calais. This is not about a loophole in the law; it is about a loophole in practice that we raised with Ministers two-and-a-half years ago and which they refused to do anything about.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the Home Secretary if she can explain why, two-and-a-half years ago when this was raised with her, the Home Office Minister agreed that it was right for UKBA not to fingerprint stowaways at Calais.

[Mrs May]

I suggest that the right hon. Lady checks her facts, because I believe the decision not to fingerprint clandestines at the juxtaposed controls was actually taken before the 2010 general election.

[Yvette Cooper]

And I suggest that the Home Secretary checks her facts, because in April 2011 we raised with Home Office Ministers the importance of restoring fingerprinting to Calais, which border officials had chosen to do. Two-and-a-half years ago, she refused to do that and she has continued to refuse to do that, and her Home Office Ministers said that was the right thing to do. I will let her intervene again if she will tell me that she will now, two-and-a-half years later, restore the fingerprinting of stowaways to Calais. Will she restore the decision to do fingerprinting at Calais? The Home Secretary is refusing, repeatedly, to restore the fingerprinting of stowaways at Calais, despite the fact that we have raised this with her and other Home Office Ministers repeatedly. Her Home Office Ministers have endorsed the decision not to have fingerprinting at Calais, not to be able to check illegal immigration and not to be able to follow up when people attempt to return to this country.

We support measures to restrict access to British driving licences for those who are here illegally. In fact, we introduced those measures. As the Government have admitted, the changes were mostly brought in before the general election, but we are happy to support them all over again. It is also sensible to have stronger checks on bank accounts.

There has been a principle stretching back over 30 years that overseas visitors should contribute for using the NHS. We will therefore support sensible contributions to the NHS from visa payments, and it would be helpful for Ministers to confirm that such payments will go to the NHS. It would also be helpful if Ministers confirmed whether they have dropped proposals for GPs to have to implement the same kinds of checks as private landlords before letting pregnant women see a midwife, or giving children the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination—both issues that doctors have raised as public health concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter, and our response to this atrocious crime constantly evolves as the threats change. That includes understanding where the organised crime groups are operating and where vulnerable people are being exploited. UK law enforcement agencies are working closely with their counterparts in priority source countries, through joint investigation teams, supporting prosecutions in other jurisdictions, and providing training to judges, and I am happy to tell him that in each of the countries that he has specifically mentioned there has been cross-border work with law enforcement agencies and others.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I join the Home Secretary in condemning the attack near the mosque in Tipton? It is vital that we do not let extremists divide us with their brutal and appalling acts.

Does the Home Secretary believe that it is acceptable that in many police force areas people who ring 999 in a serious emergency now have to wait over 10% longer for the police to arrive?

[Mrs May]

What I am pleased to see is the way in which police forces up and down the country are maintaining their response capabilities and enhancing neighbourhood police teams and their ability to respond in a variety of ways to events that take place. It is clear that the proportion of police officers in front-line roles is increasing.

[Yvette Cooper]

Except that it clearly is not. More than 7,000 police officers have gone from first response, which includes 999, neighbourhood police and traffic cops. Now we are seeing evidence of increasing delays in 2012 compared to the previous year—a 10% increase in West Mercia, an 18% increase in Wiltshire, and in Devon and Cornwall a 25% increase in waits for the police to arrive. What does the Home Secretary have to say to victims, whether of knife crime, domestic violence or burglary, who have to wait longer as a result of her decisions? She promised that the front line would not be hit. Will she now withdraw that promise and accept that the front line is being hit and the police service is being hollowed out as a result?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is very well aware that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made it clear that the front line in policing is being protected. I note that no Member on the Opposition Benches, be it the shadow Home Secretary or any other hon. Member, welcomes the 10% fall in crime that we have seen since the general election.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

So, after three years of briefing and trying to brandish her anti-European credentials, the Home Secretary has been forced to admit the truth: Britain does need the European arrest warrant, it does need joint investigation teams, Europol, the exchange of criminal records and help to tackle online child abuse. Why, then, did she and Members of her party all vote against all those measures just four weeks ago? Why has it taken the Home Secretary three years to realise that we do not want to go back to the days of the costa del crime, when British criminals could flee to Spain or European criminals could find safe haven here?

Last year the Government briefed The Sun that they would opt out of the European arrest warrant, opt out of the European evidence warrant and opt out of action against counterfeiting. Now the right hon. Lady admits that she needs them and she is going to do the opposite. The Prime Minister described the European arrest warrant as “highly objectionable” and the Fresh Start group wanted to stay out of everything, but the Home Secretary has had to admit what we and the police have argued from the start—we need the European arrest warrant in the fight against crime. We agree with reforming the European arrest warrant to make it proportionate, but as she has just shown, she does not need to opt out of working with Europe in order to do that.

The Home Secretary said very little in her statement about what she wants to opt out of or why, so let us look at the detail. Some of those measures have been replaced already, some do not operate any more, some we have never used anyway and do not have to, and others are just agreements to co-operate and we will carry on co-operating anyway. She is opting out of a directory of specialist counter-terror officers, which no longer exists anyway; a temporary system of dealing with counterfeit documents, which has been replaced anyway; a load of rules applying specifically to Portugal, Spain and Croatia, which do not apply in the UK; and a directory of contacts of extradition experts in each country. This is hardly a triumph of repatriation.

The Home Secretary has tried to play Britannia, clothing herself in the Union Jack, parading powers that she is repatriating from Brussels, but where is the substance? The truth is that she is not wearing a flag; it is simply a fig leaf. As for next week’s vote, she told the House that this was

“an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly”—[Official Report, 12 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 421.]

Yet she wants Parliament to vote on her proposals in six days’ time. She promised the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee that they would be able to scrutinise the list and she has given them three working days to do so. She has been thinking about it for three years.

We will look at the right hon. Lady’s list and her motion for next week, but this is the wrong strategy—the wrong way to make serious policy on crime and justice. Where are the guarantees that we will be able to opt back into the serious measures we need, even the 35 measures that she supports? Where is the guarantee that we will be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and the criminal records that she has now admitted we need? Presumably she has those guarantees. She told the House that she was starting negotiations with the Commission last October, so given how much is at stake in the fight against crime, I presume she has done a deal with the European Commissioner that we will definitely be able to opt back into those measures. Where is it?

Ministers have said that this will be a difficult negotiation, and we must not put those important powers at risk for the sake of opting out of a few contact lists. We must not make it easier for European criminals to hide here if we lose the European arrest warrant. We have just spent eight years trying to get rid of Abu Qatada. We do not want to make it easier for European criminals to stay here, so let the Home Secretary answer just two questions: will we be able to opt back into the European arrest warrant? Has she got a guarantee that we will be able to do so, and if we do not get that guarantee, will she ditch her whole opt-out plan? Without those guarantees this is a dangerous strategy that puts the fight against crime at risk.

The Home Secretary is putting politics before the fight against crime, but this is not a game. Crime does not stop at the channel. This is about whether we can stop dangerous criminals fleeing abroad and whether we can send foreign criminals back to face justice at home. This is about whether we can work with Europe on trafficking and child abuse, so where is the guarantee that this Home Secretary is not putting that serious fight against crime at risk?

[Mrs May]

Oh dear, oh dear. The right hon. Lady had an opportunity to come to the House and enter into a serious exchange about our ability to operate on a cross-border basis, catch criminals, and keep British citizens safe. She also had the opportunity to indicate whether the Opposition believe it right that we give greater safeguards and protections to British citizens in the operation of the European arrest warrant. Instead, we got a rant that did nothing other than expose the considerable confusion that lies at the heart of the Labour party on this issue.

The right hon. Lady asks whether we have guarantees for the negotiation, and complains about the negotiation process. Who negotiated this opt-out in the Lisbon treaty? It was not either of the coalition parties; the Labour party negotiated the opt-out, so any failings in how it operates are entirely down to the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Abu Qatada (Deportation)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The entire House should strongly welcome the work that the Home Secretary and her junior Minister have done to get Abu Qatada finally on a plane back to Jordan to stand fair trial. This is a good result for not just the Home Secretary, but the country. In his home country, Abu Qatada stands accused of plotting terror attacks against a school and tourists, and it is right that he should stand trial for those offences and for justice to be done.

After Abu Qatada was granted asylum in this country in 1994, he began preaching hatred and praising terror attacks. He is a dangerous man whose values we in this Parliament condemn, and that is why successive Home Secretaries—Labour and Conservative—have worked to deport him with the cross-party support of the House and that of the country. I strongly welcome the work of the Home Office and the Foreign Office to keep pursuing the case over many years, and we should also welcome the work of the Jordanian Government and Parliament to pass the treaties that were needed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) agreed the first memorandum of understanding with Jordan in 2005, which led to the agreement of the British courts that Abu Qatada could be deported without the threat of torture, and the Home Secretary rightly built on that agreement after the 2012 European Court judgment. She was also right to pursue the legal route, rather than listening to those who urged her to ignore the law. Without the rule of law, we are not free.

We should be in no doubt, however, that the case has taken far too long, so change is needed to deal with such unacceptable and costly delays. The attempt to deport Abu Qatada started in 2005. It took three years for his case to reach the Court of Appeal, another year for it to reach the Law Lords and a further three years for it to reach the European Court, and it is a further 18 months since then. That is far too long—too long in the British courts and then too long in the European Court.

We will examine the Home Secretary’s proposal that layers of appeal should be removed for immigration cases, because we believe that the process needs to be speeded up and that slow justice is in no one’s interests, but I urge her and the Secretary of State for Justice to consider the practical and administrative reasons why such cases take so long. The European Court now has a backlog of 150,000 cases and badly needs major reform. However, Ministers promised progress while Britain chaired the Council of Europe, yet little of substance was achieved. The borders inspectorate has said that a quarter of foreign criminals are sent home and a third are given leave to remain, but that 40% are not deported simply for administrative and bureaucratic reasons, so those cases need to be tackled.

The Home Secretary referred to the qualified right to a family life under article 8 which can be used in immigration cases, on which we have supported the Government, although that was clearly not the issue in the Abu Qatada case. She concluded by saying that she wanted to abolish the Human Rights Act and to consider withdrawing from the European convention, yet she herself has drawn on the Human Rights Act. She used it to prevent Gary McKinnon from being deported to the USA, but without the Act, she would have had no legal justification for doing so. It is unclear whether she wants no Bill of Rights at all, which would consequently mean that there would be little restriction on what the Home Secretary’s decisions could be, but will she confirm that the Government’s commission on a draft British Bill of Rights has replicated article 3 of the Human Rights Act, on the absolute prohibition of torture? As she knows, the central issue in the Abu Qatada case was always torture, which is something that we in Britain have always abhorred, so ditching the Human Rights Act and replacing it with her British Bill of Rights would have made no difference in that case.

The Home Secretary made much in her statement of the importance for us, as a civilised nation, of not acting outside the law. However, if we were to resile from the European convention, what signal would it send to those countries that we are trying to persuade to adopt higher standards of human rights and to follow the convention, such as Russia, regarding the criminal justice system, and Turkey, regarding the treatment of Kurds?

The Government have done immensely important work in the Abu Qatada case: deporting a dangerous man; delivering new legal deportation agreements so that we can remove people to Jordan and elsewhere, with new protection against torture in Jordan; and showing the British Government’s determination to pursue what is right while respecting the rule of law and having no truck with torture. The Home Secretary rightly claimed credit for all those things in her statement, and reforms are needed to deal with the problems of this case. We are pleased that Abu Qatada has finally been deported and we cannot have such delays in the future, but she should put forward her reforms without ripping up the things that she has just achieved.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the references that she made to the success in deporting Abu Qatada, and for saying that the Labour Opposition will look very seriously at the proposals that we bring forward in the immigration Bill. The Opposition supported changes to the immigration rules in relation to the interpretation of article 8, and we were grateful to them for that. Sadly, a number of judges have not heard Parliament in the way that all of us hoped. I hope that we will have support on the immigration Bill, because I think these changes are important.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the administrative reasons for the lack of deportation, and issues around the speed with which these cases are dealt with in the courts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is looking at that issue, because we all want to make sure that we can deal with these cases properly—with people having proper rights of appeal, so that we can ensure that their case is heard—but can deport people rather more quickly.

The right hon. Lady then sadly spent quite a bit of her response on the Human Rights Act, my views on it, and what might happen in the future in relation to it. I make two points in response. First, what she fails to appreciate is the concern that Government Members have about the role of Parliament in setting laws that operate in the United Kingdom. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in relation to the European Court and its ability to deal with cases that are taken through the courts in the UK. Secondly, she rather churlishly suggested that nothing happened when we chaired the Council of Europe. A considerable amount of work was put in by the former Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and others, and it led to the Brighton declaration, which is bringing about change in the way in which the European Court operates, so that is another success for this Government, who took that opportunity to make some changes.

My final point is very simple. Members of the public cannot understand why, under the human rights laws that we currently operate, somebody who is a threat to this country is able to remain in it, year after year, without being deported. Frankly, if the right hon. Lady cannot understand that, she simply does not get it, and will not get an opportunity to be on the Government side of the House.

Stop and Search

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She has not given me a copy of the consultation, so I have not seen its proposals, but I do welcome the principles behind it. I agree with the Home Secretary that the stop-and-search powers are important and can help the police tackle serious problems. However, the way in which they have been used has raised serious concerns about, for example, the scale of use, the lack of intelligence-led approaches and the disproportionate use against ethnic minorities and the potential waste of money.

Stop-and-search powers are useful for the police—for example, enabling them to search for weapons or stolen goods without needing to arrest someone. The Home Secretary knows about Operation Blunt, run by the Met in 2009, which delivered a 13% reduction in knife crime and a 23% reduction in youth killings and seized over 1,000 knives and which did use intelligence-led stop and search as part of that strategy. People have been arrested for possession of guns, knives and other offensive weapons as a result of stop and search, too. But where stop and search is used inappropriately or too widely, it can cause a very wide range of serious problems.

Given the relatively low proportion of searches that lead to arrest, I welcome the work that has been done to reduce the number of stop and searches, which has fallen since 2008. I welcome the work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, to restrict inappropriate use, which helped deliver an initial 10% reduction in stop and searches. I also welcome the decision by the Home Secretary to restrict and change section 44 stops and searches. I welcome the decision of the Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, to restrict section 60 stops and searches and some of the work that he has done since then.

However, I think that it is right to go further, especially in the light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on stop and search three years ago. The Home Secretary knows that that report found that

“some forces are using their powers disproportionately suggesting they are stopping and searching individuals in a way that is discriminatory, inefficient, and a waste of public money.”

It also found:

“The evidence points to racial discrimination being a significant reason why black and Asian people are more likely to be stopped and searched”.

It concluded:

“A reduction in disproportionality does not have to result in a rise in crime—on the contrary in the case of both Staffordshire and Cleveland”

where the EHRC worked with those forces,

“it has gone hand in hand with reduced crime rates and increased levels of public confidence in the police.”

Will the Home Secretary set out what has been done since the EHRC reported in 2010 to address the concerns that it raised?

The Home Secretary announced after the 2011 riots that she had asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to review stop and search. Has that review happened and will she publish the results?

Does the Home Secretary share my concern that that proportion of stops and searches that lead to an arrest has fallen, not risen, in the past five years? Previously, 12% of searches led to an arrest; now, a proportion of 9% is more likely. The right hon. Lady did not set out any specific proposals in her statement. What proposals in her consultation might make a difference to those figures and tackle the problem of searches being disproportionately targeted at ethnic minorities? Some of the figures that she quoted are seriously worrying. She will know that the EHRC examined evidence to see whether there are any explanations for those figures and found none sufficient to justify the disproportionate number of searches. The EHRC made specific recommendations for individual forces and for policing as a whole. Three years on, have those recommendations been implemented and what results have been delivered? Can she assure the House that her proposals will not jeopardise the recording of whether ethnic minorities are being targeted disproportionately? Clearly, we need to have that information.

I welcome the intention behind today’s statement and the consultation. The Home Secretary is right to support the principle of stop and search and right also to say that practice needs to be reformed to make sure that there is no discrimination and that it does not waste money or cause more problems in communities. However, it would help if she were more specific about her consultation proposals and how she plans to address the concerns.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support for the consultation on stop and search going ahead. As she says, there has been a number of reports on the operation of stop and search. The EHRC, whose report was published a matter of weeks ago, looked again at the issue in five forces, including the Met and Thames Valley police. It identified that it had been possible for those forces to reduce the number of stop and searches, perhaps by targeting them better on an intelligence-led basis, and that doing so had also had an impact on the search-to-arrest ratio, but no discernible effect on public safety. The EHRC reinforced the view that we can get stop and search right; that if we get it right, it can be the valuable tool we want it to be; but that we can reduce the number of stops and searches without having an impact on public safety.

I did indeed ask ACPO to look at stop and search and best practice across the country, and it has done so. I also asked HMIC to do a piece of work across forces on how stop and search is used and recorded. I think that that report, which comes out next week, will, by providing information on the practices used on the ground, give the best evidence base on which to look ahead.

The right hon. Lady asked about recording. At a very early stage, we made changes to the amount of information that needs to be recorded on stop-and-search forms, but we retained, for example, ethnicity as one of the matters that should be recorded. We were able to reduce bureaucracy somewhat, but it remains the case that if a stop and search is undertaken when it is not necessary—when there is not reasonable suspicion—it can be a waste of police time.

The right hon. Lady’s main accusation seemed to be that, in my statement, I had not set out any firm proposals on stop and search, but the whole point of the public consultation is to go out and ask members of the public what has been their experience of stop and search, how they feel it should be used and what changes, if any, they think should be made. The consultation will include questions such as whether local communities should be more involved in working out how stop and search should be used in their area. There are some good examples, including in the London borough of Brent, of work being done with the local community. The point of the consultation is to ask people what they think; then, we will look the results alongside the evidence base in the HMIC report and come to the House in due course with firm proposals that I believe will enable us to get stop and search right.

Undercover Policing

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in expressing support for the Lawrence family, who have indeed endured great tragedy. I also pay tribute to them for the work that they have done to pursue justice and reform over very many years. The whole country has been appalled by the allegations that police officers were involved in spying on or attempting to undermine the Lawrence family and their friends when they should have been supporting them to get justice done. It is vital that we get to the truth about what happened.

Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a terrible racist murder, yet it took 19 years for any prosecutions to succeed. We knew already about the failings of the initial investigations and prosecutions and what the Macpherson review identified as both incompetence and institutional racism at the time. We knew already about the failure to support and listen to the Lawrence family at the time, as chronicled in the Macpherson review, and we know, too, that immense work has been done since then, including reform of policing and the work by Clive Driscoll’s team in the Met to secure the two successful prosecutions last year.

However, these latest allegations must be taken very seriously because they suggest that the full information was not given to the Macpherson review at the time—a concern that we raised last year in the House over corruption allegations, where still we have no answers. Most disturbingly of all, the latest allegations suggest that police officers were working undercover to undermine victims of crime when the very job of a police officer is to support and get justice for victims of crime. That is why people across the country—including police officers, who do vital work each day—will be appalled by these allegations.

I welcome the work that the Home Secretary has set out today on undercover policing; it is vital that there should be much stronger oversight and control of the important work that police officers do but that nevertheless needs strong control. I also welcome the commitment of the Home Secretary to ensure an independent look at the allegations about undermining the Lawrence family. I am glad that she has gone further than the Prime Minister’s call this morning for the Metropolitan police to investigate; clearly, the investigation needs to be independent. However, it remains unclear whether she expects the lead on getting to the truth of the allegations to be taken by Mark Ellison QC, by Operation Herne under Chief Constable Creedon or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. It would be very helpful to have clarification on this.

Mark Ellison QC is indeed a well-respected independent person to review these allegations and report back to the Lawrence family, but he does not, of course, have the powers to instigate criminal or disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, Operation Herne is a wide-ranging report with a far wider remit looking into undercover policing, especially in the environmental movement, over very many years. The Home Secretary set out the huge scope of that investigation in her statement. May I suggest that we need a specific independent investigation into these allegations, given their seriousness and the significance of the Lawrence investigation and the Macpherson review for policing and confidence in policing? We need a clear timetable for getting to the truth. The investigation will also need to look at whether the Macpherson review was misled. Would it not be better to set out a clear and focused independent investigation into these allegations with a precise remit and the powers to pursue both criminal and disciplinary proceedings?

The Home Secretary said that any conclusions that the Ellison review comes to would still have to be handed to the IPCC or to another police force to pursue a further investigation. Given that these allegations already refer to events of 20 years ago, surely this would risk creating significant further delays. Has she considered giving the Ellison review additional powers or combining it with independent police or IPCC investigations in order to allow it to pursue the truth and trigger further investigations where necessary?

The vital work that police officers do every day to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and support victims relies on public confidence. As we saw with the Hillsborough review, we can never ignore any case where there is evidence that police officers may be involved in undermining victims or investigations rather than supporting them. For the sake of victims of crime and the excellent work that police officers do each day, there must be a proper, swift and effective system to investigate when things go wrong and when concerns like these arise.

I hope that the Home Secretary can assure the House that there is a clear remit for the review and that she will make sure that it is clear and independent, with the focus, the powers and the timetable it needs to get to the truth and pursue the investigations. It should not have taken 19 years for the Lawrence family to have seen some justice for the murder of their son, and they should not still have to fight for answers about the way they were treated and failed so many years ago.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the approach that she has taken to this very serious issue. We all agree across this House that these allegations are appalling and need to be looked into properly.

The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the independence and timeliness of any investigation, the proper form of the investigation, and bringing people to justice. She asked specifically whether the allegations that have been revealed in relation to the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family would be investigated under Operation Herne, by Mark Ellison, or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. Operation Herne was originally set up by the Metropolitan police, but it is now being led by Chief Constable Creedon. Although Met officers are still involved in that investigation, Chief Constable Creedon has also brought into it officers from his own force and elsewhere. The investigation by Chief Constable Creedon will look specifically at the tasking of officers in the SDS. That was part of the operation’s original remit. It is one of the issues that was raised by Peter Francis in the interview that he gave to the programme that will be shown tonight.

On Mark Ellison’s review, the right hon. Lady asked whether the Macpherson inquiry was misled. Another specific part of the remit of Mark Ellison’s review is that he looks into whether all the evidence that was necessary to be given to the Macpherson inquiry was indeed given to it. Obviously, the fact that Peter Francis has suggested that he and others were told not to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry is a matter of particular concern, but that will be investigated by Mark Ellison. Having spoken to Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon this morning, I am clear that they are working together; there has been a degree of interaction between the two. They are working to ensure that nothing falls between the two stools of the review and the investigation.

It is right that investigations into whether there has been misconduct or criminality are the remit of a police investigation—the Creedon investigation—with reference to the IPCC, as has been the case today, with the Met referring these allegations to the IPCC. There must be a proper pursuit of justice so that people can be charged with criminal offences or so that appropriate action can be taken for misconduct.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have listened to the remarks I made earlier in my speech, when I made it clear that a decision by the Government has to be taken by 31 May 2014, while 1 December 2014 is the date by which the opt-out takes final effect, so by definition any negotiations in relation to opt-in must take place before that takes effect.

This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly, despite the entreaties of the Opposition. I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made on this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

Under what circumstances does the Home Secretary think it would be acceptable to stay out of the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I will move on to the principles that the Government will follow when looking at each and every measure and considering whether to opt back in. In her speech, the right hon. Lady made something of an issue about the timetable and asked why we had not yet come to a decision. I refer her to the remarks of the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty in 2008. She said that

“on the whole body of police, criminal and judicial measures that are transferred, it is our decision—six months before that five-year period finishes—as to whether we want to continue in those measures, if they have not been renegotiated or repealed during that time. We will make that decision on the basis of whether continuing in those measures, with ECJ jurisdiction, is in the national interest. We have negotiated the ability to make that decision and we have negotiated that transitional period.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]

That is precisely what this Government are following.

My statement on 15 October last year set out the Government’s approach: we intend to opt out of all police and criminal justice measures that pre-date the Lisbon treaty and then negotiate with the Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin. That remains the Government’s position.

As I explained in a letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in November last year, we will consider how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. We will also consider the impact of each measure on our civil rights and traditional liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of what is and what is not in the list of the 2014 decision that we have to take, and the measure that I have referred to is in it.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is right to refer to that particular directory as being defunct. Arguably, therefore, it is relatively harmless. If she has such a precise view on that measure, will she tell us her view on the European arrest warrant? That, not all the defunct directories, is the central subject of the motion and the most important measure at stake. ACPO has said how crucial it is and it has been used in countless different criminal cases. Why does the Home Secretary seem to be the only person who does not have a view on the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

Sadly, the right hon. Lady does not seem to understand what the decision is about and, therefore, what her debate is about. Her debate is about the fact that her Government negotiated a situation in which we can either opt out of all the measures and then try to opt back in, or opt into all the measures.

I have been very open that it would not be appropriate to opt into any measure that we think would take considerable time and money. We will not be in a position to immediately rejoin Prüm, which requires member states to allow the reciprocal searching of their databases for DNA profiles, vehicle registration data and fingerprints, because implementing it fully will take years and require substantial funding. The previous Government estimated that it would cost more than £30 million back in 2007—that figure may well be higher now—and they subsequently did nothing to implement it.

The shadow Home Secretary’s spurious accusations about the Government’s European policy seem to be a cover for the confusion on her own Benches. I note that in response to a number of interventions she did not clearly state what her own policy is. It seems to be to negotiate an opt-out but not exercise it and to sign up to costly measures such as Prüm but not implement them. That is not the sort of leadership that the United Kingdom needs in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have consistently raised the problem of the abuse of free movement at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and we are working with other EU member states to curb that abuse. Free movement of persons is a long-standing principle of the EU, but those rights are not unlimited, and the Government take a robust approach against those who come to the UK not intending to work, but simply to rely on benefits. Abuse of free movement is not just a UK problem; it will take the joint efforts of all our EU partners to tackle it. We have been raising concerns for the past three years at meetings of EU Ministers, and I am pleased to say that last Friday it was decided that the European Commission and Ministers would take the issue forward.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s condemnation of the vile attack on Drummer Lee Rigby and of the recent attacks on Islamic religious institutions. I also welcome her comments about the importance of protecting all our citizens and communities from hatred and of supporting hope instead.

The Home Secretary will agree that the intelligence we get from abroad is vital to our national security and to protecting people against terrorism, but that it needs to be gathered under a clear legal framework with proper safeguards, checks and balances in place in order to maintain public confidence. In addition to the Foreign Secretary’s forthcoming statement, will she therefore respond on the issue of the legal framework operating for the Home Office? Will she tell us whether all Home Office, police and security service requests for intercept information from the internet, whether secured from UK agencies or from abroad, are governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and covered by ministerial warrants and the oversight of the intercept commissioner?

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly on this issue. She will also understand that it is a long-standing principle that the Government do not comment on intelligence matters, but I want to make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend has also made clear, that at all times GCHQ has operated fully within a legal framework. I recognise that Parliament has a legitimate interest in these matters, which is why the Intelligence and Security Committee has a remit to look at such issues, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has indicated that his Committee will indeed be conducting an urgent inquiry.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s response, and clearly the House will listen to the Foreign Secretary’s statement shortly too. I understand that she cannot answer publicly about the content and detail of intelligence procurement, but will she set out very clearly what the legal framework is that governs Home Office and Home Office-related access to intercept and intelligence, and will she write to me setting out her understanding of the current legal framework? It would be very helpful. Will she also confirm that the ISC will have the full support of the Home Office and herself in accessing all the information it needs to pursue this issue? She will know that because intelligence is so important for our future and our national security, public confidence in it must be maintained.

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady is aware, intercept warranty is covered by RIPA, and as I said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the legal framework under which the agencies operate. I suggest that she waits for that statement. I am clear that the ISC will have available to it the evidence it needs to conduct the inquiry, and it is right and proper that it does that. Of course, it has a new status in terms of its relationship with Parliament. I think people will want the Committee to conduct that inquiry, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who chairs it, has indicated it will.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We think it is right that the power should be available, but of course we would expect it to be used proportionately. We would expect the courts to adopt such an approach.

Part 6 provides for the community remedy and community trigger, which will put victims at the heart of the response to low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will give victims a powerful voice in determining the appropriate punishment to be attached to an out-of-court disposal. The community trigger will ensure an effective power to compel local agencies to review their response to repeated instances of antisocial behaviour. The public have a right to expect an appropriate and proportionate response to each reported incident.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the areas where the community trigger was piloted there were 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, but that the trigger was successfully activated only 13 times? Does she regard that as a success for the pilots?

[Mrs May]

The whole point about our approach is that we expect the police and other relevant agencies to act when an instance of antisocial behaviour is reported to them. As I am sure hon. Members across the House will have experienced, all too often several instances will be reported without any action appearing to be taken. The community trigger will ensure that a community can get a response. I would hope and expect that the community trigger was not necessary in many instances, because the police and other agencies had reacted to the first report, rather than waiting for several.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Home Secretary is right that the trigger will guarantee a more rapid response, why does the Bill say it will happen only when there have been at least three complaints, which means that there could be five, 10 or as many as the local police and crime commissioner and council decide?

[Mrs May]

The reason is simple: the Government believe in local discretion in some areas. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition over the ability of local areas and police and crime commissioners to be involved in determining what is right for their circumstances and local area. As the right hon. Lady says, we have put a figure in the Bill to indicate when we think a trigger would be appropriate, but it would then be down to the local area to determine. For some time, the Opposition have been saying that the fact that there have not been many instances of community triggers is somehow a failure. Actually, we want antisocial behaviour dealt with on the first report, rather than people waiting and feeling that they have to use the community trigger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will need to come back to my hon. Friend on that point. I do not think that we go into quite that issue in the Bill. The Bill will give the IPCC the powers, but there will obviously be subsidiary ways of operating in relation to this. I will look into the point for her. That is me standing here at the Front Bench and being honest!

This part of the Bill will also require forces, police and crime commissioners and others to respond promptly and publicly to IPCC recommendations. Also, as recommended by Tom Winsor, we shall replace the existing cumbersome and ineffective police negotiating machinery. The new police remuneration review body will help to ensure that we can deliver pay and conditions that are fair to police officers and to the taxpayer.

We are also building on the role of police and crime commissioners as local victims’ champions by conferring on them new powers to commission victims’ services. PCCs are best placed to determine the needs of victims in their communities, and they should be empowered to provide the appropriate support. Finally in this part of the Bill, we will continue the work that we started in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to ensure that counter-terrorism powers protect the public, but that they do so in a fair and proportionate manner. As David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has reaffirmed, the port and border security powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 are

“an essential tool in the protection of the inhabitants of this country from terrorism”.

Reducing the maximum period of detention from nine to six hours and providing for persons detained at ports to have access to legal advice will ensure that these powers can continue to be exercised proportionately.

We have long needed to make changes to the Extradition Act 2003 in order to make it operate in a fairer and more efficient fashion. Part 11 of the Bill introduces a number of such changes. They are in line with recommendations made in Sir Scott Baker’s independent review of our extradition arrangements and build on the introduction of a forum bar to extradition, which we enacted in the last Session. Among other things, the Bill addresses the current unfairness that can arise from the strict operation of the time limits for serving an appeal against extradition.

The Baker review also confirmed that some of the concerns that have been expressed, including by a number of my hon. Friends, about the proportionality of the European arrest warrant were well founded. As the House will know, this is one of the pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures that we are examining to determine whether it is in the best interests of the British people to continue to be a party to the current arrangements. I hope to make a statement to the House soon about the conclusions of that review and the 2014 decision.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that about 900 suspected foreign criminals were deported under the European arrest warrant last year? Does she not think that quite a good thing?

[Mrs May]

It is important that we have the powers that we need to deal with criminality. I am on record as saying that we need to see the deportation and extradition of foreign criminals, but it is also right for the Government —and, in due course, this House—to look at whether the current arrangements are appropriate. Concerns have been raised, not only by Members of Parliament but by Sir Scott Baker, about a number of issues relating to the European arrest warrant, and it is absolutely right that the Government should look at them.

Finally, I want to draw the House’s attention to a couple of the provisions in part 12 of the Bill. One way in which we can free up resources is by increasing the number of police-led prosecutions. Having to pass low-level offences to the Crown Prosecution Service wastes police time. The police already deal with more than 500,000 cases a year in which people plead guilty. Under the provisions in this part, up to a further 50,000 prosecutions for low-level shoplifting offences will be able to be handled by the police, empowering front-line officers and bringing swifter justice for retailers.

In this part of the Bill, we have also clarified the test for determining eligibility for compensation when someone has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The absence of a clear statutory definition of what amounts to a miscarriage of justice for these purposes has led to repeated legal challenges and shifting case law. As well as providing greater certainty, the new statutory test will ensure that compensation is paid only to those who are clearly innocent.

Since the day I was appointed Home Secretary, I have had one simple priority for the police: to cut crime. The Bill will help to ensure that the police, working in partnership with others and focusing on the rights of victims and communities, can continue to do precisely that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Home Affairs

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady cares to look at the figures, she will see that there has been a significant increase in the number of appeals by foreign national prisoners, which is delaying their deportation. That is exactly why this Government are bringing forward measures in the immigration Bill to deal with the appeals system, and I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will support them.

One of the most fundamental injustices of the present system is one that many Members will be aware of from the complaints of their constituents. It is the extent to which immigrants can call on publicly funded services without having made any contribution to the system that provides them. Our system is one of universal provision, and it will remain so under this Government, but it is also one that requires some contribution to be made in order for that provision to be accessed. That is the basic principle of justice that underpins the system, but it is a principle that has been flouted. When the Bill becomes law, it will be respected.

The Bill will ensure that temporary migrants and others will not be able to have free access to the NHS until they have made at least some contribution to the Exchequer. Furthermore, the Bill will strengthen legislation that penalises businesses that employ illegal immigrants. It is obviously unfair that those who are not entitled to be in Britain should be able to take jobs that ought to be filled by people who are so entitled. The Bill will strengthen our ability to enforce penalties on employers that have used illegal workers. It will also confirm that a migrant must have lawful immigration status of more than six months to qualify for a UK driving licence.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On the Home Secretary’s point about businesses that employ illegal migrants, will she explain why the number of businesses fined for so doing has dropped by 40% since the general election?

[Mrs May]

The rate of certain aspects of prosecutions taking place in relation to certain individuals has actually been higher under this Government than it was under the last Labour Government. That is one of the areas—[Interruption.] I have to say that I am not sure—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself to squabbling within his coalition and struggling to get some answers. We have always said that action will be needed to ensure that the police can keep up with changing technology. However, the draft data communications Bill drawn up by the Home Secretary was far too wide; it gave the Home Secretary far too many powers and there were far too few safeguards for privacy. It was absolutely right that something had to be done, but that Bill was not the right approach. We must wait to see what approach the Home Secretary will now take, because Government Members are squabbling so much among themselves that the result is a shambolic approach to a serious issue. Time and again, that is what we see: there is strong rhetoric from the Home Secretary, and then the reality simply does not stack up.

It is the same when we come to the so-called “flagship” immigration Bill. We now discover that the Bill will not be published until the autumn, because the Government have obviously still not worked out what on earth to do about it. This is an area where we agree that action is needed. Yesterday, the Government told us that the Bill would have five central elements, but now it turns out that three already exist and will not require primary legislation, and two are merely proposals for consultation.

On jobseeker’s allowance, the Government are replicating the exact words in existing regulations. When the Health Secretary was asked about the NHS, all he could say was that he promised to examine the extent of the problem and do an audit. On private landlords, the Government cannot tell us how their policy will be enforced, because they do not know who the landlords are and they will not have a statutory register. Time and time again this Queen’s Speech has not set out the detailed proposals that we need. Instead of “flagship” Bills, all we have are proposals that seem to have been sketched out on the back of a fag packet—no wonder the Government wanted to get rid of the cigarette packaging legislation.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has made an attempt at two jokes during her speech, which is probably two more than we normally have. I have a simple question for her: does she agree that net migration was too high under the previous Labour Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have already said that the pace of migration was too fast and that the level should come down; we have supported measures in that regard. However, although the Home Secretary has made grand claims about net migration and the Immigration Minister is attempting to do the same, they will recognise that two thirds of their drop in net migration is a result of an increase in British citizens leaving the country and fewer British citizens returning home.

Let me quote the numbers to the Home Secretary; she is on the edge of her seat, itching to intervene. In fact, the drop in net migration has been 72,000. Of those, 27,000 more Brits are leaving the country and 20,000 fewer Brits are coming home. Is she proud of a set of policies that have driven British people out of the country? I will give way to her if she wants to respond to that point.

[Mrs May]

On that statistical point, I suggest the right hon. Lady looks at what the Office for National Statistics said, which was that it was not the emigration of British people that led to the drop in net migration. We have reduced net migration by a third. I think she said that she accepted that net migration was too high under the Labour Government. Will she now apologise for that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary is targeting net migration, which she knows is affected by British people leaving the country—by people leaving as well as people arriving. I state the figures again: a 72,000 drop, 27,000 more Brits leaving the country and 20,000 fewer coming home. People obviously do not want to come back to Britain under her Government. That is the problem that she has to face.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Home Secretary and the courts have agreed that Abu Qatada is a dangerous man who puts security in this country at risk, and the House is united in wanting him deported to stand fair trial in Jordan so that justice can be done and in wanting him to remain in prison in the meantime. I welcome the work that she continues to do to get Abu Qatada deported and the further assurances that she has sought from Jordan, although she will know that the history of Home Office problems in this area means that serious questions remain.

The Home Secretary referred to the European Court judgment of January 2012, which she has previously said she strongly disagrees with. Once that passed, she had two choices: to appeal against its conclusions about the level of proof that the British Government needed to provide before Abu Qatada could be deported or to provide enough evidence from Jordan that she could meet that level of proof. So far, the Home Office has not managed to do either. I welcome this further work with Jordan, but the question for the House and the Court will be whether it meets the specific test that the Court has set.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled six months ago:

“Until and unless a change is made to the…Code of Criminal Procedure and/or authoritative rulings are made by the Court of Cassation or Constitutional Court which establish that statements made to a public prosecutor by accomplices who are no longer subject to criminal proceedings cannot be admitted probatively against a returning fugitive and/or that it is for the prosecutor to prove to a high standard that the statements were not procured by torture, that real risk will remain.”

Will the Home Secretary tell us more about how the new mutual legal assistance agreement will meet those tests? The treaty refers to the obligation on the prosecution, but will she explain whether and how this will be an equivalent of a change to the code of criminal procedure, and whether it will supersede any ruling made by the court of cassation or the constitutional court? We wish the Home Secretary well with the mutual legal assistance treaty, and we hope that it will work. We will support it in the House, and suggest that we hold a debate and a vote in the Commons to demonstrate the strength of support that exists across the House.

Let me ask the Home Secretary more about her approach to the European Court. Everyone agrees that the European Courts have taken way too long over this, as did the British courts—that has rightly been seen as a source of frustration for Home Secretaries—but will she tell us again why she chose, in January 2012, not to appeal against the judgment that she said she disagreed with? I ask her again to show shadow Ministers and the relevant Select Committee Chairs, on Privy Council terms, the legal advice on why she did not appeal. Until she does so, doubts will remain about her legal strategy and about the credibility of her criticism of the European Court.

Will the Home Secretary also tell us whether she is planning to withdraw temporarily from the European convention on human rights, as has been suggested in briefings from No. 10 to the media, and how she would justify such a decision when she has chosen not to appeal against the European Court’s decisions?

The Home Secretary must forgive us for being cautious about her claims and assurances today when some of her previous promises on this matter have been overblown. Twelve months ago, we remember the media being invited to Abu Qatada’s arrest as she told the House that

“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 173.]

However, within 24 hours, the process had stalled. We also remember her saying last year:

“The Government are clear that Qatada has no right to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 507.]

However, the European Court said that the request had been submitted within the three-month time limit. And 12 months ago, she also told us:

“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 175.]

Today, however, we are back to a legal square one again, going through the deportation process.

We want to work with the Home Secretary to make the process work, so that Abu Qatada can be deported as soon as possible. In the past, however, she has overstated the evidence, overstated her legal position, and overstated her legal strategy, which has not worked. None of us wants that to happen again.

[Mrs May]

May I say in response to the shadow Home Secretary’s first question that she should perhaps listen to what she herself said in her statement? She said that SIAC had suggested that there should be a change to a number of aspects of Jordanian law and/or a change to the obligations on the prosecutor. It is such a change to the obligations on the prosecutor that is in the mutual legal assistance agreement that I have signed with Jordan and that has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and that will therefore deal with that particular issue.

The right hon. Lady asked about the failure to appeal to the European Court. She has raised that issue before and I have answered her before. She seems to think that I should have appealed to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, but that would have jeopardised the Government’s wider deportation with assurances programme and risked the blockage of many other deportation cases. She should also look at what she has previously said on this issue. What she is saying today is not what she was saying last year. In this House, on 17 April last year, she said of me:

“I welcome the assurances that she has obtained from Jordan. Previous agreements were in place, but she was right to pursue further assurances.”

If she thought we should have appealed to the Grand Chamber, why did she think that we needed to pursue those assurances? If that is not clear, she should also remember what else she said:

“We understand, too, that the Home Secretary believes it is too risky to appeal to the Grand Chamber. I understand she would have had legal advice on that, and I do not want her to pursue an unwise and risky process”.

The right hon. Lady asked about the relationship with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The House will know that it is my clear view that we need to fix that relationship and that all options, including leaving the convention altogether, should be on the table. The Prime Minister is looking at all options, and that is the only sensible thing to do.

There are a number of questions for the right hon. Lady. She talked about why this did not happen sooner, and we have heard all sorts of claims from the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Immigration Minister about what I have said. A year ago, I said in this House:

“hon. Members must be aware that”

what I was announcing at that time

“does not necessarily mean that he”—

Abu Qatada—

“will be on a plane to Jordan within days. There is still a potential avenue of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission court, and beyond. That appeal process could take many months”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 175-6.]

I have to tell the right hon. Lady that simply repeating something and wanting it to be true does not make it true; she should look at what was actually said here.

Finally, the right hon. Lady herself has to answer some questions. Does she support what the Government have done? [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says she wants a vote. I am asking her very clearly whether she believes that the Government have taken the right course of action in what we have done. Beyond that, will the Opposition support what we want to do, which is to strip out appeal rights for foreign nationals, or not? Will we have a cross-party agreement that we need to deal with the issue of the length of time deportations take? We could do that by taking out layers of appeal. Perhaps even more significantly, will the Opposition agree with us that we need to sort out our human rights laws, which were passed by their Government?

This mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan has clauses within it that, as I say, address the issue raised by the SIAC court and the European Court about Abu Qatada. I hope that the right hon. Lady will support the Government—not just on this case, but in sorting out our human rights laws and our processes of deportation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We looked at this issue closely and what is clear is that in a significant number of cases the initial decision was not wrong on the basis of the information available at the time it was taken; in so many cases further information is put into the system between the initial decision and the appeal, and the appeal is then decided on a different basis. It is slightly cheaper, and it will take less time, for individuals to make a further application rather than going through the appeals process. As this is the only part of the visit visa system that has this appeal, we think it is right that we change the rules for this particular category.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I, too, give our thanks for the work that Jonathan Evans has done over many years for the security of this country? The Prime Minister has spoken today about immigration, and it is right to have conditions on benefits and public services, but will the Home Secretary confirm that she has no estimate of how many people, if any, will see any change in their jobseeker’s entitlement as a result? Will she also tell us why the number of employers fined for employing illegal workers has dropped by 42% since the election?

[Mrs May]

The Prime Minister has made a wide-ranging speech today, in which he has referred to a number of areas where the Government will be taking action to ensure that the United Kingdom is not seen as a soft touch and that people who come here are coming to contribute to our society and to our economy—that will be across the board in relation to benefits and to matters such as access to the health service.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary did not answer my questions about whether the policies will have any impact, how many people will be affected by the new policies or why enforcement has become consistently worse since the election. Unannounced checks have fallen by more than 30%, the number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by 16% and there has been a 50% drop in the number of those refused entry to Britain since the election as well as a 50% increase in the number of long waits for asylum decisions. There is also the point I raised with her initially: the number of employers employing illegal workers being fined has dropped by some 40% since the election. What will the Home Secretary do to improve enforcement and the effectiveness of the system so that people can have confidence that it is working? It has got worse since the election, not better, so what is she doing to improve enforcement?

Police Integrity

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving me a copy of her statement. This is an important issue, and many of the measures that she has outlined are sensible in principle. However, I shall press her for more detail on how they will work in practice, and there are a couple of areas where I believe that she has not gone far enough.

The whole House will wish to recognise and show support for the international reputation of British policing, which is respected globally for low levels of corruption, high standards of integrity and our tradition of policing by consent. As the Home Secretary said, the vast majority of police officers join the force to help the public and keep people safe from crime and harm, and they take great risks when they do so. We think of the two police officers who were shot down when answering a routine 999 call in Greater Manchester, but also of officers who go the extra mile every day to help the public—perhaps stepping in to rescue people and save their lives; perhaps sitting with bereaved parents whose teenager has been killed in a traffic accident.

Police officers themselves are deeply concerned about serious cases that undermine confidence in policing: hacking, the Hillsborough tragedy, the problems with undercover officers, and cases in which policing has failed to protect the public or to deliver justice. That is why the vast majority of police officers also want action to be taken against officers who let their force and the public down, as well as action to improve standards.

Many of the Home Secretary’s measures are sensible. We support the implementation of the Leveson recommendations, and also the introduction of greater transparency. We support the establishment of a code of ethics and higher professional standards, and we support stronger action when those are breached. We have also argued for stronger action in relation to retired officers when things go wrong. The Stevens commission on the future of policing has taken evidence on issues involving codes of ethics, national registers, the role of the College of Policing and proposals for striking police officers off, and is likely to make new proposals in that regard.

However, can the Home Secretary clarify what she means? Will there be a national professional register that all police officers must be on, will there be standards that they must meet, and will they be struck off from the register if they do not meet those standards? If so, by whom will they be struck off? Will it be the IPCC or the College of Policing, and will that be underpinned by legislation? Or does the Home Secretary simply propose to put together a list of officers who have already been sacked by their local forces?

I do not believe that the Home Secretary is going far enough on the IPCC. As she will know, I have argued for the last 12 months that it does not have enough powers and resources to deliver for the public. I welcomed the action that she took and the legislation, which we supported, to strengthen powers, but her reforms of the IPCC still seem to be incremental. Increased resources are welcome, but will she tell us how much there will be and where it will come from? Is she top-slicing the budgets of police forces across the country, and if so, by how much? How many extra police officers does she think those forces will lose as a result?

During the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Ministers argued that more cases should be dealt with by individual forces rather than by the IPCC. In the Act the Home Secretary downgraded the IPCC’s capacity, halving the minimum number of commissioners. Now she seems to be saying that more cases should be dealt with by the IPCC rather than by individual forces. Has she changed her view since the passage of the Act, and can she clarify her proposals?

I am also not convinced that the Home Secretary is doing enough to strengthen the powers and the culture of the IPCC to restore public confidence and ensure that lessons are learned. Nothing is being done about the confused and overlapping bodies that are supposed to act when policing goes wrong. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the IPCC, individual police and crime commissioners, police and crime panels and, now, the College of Policing all have a role, but it is still unclear who does what, and as a result, who should act when things go wrong and ensure that lessons are learned. I therefore think that the Home Secretary has not been sufficiently radical. May I urge her to look again at the possibility of replacing the IPCC altogether with a new police standards authority, along with a new, coherent framework of standards and accountability?

Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the best way to ensure rising police standards is to have well-motivated, professional police officers who are keen to do a good job and serve the public. She will know that there is a massive problem with low morale among police officers, who do not feel valued, and I am keen to hear how she intends to address that.

Police officers do a vital job every day on our behalf, and our duty in this House is to make sure that they get the support they need and to have a proper framework of accountability to keep standards high. The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome and responds to many of the concerns that we have raised, but I urge her to look at the proposals again as I remain concerned that they do not go far enough and will not be sufficient to deliver what the police and public need.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support on a number of the issues I have addressed today, most significantly the implementation of the Leveson report recommendations, the code of ethics and action on retired officers. She asked two key questions. First, on the national register, the College of Policing will look at how best to address the issue in terms of its general work with police officers and others on standards and development. I expect that there will at least be a list of those officers who have been struck off, and whom one would not expect other police forces, here in the UK or elsewhere, to take on. It is for the College of Policing to decide the form in which to publish that list, and it will consider that matter very shortly.

Secondly, the right hon. Lady said there were a lot of overlapping organisations, and she mentioned the HMIC and the IPCC. HMIC does not investigate individual complaints against individual officers; that is the job of the IPCC. HMIC has a different role. It looks at the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces; it looks across the force, not at individual complaints. Those two bodies do two different jobs.

The right hon. Lady referred to the changes and comments we made during the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We have indeed put more low-level complaints to the individual forces, but the point I am making today is that we want to ensure the IPCC can handle all the serious and sensitive allegations made against police officers. Last year, just 330 out of 2,100 such cases were independently investigated or supervised and managed by the IPCC. I think it should be able to look at all the serious and sensitive allegations against police officers, which is why we are looking to transfer resources from police standards departments in police forces to the IPCC. We will look at any manpower or funding implications and ensure that the IPCC has sufficient resources to be able to deal with all the cases we feel it should be dealing with.

The right hon. Lady asked why we do not just scrap the IPCC and set it up again with a different name. Today, I have set out the key issues of substance that will make a difference to the ability of the IPCC to do its work. The question that she has to answer is whether she is interested merely in rebranding something, or whether she is genuinely interested in agreeing with me on what the IPCC needs to be able to do its job properly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is obviously in the overwhelming public interest that we have sound extradition arrangements that function properly. The public need to have confidence in those arrangements, and it is vital that decisions are not only fair, but are seen to be fair. As I indicated to the House earlier, the Government have recently tabled amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill to introduce a forum bar to extradition, which will make decisions in concurrent jurisdiction cases clear and more transparent.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on undercover policing, which we have also called for.

I know the whole House will send its sympathy to the family of Frances Andrade, who took her own life after giving evidence against her abusers in court. She was let down by the criminal justice system, whose job it was to help and protect her. It has emerged that Greater Manchester police supported Mrs Andrade getting counselling, but that Surrey police did not. The Surrey police and crime commissioner has said in the last couple of days that

“it’s the responsibility of the police to present evidence to the court with the victim in a way which is untainted. That means they will not and should not refer a victim for counselling until after they have given their evidence.”

Does the Home Secretary agree that this approach by Surrey police is completely unacceptable, and that victims of sexual abuse should never be denied the support and counselling they need? Will she tell all police forces that they need to make sure that counselling is available, and will she ensure that a proper review takes place of the handling of this entire case, so that lessons can be learned from this dreadful tragedy?

[Mrs May]

I am indeed sure that everybody across the House sends their sympathy and condolences to the family of the lady concerned. This was a terrible case and we all have sympathy with the family for what they have gone through. Improving the way in which the police deal with rape cases has been looked at by Governments over a number of years, because we all recognise the difficulty victims feel in coming forward. Sadly, when we see such incidents I fear that others may be put off, rather than encouraged, from coming forward. We need to look very carefully at what has happened in this case, and very carefully at how we can further improve the system to ensure that victims feel that they will be believed when they come forward and have the confidence to take their case through the courts.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s concern, but I press her to do two specific things in response to this case, the first of which is to tell forces that they need to make sure that counselling is available in these cases. Guidance drawn up in 2002 by the Home Office, Department of Health and Attorney-General states very clearly that

“vulnerable or intimidated witnesses should not be denied the emotional support and counselling they may need both before and after the trial.”

The 2010 guidance from Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service is similarly clear, yet did not apply in this case and the Surrey police and crime commissioner is saying the opposite. Will she give very clear instruction to forces across the country that they must ensure counselling is available in line with national guidance? Will she also ensure that a proper review takes place of all aspects of this case, so that we learn lessons from this terrible tragedy and ensure that vulnerable victims get the help and support that was denied to Frances Andrade?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated to the right hon. Lady, we will of course look to see what lessons should be learned from this case. She will be aware that the Home Secretary does not instruct police forces to take particular routes. They have operational independence on decisions about how they deal with particular cases. It is important for the guidance to be there, for police forces to be aware of the guidance, and for police forces to operate within the guidance. I will reflect on the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the attention being given to that guidance. I am sure that all of us across the House want a system in which rape victims feel able to come forward and that we are able to see more prosecutions taking place.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that the reforms of family courts will have a great many benefits. They are the result of independent reviews, and a considerable amount of work over some time, to establish how those courts can be improved, particularly from the point of view of the children involved. We certainly support measures in the family courts that can improve support for children, including child protection.

There are clearly problems on the international front in regard to the work that the NCA will do. Let me now deal with some of the issues on the domestic front. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to strengthen national action against serious crimes, but, as was pointed out by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the new National Crime Agency faces increased responsibilities with a budget 20% lower than that of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It will supposedly do everything that SOCA did while picking up new responsibilities from the National Policing Improvement Agency, doing extra work at Britain’s borders, and expanding work on tackling cybercrime and on tackling economic and financial crime. It is going to do this with, by my assessment, a cut in the budget of at least £80 million—as the Home Affairs Committee Chair has suggested, the budget cut could be considerably more.

The detail of how the NCA will work remains confused. We still do not know how it will relate to the new police and crime commissioners, who will not be consulted on the NCA’s strategic priorities but whose forces will have to respond and do what the NCA says. Legally, the Bill provides for the NCA to direct chief constables over resources and priorities in their areas, but can a police and crime commissioner who disagrees sack the chief constable? How will this be resolved? What will the relationship be between the NCA, the UK Border Force and the UK Border Agency? Will the NCA be able to task border officials in the way that it will be able to task chief constables, or is the border command to be simply a co-ordinating committee? Questions are also unanswered in relation to the economic command. What will the relationship be with the Serious Fraud Office and with the City of London police on economic crime? Will the NCA be able to set tasks for the SFO, or is the economic command just another co-ordinating committee?

None of those things is clear. The Home Office has promised that many of the questions would be answered by the framework document, yet it still has not been published. Under pressure from their lordships, the Home Secretary has finally published an outline framework document, but it is hardly illuminating; all it gives is a list of bullet points. For example, it contains the heading:

“Accountability to the Home Secretary”.

Under that heading the bullet point simply reads:

“How that accountability relationship will be supported by Home Office officials”.

That is all it says, so this is not a framework document; it is simply a Home Secretary to-do list.

Again, we are being given a lack of detail, even though we know that detail matters. The Home Office’s failure to provide the detail in debates in this House on previous legislation has caused considerable problems; one such example was the failure on detail that meant that £350,000 had to be spent reprinting the ballots for the Welsh police and crime commissioner elections.

Big policy areas are also not being addressed here. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is being absorbed into the NCA, despite the reservations of many experts. More importantly, the Home Secretary is missing the opportunity to strengthen the work on child protection and tackling sexual exploitation at a vital time, and to set up an overarching review, led by child protection experts, into how Jimmy Savile was able to get away with terrible abuse of children over many years.

The Home Secretary also referred to the counter-terror measures raised in the House of Lords, where her proposal to transfer counter-terror from the Met to the NCA has raised considerable alarm. I welcome her saying that she will consider the points raised on whether that should be done in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. The former Met commissioner Lord Blair said:

“in my lifetime no change more significant than this in the policing arrangements to protect our nation has ever been contemplated…Such a decision deserves primary legislation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 115.]

Former Met commissioner Lord Condon has said:

“This is a hugely important matter that deserves primary legislation rather than an affirmative order…History tells us that more than 80% of terrorist incidents in this country happen in London.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 116.]

Of course, even more of the counter-terror problems will lie with the Met now that the Home Secretary has removed relocation from control orders.

[Mrs May]

May I just correct the right hon. Lady on one point she made? She said that this Bill dealt with my “proposal” to move national responsibility for counter-terrorism policing from the Met to the NCA. I made it clear in my speech that I have no preconceived idea on this matter, but as we set up a national crime agency to deal with serious, organised and complex crime it is right that the question be asked, when that agency is up and running, about where it is appropriate for counter-terrorism policing to lie. That will take place after a proper review. As I say, I have no preconceived idea about this, so it is not the case that this Bill deals with a specific proposal.

[Yvette Cooper]

I must then say to the Home Secretary that she does not need to legislate for it now. If she has genuinely not made a decision, why take pre-emptive legislative powers for a decision she has not yet taken and a review she has not yet done? She will know that the nature of the Home Office means that Home Office legislation is always being introduced, and there will be plenty of opportunity for primary legislation and a proper debate in this House and in the other place. How are Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords, where, as she knows, there is considerable expertise on counter-terror and on policing, supposed to debate a hypothetical proposition—she now says she has not yet made it—and a decision she has not yet reached? It would be far better to respect the expertise in the other place and the views of this House by not legislating now on this matter, by holding a proper review, and by having that genuine debate on it and then coming back to the House with proper proposals in primary legislation, if she so concludes that it is the right thing to do.

We will also wish to discuss other areas of the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will also now accept the Lords amendments on the regulation of bailiffs, adding safeguards to prevent abuse. We also hope that she will support our proposals to go even further with stronger powers for immigration officers to tackle illegal immigration. She has raised the issue of the forum bar, on which she wishes to introduce amendments, and we hope that extensive discussion can take place on that. We have discussed it briefly when she has made statements to the House before and we are keen to work with her on how to make that bar effective. As she knows, some legislation is already on the statute book on this issue, but all sides have found it difficult to work out how to make the detail work. We therefore look forward to those discussions.

We also wish to discuss stronger checks and balances for the NCA through the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The safeguards in respect of the IPCC looking at the NCA are astonishingly weak in the Bill, and we hope the Home Secretary will strengthen them. She will also know from the points that hon. Members have made that there is concern about visa appeals. The point she needs to consider is that in a third of cases looked at by the inspector the entry clearance officer had not considered the evidence properly. That was not about new evidence; the entry clearance officer had not considered the existing evidence properly. So there is a serious concern about the quality of the initial decision making.

We also want to deal with the issue of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that before that comes up in Committee the Home Secretary and her Ministers will be able to provide the House with an assessment of the impact of section 5 on different groups, particularly vulnerable and minority ones. Many people have said that the existing section 5 has formed some kind of protection for them, so it would be helpful to know that before we reach that point in Committee.

Ibrahim Magag

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the disappearance of Ibrahim Magag.

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

On 26 December 2012, Ibrahim Magag, a Somali-born British national who is subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, failed to report for his overnight residence requirement. As I told the House yesterday, the police believe that he has absconded, and his whereabouts are currently unknown.

On 31 December, at the request of the police, I asked the High Court to revoke the anonymity order that was in force in relation to Magag. The police subsequently issued a public appeal for information that might lead to his location and apprehension. The Government took steps to inform Parliament of this incident as soon as it was lawful and operationally possible to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), spoke to the Chairmen of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on 31 December. This was followed by letters to both Committee Chairmen, to the shadow Home Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker. Copies of the letters were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.

The statements that the police issued on 31 December and 2 January confirm that, at this time, Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public. The TPIM notice in this case was intended primarily to prevent fundraising and overseas travel. The Government do not believe that Magag’s disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK. Nevertheless, we are of course taking this matter very seriously.

The police are doing everything in their power to apprehend Magag as quickly as possible. Although I cannot give operational details, I can confirm that the police, the Security Service and other agencies are devoting significant resources to the search for Magag. Members of the public with any information relating to the search should contact the confidential police anti-terrorist hotline.

Before the shadow Home Secretary stands up again, I would like to remind the House that this is not the first abscond of a terror suspect. In six years of control orders, there were seven absconds, of which six were never apprehended. Magag’s abscond is serious, and the authorities are doing everything they can to locate him. I will update the House when there are further developments as soon as it is possible to do so.

[Yvette Cooper]

Ibrahim Magag is still missing after 13 days, and the Home Secretary clearly has no idea where he is. The first priority must be to find him, and she should tell us more about the additional resources being put into the search. Will she also tell us what the threat assessment really is? She said that the risk simply related to “fundraising and overseas travel”, yet the courts have said that Magag has attended terrorist training camps in Somalia, that he was fundraising for known terrorists and that

“the operational tempo and capability of the group of extremists based in London will be degraded by removing his operational role from London”.

Does the Home Secretary think that that threat assessment still holds?

How was Magag able to abscond in the first place? Was he even under surveillance at the time? Cabwise, a trade news service for London cabbies, reported yesterday that Magag

“used a London taxi in the vicinity of Triton Street at around 17:20 on 26 December.”

Is that true? Is the Home Secretary worried that surveillance can be shaken off simply by jumping into a black cab?

The Home Secretary allowed Ibrahim Magag to return to London. She has not answered the question from the independent reviewer, David Anderson, about whether it would have been harder to abscond in the west country, where Magag was made to live under a control order and where it would have been harder for him to get help from his associates, harder to hide and harder to get forged papers. She knows that relocation makes it harder to abscond, because she has included it in her draft emergency terror legislation.

The Home Secretary referred to the early years of control orders, but David Anderson, the independent reviewer has said:

“The absence of absconds since mid-2007 has coincided with the trend away from light touch control orders, and/or the more extensive use of relocation.”

The right hon. Lady chose to ditch relocations, and she has personally made it easier for people to abscond. Other people previously relocated under control orders are also now back in London on terrorism prevention and investigation measures. Could any one of them simply jump into a black cab tomorrow and be off?

Will the Home Secretary ask the independent reviewer urgently to investigate the failures of this case and to review the issue of relocation? She has ignored security advice before and someone involved in terrorism is now out on our streets. She must not ignore the evidence on relocations. She should put the national interest ahead of her political interests and stop ducking the issue. Is it not time that she took some responsibility and sorted this mess out?

[Mrs May]

I am very sorry that the shadow Home Secretary chose to pursue that line in relation to this case. Let me repeat the key fact that she does not seem to want to accept—that this is not the first time that somebody has absconded. She seems to think that it is all down to the difference between control orders and TPIMs, but in six years of control orders there were seven absconds and six of the individuals involved were never apprehended.

The right hon. Lady keeps saying that it is all down to whether we have the power to relocate, but relocation powers were available throughout the history of control orders and they did not prevent seven absconds by control order subjects. If she will not listen to me, perhaps she will listen to the police and the Security Service, which made it absolutely clear at the time TPIMs were introduced that there should be no substantial increase in overall risk and that appropriate arrangements were in place for the transition from control orders to TPIMs—and that remains their position.

The right hon. Lady asked about the current level of risk. I repeat what I said in response to her question—that the statements the police issued on 31 December and on 2 January confirm that at this time Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public, and that the Government do not believe that his disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK.

The right hon. Lady made a number of references to David Anderson, the independent reviewer. He has said:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”

I agree, which is why we provided extra funding to the Security Service and the police when we introduced TPIMs to maximise the opportunities to prosecute terrorists in open court and to minimise the risk they pose to national security. The alternatives—whether we are talking about TPIMs or control orders—are highly useful disruptive tools, but because they do not involve locking people up, as the history of control orders shows, there will always be a risk of abscond.

Currently, the police and other agencies are, as I have said, working very hard to apprehend Ibrahim Magag. They have taken the operational decisions that needed to be taken and the way in which they pursue their inquiries is an operational matter for them. When the dust has settled, we will look again to see whether any lessons need to be learned. The independent reviewer produces an annual report that covers TPIMs, and I fully expect him to cover them in his review. I say to the shadow Home Secretary, however, that all she has done in highlighting this matter is to demonstrate the weakness of her argument, as what she says about TPIMs was also true of control orders. I hope that the whole House will join me in supporting the police, the Security Service and other agencies in continuing their work and in keeping our country safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to those police officers who have lost their lives. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) was right to pay tribute to the officer who lost his life in her constituency while rushing to help others in an emergency call. We also extend our sympathies to the family of the 13-year-old; it is right for that tragic case to be investigated.

Ibrahim Magag absconded from his TPIM—terrorism prevention and investigation measure—on Boxing day. This is someone who the Government believe has attended terror training camps in Somalia, has raised funds for al-Qaeda and is sufficiently dangerous to warrant a TPIM. He has disappeared for the last 12 days. In the final four years of control orders, when relocations were extensively used, the Home Secretary will know that no one absconded. The independent reviewer, David Anderson, has asked of Mr Magag:

“Could he have absconded so easily from the West Country where he was made to live when under a control order?”.

What is the Home Secretary’s answer?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the remarks she made about the fatalities of police officers and, indeed, that of the young girl at the weekend.

National security is our top priority and the police are, of course, doing everything in their power to apprehend this individual as quickly as possible. The right hon. Lady has, however, been very careful in her use of statistics. She has quoted a period in which there were no absconds from control orders, but as we know, under the whole six years of those control orders—and, particularly, their first two years—seven absconds took place. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady cannot therefore argue that control orders were stopping people absconding while TPIMs are not.

[Yvette Cooper]

But the Home Secretary is not dealing with the crucial issue of relocation. No one has absconded since 2008 under the extensive use of relocations. The Home Secretary took the personal decision to rule out relocation for Ibrahim Magag and for every other terror suspect, even though the judge who reviewed Mr Magag’s control order said specifically:

“It is too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period”.

The Home Secretary told the House that she was “confident” that her policies—TPIMs and extra surveillance —would be sufficient. They have clearly not been, so will she admit that she got it wrong on relocations; will she instigate an urgent review by David Anderson into how Mr Magag has absconded; and, in the interests of public protection, will she now change course and put the legislation right?

[Mrs May]

Just to be absolutely clear, the right hon. Lady has put this case in certain terms, which I believe do not reflect the reason why the TPIM was originally put in place—to prevent fundraising and overseas travel. We do not believe that Magag’s disappearance is linked to any current terrorist planning in the UK, and it is important to put that point on the record. As the right hon. Lady will know, the TPIM regime introduced rigorous measures to manage the threat posed by terror suspects whom we cannot yet prosecute or deport by limiting their ability to communicate, associate and travel. The new regime was complemented by funding to the Security Service and the police, so we are maximising the opportunities to put these individuals on trial in an open court. The TPIM regime is, as the right hon. Lady knows, a package. To return to my earlier point, there were a number of absconds under control orders, so it is not right for her to contrast control orders and TPIMs in the way that she has.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I congratulate Angus Macpherson on his election; indeed, it was good to see that as the first result. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that PCCs will have an important role to play in ensuring that police forces are delivering against their budgets in a way that we all want, which is by ensuring the protection of services such that we can continue to cut crime.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

In last week’s elections for the Home Secretary’s flagship policy, 85% of the public decided not to vote. She chose to spend £100 million on having these elections and this transition, which could have been spent on 3,000 police officers this year. She chose to hold the elections in November, to get the Home Office to run them and to deny the public proper information. She was warned in the Commons and the Lords, and by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society, that those decisions were wrong. Given the overwhelming public message she received last week, will she now tell us which of those decisions she regrets?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady really needs to get her story straight on this. She complains about the amount of money that was spent on the police and crime commissioner elections, yet in the same breath she wants more money to be spent on them. Which is it: too much money or too little?

[Yvette Cooper]

That was not an answer to the question. The Home Secretary has to take some responsibility for the shambles that she has created. In April she got the decision and the date wrong over Abu Qatada by accident; in November she got the date wrong on the elections deliberately. By not holding them in November, she could have saved £25 million alone, but she chose not to. People did not want these elections last week. They said it was a waste of money, they said they did not know anything about it, they objected to the policy and they did not want to vote in the dark. She did not listen to those warnings and she is not listening to the public now or the message that they sent last week. Why does she not listen to them and apologise for the shambles that this Home Secretary and her decisions have created?

[Mrs May]

I make no apology for introducing police and crime commissioners, who have a democratic mandate for the first time. For the first time, the public know that there is somebody who has been elected who is visible, accessible and accountable to them. PCCs have replaced invisible, unaccountable, unelected police authorities. I think police and crime commissioners are going to make a real difference to cutting crime in this country.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This is an extremely serious and worrying judgment that means that, from tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be back on Britain’s streets. People across this country will be horrified to learn that that is the case. It also completely contradicts the Home Secretary’s assurances to this House that she had the right legal strategy and evidence to get Abu Qatada deported to Jordan. The information from security experts, the Home Secretary and judges and the courts is that this is an extremely dangerous extremist who is a threat to national security. We all want him to be deported to stand fair trial abroad as soon as possible, and to be held in custody in the meantime to keep people safe.

The Home Secretary is right to appeal against this judgment as every avenue to secure Abu Qatada’s deportation must be pursued. However, there are some very serious questions that now need to be answered about the Home Secretary’s strategy to get this deportation in place and about the action she is now taking to keep the public safe.

The Home Secretary told us in April that the best way to deport Abu Qatada was not to appeal against the European Court judgment, but to rely on evidence from Jordan in the British immigration courts, and she gave very strong assurances to Parliament and the public that Abu Qatada would be quickly removed from this country. In April she told us that

“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way.”

She said:

“I am confident of our eventual success”

and

“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c.173-178.]

Far from being put on a plane, he is soon going to be out on our streets, and if the Home Secretary’s appeal fails, he will be a free man.

It is clear now that all the Home Secretary’s promises and assurances were overblown and her strategy has fallen apart as a result of this decision. Like her, I am concerned about the SIAC conclusion given the assurances Jordan has provided, to which she rightly referred. She also rightly referred to the SIAC view that Abu Qatada will not be subjected to “a flagrantly unfair retrial”, and that is why we believe he should be deported. However, the immigration court also makes it clear that it is bound by the European Court judgment:

“all that we can do is to return to the basic Strasbourg test: has the Secretary of State established that there is not a real risk that the impugned statements will be admitted probatively? To that question…the answer must be negative”.

It is clear that the court believes there is a new test established. The Home Secretary blames that European Court judgment and says she disagrees with it, so why on earth did she not appeal against it when she had the chance to do so, and as we urged at the time?

Secondly, what is the Home Secretary now doing to get that deportation back on track? We support the appeal. We hope she will be successful in arguing that the wrong legal test has been applied, but that is not enough. Has she started further discussions with Jordan? Has she put her junior Minister straight on a plane? The immigration court has said that what it needs now is a

“change to the Code of Criminal Procedure”.

What is she doing to pursue that, or other alternatives that might overturn that court decision?

Thirdly, what is the Home Secretary doing to keep the public safe in the meantime? Tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be released on bail. Is she preparing an application for a terrorism prevention and investigation measure? That would be weaker than the control orders she chose to abolish. If her appeal fails, she will need to take further action. Under her new system of TPIMs, he will still be able to meet contacts in London, use his mobile phone, have access to the internet and only have his movement restricted overnight. We have asked her about that repeatedly, but will she please now look again at her decision to water down counter-terror powers in the light of this case?

This judgment overturns the Home Secretary’s strategy to get Abu Qatada deported and to keep him in custody in the meantime. Her confidence and complacency have proved to be a mistake. There has been a catalogue of confusion and mistakes on Abu Qatada, including the Home Secretary getting basic dates wrong earlier this year. There is cross-party agreement on the importance of deporting Abu Qatada and protecting the public. We cannot afford further confusion and mistakes. The Home Secretary needs to take urgent action now to keep the public safe, and get this deportation back on track.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary made a number of points, some of which, I have to say, were either wrong or irrelevant to what we have heard today. She seems to be trying to argue that the Government have not been doing enough to deport Abu Qatada. I can assure her and the whole House that, if it was the case that this was one of those situations where it was just a question of a decision by the Home Secretary, Abu Qatada would have been on the plane on 12 May 2010. However, it is not that simple and we have to work in accordance with the ruling of the courts.

The work that we have undertaken with the Jordanians, which she referred to and seemed to brush to one side as if it was nothing, is unprecedented. The security Minister visited Jordan; I visited Jordan; and the Prime Minister has raised the issue with the King of Jordan. We have secured information and assurances that I still maintain should enable us to deport Qatada. Although the right hon. Lady was dismissive of those assurances, I will remind her, as I said in my statement, of what Mr Justice Mitting said about them. He said that the Jordanian Government

“will do everything within their power to ensure a retrial is fair.”

He continued:

“The Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial.”

SIAC stated that

“if the only question which we had to answer was whether or not, in a general sense, the appellant would be subjected to a flagrantly unfair retrial in Jordan, our unhesitating answer would be that he would not.”

The right hon. Lady asked whether we will continue our negotiations with the Jordanians. We are very grateful for the significant assurances the Jordanian Government have already provided. Of course, our work with the Jordanians will continue in the light of today’s judgment. The Jordanian Government put out a statement earlier today, which said:

“We understand there will be an appeal and accordingly we will work with them”—

that is, the UK Government—

“to be able to bring him back to justice here in Jordan. Concerning the fear of a fair trial for him—there were guarantees for the British government on that, but also our constitution and our judicial system guarantees him that.”

I am grateful to the Jordanian Government for that support.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of bail conditions. Abu Qatada will be subject to a 16-hour curfew. Other conditions will be determined by the court and announced tomorrow. I believe that a 16-hour curfew is as strict as the strictest of control orders, so I am afraid that what she says is not the case, and she needs to look at that issue again.

The right hon. Lady referred to the new test and to the relative merits of the article 3 and article 6 issues. Those are different matters: Governments have for a long time been able to seek assurances about article 3 —that process is mature and has existed for many years—whereas the need for assurances about article 6 emerged only because of the European Court’s unprecedented judgment early this year.

The right hon. Lady asked whether it would have been better had we referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. On that, she is wrong. Her argument seems to be that the European Court—the very court that has caused this difficulty by setting up a new barrier to deportation—is the solution to the problem. Not only is that palpably ridiculous, but an appeal to the Grand Chamber would have risked our wider deportation policies—[Interruption.] I suggest that she listens to this point. An appeal would also have made it harder to deport further terrorists, had we lost the appeal. It would have been unwise, as well as fruitless.

In April, and again today, the shadow Home Secretary told the House:

“We all want Abu Qatada deported as soon as possible, under the rule of law”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 508.]

Unless she is prepared to break the rule of law, she has no solutions other than what the Government have already done. I suggest that, instead of trying to score a political hit, she supports the Government, is straight with the public and supports us in what we are doing to deport Abu Qatada.

Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She is right that these are deeply disturbing allegations. Child abuse and sexual abuse of children and young people are among the most despicable of crimes. When adults who should be trusted to care for children abuse their power and position of trust by committing violent crimes, it can haunt those young people for the rest of their lives. That is made worse if society and the institutions charged with protecting children, including in the criminal justice system, fail to step in to provide greater protection or hold the perpetrators to account. The Home Secretary is therefore right to act on the latest concerns.

There are three major issues, each of which needs to be addressed. First, where crimes have been committed or suspected, we need a proper criminal investigation, led by the police in the pursuit of justice. Secondly, we need to know whether there has been an institutional failure to deal with the issue before, be it turning a blind eye, covering things up or simply failing to get to the bottom of what happened. Thirdly, we need to know what further changes are needed to our current framework for safeguarding children and investigating abuse. However, we cannot look at the allegations around north Wales in isolation. The same three questions—about criminal allegations, potential institutional failure and the lessons for today—are just as significant when it comes to the abuse by Jimmy Savile, as well as more current problems, such as the events in Rochdale or the work that the Children’s Commissioner is doing on child sexual exploitation. I am concerned that the Home Secretary’s response will not be wide enough to cover all those issues. Let me take each in turn.

I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made today about the new criminal investigation into the allegations in north Wales, and in particular the involvement of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which has considerable expertise. Clearly the investigation must go more widely than north Wales if that is where the evidence takes it. I hope that she can provide that assurance to the House. On the historic reviews, I welcome her decision to look again at the Waterhouse inquiry, which I assume will involve looking at whether child abuse that might have taken place outside the care system was sufficiently considered.

However, we have a whole series of inquiries under way into similar problems, in addition to important police and criminal investigations. As I understand it, there are three BBC inquiries into what happened with Jimmy Savile, a Department of Health inquiry—as well as several separate hospital inquiries—a Crown Prosecution Service inquiry, a new north Wales inquiry and an inquiry by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into other forces that may have received allegations about Jimmy Savile. The Home Secretary will know that we have already raised our concern that the Savile investigations should be brought under a single inquiry. We remain concerned that these multiple inquiries have no way to draw together the common themes, the problems or the lessons that need to be learned. Of course we need to get to the bottom of what is happening in each case, but at the moment the framework that the Government have set out risks being confused.

The reason this is important is that we have to have a proper way to learn the right lessons for the current framework for safeguarding children, because there are clearly current lessons to be learned. Obviously a series of child protection policies have been introduced since many of the events took place. Big changes include the Children’s Commissioners, strengthening the law repeatedly, new measures and policies on safeguarding in schools and social services, and the creation of CEOP. However, we all remain concerned that victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, are too often simply not believed or taken seriously enough—abuse that was ignored for too long against girls and young women in Rochdale very recently, as well as concerns that have been raised in Rotherham. We have also seen the forthcoming Children’s Commissioner’s report, which will raise concerns about wider child exploitation. We have raised concerns too about some of the policy changes that the Government have introduced, such as changes to vetting and barring arrangements and changes to the way in which CEOP will operate. Primary care trusts have also raised concerns about the way in which child safeguarding will be treated in the NHS as a result of the reforms.

There are wider concerns, and lessons for today that need to be learned alongside the detailed historic investigations that rightly must take place. I know that the Home Secretary is deeply concerned by these crimes, and that she takes them extremely seriously. I therefore urge her to look again at the framework for these inquiries and at the possibility of a single overarching inquiry or review that would draw all the evidence together and consider what needs to be done to protect children now.

It is extremely hard for the victims of child abuse and of sexual abuse against young people to speak out and to talk about crimes that are so intimate and so deeply disturbing, and they show great bravery when they do so. We need to show them that they will be listened to, that we will give them the support that they need and that everything possible will be done to protect children in the future as well.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the approach that she has taken to these serious issues. It is right that we should work together across the House to find the best solution, not only to get to the bottom of anything that we have failed to uncover so far, but to support the victims—which, as she and I have said, is so important.

In looking at these issues, it is right that we should first look into the police investigations to see whether any avenues that should have been followed were not pursued, and whether any issues have been uncovered as a result of the allegations that are now coming forward that should be dealt with. We must also pursue any criminality that comes forward, so that the victims can see that justice is being done.

That is why I have put an emphasis on the police investigation, and on the NCA working with the North Wales police to look into the historic allegations and ensure that everything necessary was done. If there are any avenues to be pursued in any criminal investigations, I am absolutely clear that the police should take them wherever they go. It is important that the NCA’s director general should bring in various assets, including, crucially, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and CEOP. CEOP is renowned for dealing with these issues, and it is right that it should be the single point of contact for any fresh allegations that come forward.

If, at the end of the processes that we have set in train, it appears necessary to move forward to a wider investigation, of course we will look at that. At this stage, we need to get the police investigations into any criminality under way, and to ensure that the Waterhouse inquiry did as it was intended to do, and did it properly. As I have said, however, if there is a case to be made for a wider inquiry at some stage in the future, we will of course look at the issue.

I shall return to the point on which the right hon. Lady and I ended our statements today. She was right to say that other police investigations had taken place in which there were issues over whether the victims were believed. We need to be able to reassure victims that, when they come forward, they will be listened to and taken seriously. It is incumbent on all of us in the House, in the positions of authority and responsibility that we hold, to ensure that that is the case.

Hillsborough

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome that clarification. The interest of the families and the public in this lies in having a properly co-ordinated investigation. We do not want to have a separate IPCC investigation and a parallel criminal investigation but a single, co-ordinated investigation.

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I can clarify the situation. There is the IPCC investigation and there is also the investigation by the DPP that is taking place. If the DPP believes that a wider investigation is necessary, the Home Office will make resources available under the ambit of the incoming National Crime Agency for an investigator who is completely separate and has no connection whatever with these issues. We would expect to put the co-ordination role in place fairly soon, because this is also about making sure that things get done. For example, we must ensure that if it looks as though there is a delay in any part of the investigation, then somebody, or a group of people, can press the body concerned, whether it be the IPCC, the DPP or individuals, to get on with the job. An investigation must be done fully and properly to uncover the truth and bring about justice, but we also need to make sure that it is not going to drag on and on, because the families do not deserve that.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s clarification. First, the co-ordination is very welcome. Secondly, however, should the Director of Public Prosecutions decide that prosecutions should be pursued—there seems to be strong support in the House for him to do so, although it is clearly an independent decision for him—would that result in a single investigative team involving the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, or would there continue to be, in effect, two parallel investigations by the IPCC and criminal investigators? That would raise concerns, given the fact that the IPCC can pursue both criminal and disciplinary investigations.

I urge the Home Secretary to consider, as part of her role in the co-ordination process, having a single team, with full police investigative powers and led by a special prosecutor, for the criminal investigation, and for it to consist of police officers from a range of different forces, perhaps under the auspices of the National Crime Agency. The role played by the West Midlands police in the original investigation was clearly a problem and the panel’s report raised considerable concerns. Drawing police officers from a series of different forces would give the investigation greater authority.

We are keen to explore with the Home Secretary whether additional powers could be granted to the IPCC —perhaps through emergency legislation—so that it can pursue disciplinary action as well as criminal investigations. I welcome the contact that her office made this morning to ensure that we can speedily take those discussions forward. We are interested in supporting emergency legislation to enable the IPCC to compel witnesses and access third-party data.

Thirdly, although a special prosecutor is welcome, the Government will be aware that there have also been failings over Hillsborough at the Crown Prosecution Service in the past, so some additional oversight may be needed.

Fourthly, I welcome the points that Government Front-Bench representatives have made about resources. The IPCC has said that a substantial amount of work is required initially to scope the investigation, including identifying the resources required. It is, therefore, likely to be many months before officers are contacted by the investigation team. Any further delay would be of considerable concern. I hope that the Home Secretary and others can provide reassurance about the availability of those resources.

My final point on the disciplinary investigations is that the IPCC has noted that retired police officers are not liable for any misconduct sanction. That is obviously very troubling for the public in many cases, because it makes it possible for police officers who have committed serious misconduct, or who have breached the great trust put in the office of constable, to retire on full pension without any further investigation or sanction. Given that 23 years have passed since Hillsborough, this is a particularly sensitive concern. Many officers have already retired and many more may do so before these investigations are concluded. Will the Home Secretary consider the issue carefully?

Extradition

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This was clearly not an easy decision for the Home Secretary to make. I know that she has asked for additional legal advice, medical advice and other evidence over the two and a half years in which she has had to consider this matter. That is testimony to the difficulties she has faced and to the challenges of the case. I have not seen any of the papers—the legal advice, the criminal evidence or the medical evidence—and it is for the Home Secretary alone to make a judgment that people will respect. She will know that it is not for me to second-guess her decision on this matter today. I do, however, want to ask her about the wider reforms that she has proposed, and also about the consequences of this judgment for other cases.

Let me first ask the right hon. Lady about the forum bar that she has proposed. As she will know, the last Government legislated for a forum bar, but the legislation has not been implemented. I think that that is because of concerns raised not only by Scott Baker but by the present and the last Government about some of the practical implications. Clearly delays, and the risk of delays, are important issues, but we shall be happy to work on the detail with the Home Secretary, through Parliament, and to discuss how the problems could be solved. However, I think that there is a wider issue that may not yet have been considered in the legal debate about forum bars. I refer to internet crimes, which constitute a growing proportion of overall crime. Conceivably such crimes could be committed in several jurisdictions at once. Wider discussions are needed about where they should be dealt with, and about ways in which our traditional extradition arrangements may not have caught up with a different kind of crime that is going to increase.

There will clearly need to be international co-operation and consideration of how the problem should be addressed. I urge the Home Secretary to set up a high-level group with the United States, the European Union and other main countries with which we have arrangements specifically to consider internet crimes. However, I should like to know whether she feels able to do that, given her diplomatic relations with other countries.

We need a fair framework for justice in relation to cross-border crimes. We need to be able to bring people back to Britain to face justice, and we need a fair framework for extraditions from the UK. However, that fair framework will be possible only if it is drawn up through negotiation and co-operation with other countries. As the Home Secretary will know, there is already considerable concern about whether her approach to the EU, the opting out and opting in and the current relationship between the Government and the EU will make it harder to secure the sensible reforms of the European arrest warrant that we need.

Obviously our historic relationship with the United States gives us an opportunity to work together, whether on the bilateral protocol to which the right hon. Lady referred or on other arrangements. May I ask her whether there is a positive relationship between the Home Office and the US Government to ensure that such arrangements and reforms can be agreed to?

May I also ask whether today’s judgment has implications for other cases? Other people who are subject to extradition or immigration proceedings cite medical conditions as a reason for them not to be extradited. It would be useful for Parliament and the courts to understand the test that the right hon. Lady has applied, and to know whether it will set precedents for other cases.

Have the right hon. Lady’s medical advisers proposed any threshold for these decisions? She said that she had sought her own medical advice. Did that constitute a separate medical assessment of Gary McKinnon, which I understand she had sought, or a review of the assessment made by his doctors? Does the test have any implications or set any precedent for other extradition cases, such as the case of Haroon Rashid Aswat? The US Government have sought his extradition alongside that of Abu Hamza and others which the Home Secretary has supported. He is in Broadmoor at present, having, I understand, been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Has the Home Secretary changed her position on his case, or does it remain the same? Clearly there were issues involving his medical condition that she had to consider. Finally, let me ask her about the case of Richard O’Dwyer, whose extradition she has confirmed and who has not raised any medical issues. Will his case be affected by any of the changes that she has announced today?

I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is sensible to remove the role of the Home Secretary from decisions such as this. It has taken a very long time for this decision to be made. I think we would all agree that such cases take too long, and that it is in the interests of justice, the families involved and the victims of crimes for them to be dealt with far more speedily.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her approach in response to my statement. She raised three key issues. The first was about the forum bar and our ability to work together to consider these issues across the House and I welcome her suggestion of cross-party work. We all want to ensure that the measure can be introduced in a way that does not introduce delays to extradition proceedings and does not permit significant satellite litigation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will have noted her offer.

The right hon. Lady then raised the question of cyber and internet crime, which is a key issue. We are conscious of the growth of cybercrime. That is why there will be a cybercrime unit in the National Crime Agency and why, when the Government took office, we set aside a significant sum of money over the four years of the comprehensive spending review to deal with both cyber-security and cybercrime. It is important to work internationally and I have already been party to a number of discussions with other member states in the European Union and with the United States; those discussions are ongoing. We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that we address cybercrime.

Finally, she asked a number of questions about my decision on Mr McKinnon. I have given the most careful consideration to all the material, medical and otherwise, in this difficult and exceptional case and I have concluded that the ordering of his extradition and his subsequent removal would give rise to such risk to his health and, in particular, to a high risk of his ending his life that a decision to that effect would be incompatible with his human rights under article 3. My decision is based on Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have met the Conservative PCC candidate for Essex, Nick Alston. He is an excellent candidate, and I know that he will be out there taking that message through the streets of the towns and villages of Essex. My hon. Friend is right that these are important elections that will enable people to elect directly somebody who will be their voice in local policing. I urge everybody to exercise their vote on 15 November.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I support the Home Secretary’s statement on Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, and the statements that she made at the time of their death. It was a brutal act. She and I are united, and I think the whole House and the whole country are united, in our tributes to those brave police officers.

I turn to a separate issue. The Home Secretary told the Police Federation last year:

“It’s easy to sit around with friends or, dare I say it, in the House of Commons, and criticise the police. But those people aren’t the ones confronting violent thugs”.

She has also told it:

“You put up with abuse and worse, but you do so to keep us free…You do an amazing job—and it’s time we gave you all the respect you deserve.”

I agree with her, so will she join me in condemning the Chief Whip in the House for swearing at police officers?

[Mrs May]

I have already answered on that particular issue. I am happy to stand here and reiterate what I and others have said on a number of occasions. I believe that we have the best police officers in the world, and the Government are giving them our support. We are ensuring that we give them the tools that they need to do the job that they and the public want them to do.

[Yvette Cooper]

But the Home Secretary still has not condemned the Chief Whip for what he did and for the swearing—something for which people across the country are arrested. The reason why it matters that there has been no investigation and that he has not come clean is that people think it goes to the heart of the Government’s attitude towards the police and public servants. Once again, they are not listening to the police on the European arrest warrant, CCTV, DNA or the cutting of police numbers by 15,000. If the Home Secretary really wants to put an end to that and show respect for the police, why does she not change the Chief Whip and change her policies on policing too?

[Mrs May]

I was asked about the Chief Whip earlier and I answered the question. The right hon. Lady really should listen to the answers that are given to questions.

European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely right that there are criminal offences where we want to be able to extradite people—to bring people back from other countries to face trial and justice here in the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the arrangements that enable us to do that are the best possible and are proportionate. Proportionality is one of the issues that have been raised as regards relations with Europe. As I say, we will look at every individual measure separately when choosing whether to request to opt in.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have never been in this situation before whereby I have not had a copy of the statement from the Minister until I arrived in the Chamber. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for taking my point of order about this earlier. It shows the complete confusion in the Government and on the part of the Home Secretary about what the Government’s policy is. They have not told us anything at all today; they are completely confused.

We all know that with more international travel and growing cross-border crime, international co-operation is an extremely serious matter, yet the Government seem to have an utterly chaotic position. The Prime Minister told us that the Government would be opting out of all the justice and home affairs provisions; the Deputy Prime Minister said, “No, no—we are only minded to do so.” The Home Secretary said that she was simply setting out “the Government’s current thinking”. However, as she also said that “discussions are ongoing”, presumably the current thinking could change tomorrow and then it will be something else entirely. She said that she wants to opt out of some things but then might opt back into everything all over again. It is just like the Education Secretary saying that he wants out of Europe and the Prime Minister wanting in. With all this out and in, in and out, it is as though the Government are playing a giant game of hokey cokey—and yet the fight against crime is at stake.

The Home Secretary will know that former Metropolitan police commissioners and former heads of MI5 and MI6 have said that British law enforcement bodies are now constantly communicating, co-operating and collaborating with the EU in pursuing serious organised criminal and terrorist networks. The framework of co-operation that they have is crucial in order to stop criminals and prevent crime.

We have read much in the papers about the European arrest warrant, but the Home Secretary did not say whether she wants to opt out of it or plans to opt back in. This warrant made it possible to arrest Jeremy Forrest and bring him back to face British justice for the alleged kidnapping of Megan Stammers and to bring back Hussain Osman for trying to bomb the London underground, and it closed down the “Costa del Crime” when British criminals fled to Spain.

We have a right to be able to bring those criminals back to face British justice, and we owe it to their victims —and, yes, that does mean sending people back from Britain to other countries, because of the 4,000 people returned from Britain in the past eight years under the European arrest warrant, 95% were foreign citizens, who often had committed crimes in their home countries and fled here to escape the long arm of the law. I am sorry, but I think that people should be sent back to their home countries to face justice, rather than have too many people who are suspected of serious crimes in Europe wandering around Britain, unable to be sent back to face justice without years of legal wrangles. From what the Home Secretary has said today, she may well be opting out of the European arrest warrant, which prevents that from happening.

Another area is the sharing of criminal and DNA records. If a known sex offender travels to Britain from France or Spain, does the Home Secretary think that we need full access to their DNA and their criminal records or not?

What about minimum standards of counter-terror co-operation, participating in Europol and exchanging information to stop passport fraud and Europe-wide money laundering, and to trace and freeze criminal assets? The Home Secretary has not told us her position on any of those important measures. She has not said whether she thinks we should opt out, opt out and then opt back in again, whether she thinks that we should renegotiate the provisions, or what will be put in their place in the meantime.

The Home Secretary knows that there is no guarantee that the European Commission and other European countries will support our opting back in again. For example, Denmark, which has opted out from the justice and home affairs provisions, has had about 50% of its requests turned down. One of the Home Secretary’s junior Ministers has admitted that there will be a financial penalty for opting out and then opting back in. Does she have any idea what that financial penalty will be and whether it is worth the price?

I say to the Home Secretary that this is an utterly confused position. Her defence is that she wants to consult Parliament and the public but, considering she has utterly failed to consult Parliament and provide the Opposition with proper information, that is ridiculous. She is taking big risks without even working out what her views are or what the Government think. Next time they want to make a statement on important European policy, perhaps they should work out what they actually think it should be before they come to the House and make it.

[Mrs May]

Let us remember that it was the Labour party that wanted to sign up to the European constitution and that planned to scrap the pound and join the euro. It has no credibility on European issues in this House. Indeed, it has no credibility with the British people.

Let me address the right hon. Lady’s points. On the list of measures that we might want to opt back into, I have made it clear that we need to engage with the European Commission and other member states in order to opt back into measures where we believe it is in the national interest to do so. That negotiation can now start. We will do that in earnest and talk to them about the terms on which particular opt-ins might be possible.

The right hon. Lady seems to be concerned about where the opt-out decision might leave us with regard to public protection. I remind her that it was the previous Government who negotiated the opt-out. If they thought it was such a problem, why did they negotiate it in the first place? On costs, I remind the right hon. Lady that the financial penalty was part of that negotiation of the opt-out, so it was the Labour Government who signed up to it.

The right hon. Lady made a number of comments on the European arrest warrant. She will be aware that a number of Members have raised concerns about British nationals, some of whom are their constituents, spending a long time languishing in foreign jails before reaching trial. A number of issues have been raised in this House and elsewhere about the proportionality issue in relation to the European arrest warrant. I therefore ask the right hon. Lady: is she happy with all of that, or does she think that the situation can be changed? If she does not think that there is an issue with the European arrest warrant, why did she not force a Division and vote against last December’s motion on extradition, which included a proposal to reform and amend the European arrest warrant? She did not. She accepted the motion, which this House passed and which stated that amendments should be made to the European arrest warrant.

The right hon. Lady’s only position on the issue seems to be to disagree with what we say and what we do. The Labour party negotiated an opt-out, but now it is against enacting it. It said that we needed to reform the European arrest warrant, but now it wants to pass up on the chance of doing just that. I have set out the Government’s position this afternoon. We will give Parliament a voice on the issue. The right hon. Lady cannot spend her time saying one thing one day and another thing the next and expect to be taken credibly by this House or anybody else.

Olympics (Security)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on Olympic security.

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

Since I updated the House on Olympic security last week, there have been several allegations in the media, and I want to deal with each of them.

First, it was reported that Ministers knew there would be a shortfall in security staff last year. This is untrue. Last September, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported, at my request, on the security preparations by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, and it recommended several measures. HMIC reported again in February and concluded that LOCOG had plans in place to deliver the required number of security personnel. Neither HMIC report identified specific problems with G4S scheduling.

Secondly, it was reported that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is the Minister for crime and security, had attended meetings in which he was told there was a security staff shortage. In fact, G4S repeatedly assured us that it would overshoot its targets. As I told the House on Thursday, G4S told the Government that it would be unable to meet its contractual obligations only last Wednesday, and we took immediate action.

Thirdly, it was reported that we must have known about the shortfall because the military was put on standby in April. This is also not the case. In fact, 7,500 troops have been part of the security plans since December, a further 1,000 were on standby in the event of flooding or other such civil emergencies, and we placed a further 2,000 on standby as a precaution in case the threat level increased. The 3,500 troops whose deployment I announced last Thursday are a direct response to the failure of G4S to meet its contractual obligations. A further contingency will remain.

The Government have strengthened the oversight of the security planning operation since we came into office. I will go through briefly what has happened since the bid for the games in 2005. From the beginning, the organisers planned to use private sector personnel for venue security. LOCOG confirmed that it would be using private sector security personnel well before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It started the procurement process for security personnel in April 2010.

When we entered government in May 2010, we instigated a comprehensive review of Olympics safety and security planning, overseen by the then Security Minister, Baroness Neville-Jones. That audit and review identified a shortfall in LOCOG’s venue security budget, which we addressed in the comprehensive spending review.

We recognised that, with a project of this size and scale, even that additional funding might not ensure the level of security that we needed, so I asked for outside assurance of LOCOG’s venue security planning. In September 2011, I commissioned HMIC to carry out an inspection of LOCOG’s venue security plans. As I have said, that led to several recommendations that were acted on by the Home Office, the police and LOCOG.

LOCOG and the Home Office monitored delivery throughout the following months. G4S assured LOCOG and the Government continually that it would be able to deliver its contractual obligations. However, on Wednesday 11 July, following the difficulties with scheduling that the company has acknowledged, G4S notified LOCOG and the Government that it would not be able to provide the numbers of security personnel specified in its contract. I want to be clear that that was the first time that G4S admitted to any Minister that it would not be able to deliver the numbers of security personnel that it had promised.

We acted immediately to make further contingency arrangements by agreeing the deployment of 3,500 further troops. That brings the total military contribution to the games to 17,000, including personnel from all three services.

G4S has failed to deliver its contractual obligations, but we have the finest military personnel in the world—troops who are willing, ready and able to step in when their country calls—and we can be sure of their professionalism in helping to deliver a secure and safe Olympic games.

[Yvette Cooper]

Everyone wants the games to be an outstanding success. After the G4S shambles, we need things to be back on track and the Home Secretary needs to show that she is sorting it out.

First, will the Home Secretary tell us precisely how many people she now expects G4S to provide? It was contracted to provide 17,000, it now says that it will be 13,000, but it has admitted that the vast majority of those are still in process. Today, we learned that only a third of the expected G4S staff turned up to lock down a venue in Manchester and that the police had to do it instead. The monitoring has failed once spectacularly and the Home Secretary has failed to assess the numbers once before. Will she now tell us how many staff she believes G4S will provide?

Secondly, the Home Secretary told us on Thursday that 3,500 extra troops would be sufficient to fill the gap. If G4S fails to deliver the full 13,000 people it now promises, will those troops be enough? If more troops and police will be needed, she should say so now and not let this drift. The troops and the police will do an excellent job, but they need to be able to prepare.

Thirdly, the London Mayor said this morning:

“Everybody that was organising the Olympics knew this was coming up…ages ago.”

The deputy mayor said:

“This issue was flagged up repeatedly by both the Metropolitan Police Authority and subsequently the Mayor’s Office…for more than a year to G4S directly, the Olympic Security Board, and the Home Office.”

Even G4S says that it has been discussing the detailed shortfall for “eight or nine days”. And yet, last Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she was

“confident that our partners will deliver”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]

It is incomprehensible that the monitoring was that poor that no one told her until Wednesday. How on earth could the Minister responsible for delivering Olympics security be the only person who did not know? When was she first told that there was a problem with G4S?

We need to know why the Home Secretary has failed on this, because we need to have the confidence that she understands what went wrong and is competent to sort the problem out now, so that everyone can get on and make the Olympics a great success.

[Mrs May]

I will respond to the various points that the shadow Home Secretary has raised. She asked what the numbers look like. The revised solution of more than 23,000 personnel that was decided on at the end of last year was made up of 10,400 G4S guards, 7,500 military at peak, up to 3,000 Bridging the Gap, up to 3,000 volunteers and up to 2,000 incumbents that—

[Yvette Cooper]

What about G4S?

[Mrs May]

The very first figures that I gave were 10,400 G4S guards, 7,500 military, 3,000 Bridging the Gap, up to 3,000 volunteers and up to 2,000 incumbent security suppliers at existing venues. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asks, “Bridging what gap?” Bridging the Gap is the name of a programme under which students and others can get employment.

The shadow Home Secretary says that we need to get a grip, but that is precisely what we have been doing. When we came to office, we made an immediate security audit, increased the budget and revised the plans. I have commissioned several reports on Olympic preparedness, each of which has led to a refinement of the plans. When G4S told us last Wednesday that it would be unable to deliver its contractual obligations, we decided to deploy extra military personnel to fill the gap.

The right hon. Lady asked why the situation was not known about earlier. I have explained that we commissioned reports on G4S’s preparedness, which contained recommendations on which LOCOG, the Home Office and the police acted, but those reports all made it clear that subject to acting on those recommendations, LOCOG was on track to deliver the necessary security personnel. Last Wednesday, G4S told us that it would be unable to deliver its obligations.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about timing. On Friday 6 July the managing director of G4S Global Events told Reuters:

“We are delivering a London Olympics now. If there was a similar event going on in Australia, I would be bullish that we could deliver that at the same time.”

I suggest that the right hon. Lady listens to the comments of some of her colleagues. Lord West has said:

“I don’t think it will affect the security of the games. That’s been taken care of. The Government have sorted that out, because the military are in there.”

The shadow Olympics spokesman has said:

“The important thing now is to focus on the solutions.”

I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary listens to her colleagues.

Olympics (Security)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. On his earlier point about generosity to the armed forces, I should say that the Secretary of State for Defence has taken that very seriously. He has been ensuring that we will be generous to those who are taking on the responsibility. As I outlined in my remarks, a number of arrangements are being made to cover that, particularly if members of the armed forces have personal arrangements, to make sure that they are not out of pocket and that they will get the leave to which they are entitled.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Everyone wants us to have a safe and successful Olympics, and we support the Home Secretary’s decision to bring in extra military support in the circumstances. We also recognise that, given the scale of the Olympic challenge, no one can guarantee that everything will go smoothly.

However, I have to say to the Home Secretary that this really looks like another huge Home Office shambles. On Monday, she was asked specifically about recruitment at G4S. She said:

“The Home Office has put in place a number of assurance processes to ensure that we have effective and robust scrutiny of venue security planning. We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners will deliver a safe and secure games”—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]

She was so confident that two days later she called in the troops. What does it say about the Home Secretary’s assurance process that it took until two weeks before the games to realise that 3,500 military additional personnel would be needed? G4S is not just a few volunteers short—we are talking about 3,500 people from a contract to provide 10,000 staff and 6,000 volunteers. That is a breach of contract of about 25%. Why did it take until lock-down to realise what was going on?

The Minister responsible for security, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), told the “Today” programme this morning:

“We’ve obviously been monitoring the progress and been challenging them, asking the questions, really going down, kicking the tyres and doing all those sorts of things.”

Well, it was not very effective—was it?—if, with just 15 days to go, we could be in this situation. Can the Home Secretary tell us again what will happen to the G4S contract? Has she even asked those questions to make sure that the security budget is not affected and that the taxpayer does not end up out of pocket?

Of course we pay tribute to our military, who I am sure will do an excellent job, but what does it say about the Home Office that there are still two-hour queues at Heathrow, that borders staff sacked last year are being re-recruited, that the borders force is becoming a borders farce, and that the dynamic duo of the security Minister and the Minister for Immigration were tripping up this morning in the “Today” programme studios to defend themselves on different aspects of Home Office incompetence?

Everyone is working really hard to make the games a success and show the world the best of British. The Home Office is making that harder, not easier. I say to the Home Secretary: please get the security and border problems sorted out and stop letting everybody else down.

[Mrs May]

I think that I can deal swiftly with the right hon. Lady’s response. First, I thank her for her support for the decision. Secondly, I should say that it is not a shambles when the Government take the action necessary to ensure that we are providing the venue security. Troops have always been part of the provision of venue security and we are taking the action that ensures that we have the confidence that the numbers will be there. She should have listened to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about the timetable in relation to the G4S contract. It is a LOCOG contract, and it is for LOCOG to exercise the penalties within it.

As for the right hon. Lady’s reference to my hon. Friends the security Minister and the Minister for Immigration, I am sure that if neither of them had been speaking publicly about these issues today she would have complained about that as well. I am slightly sorry that she has not taken the approach of her noble Friend, Lord West, who has said, “I’m not trying to indulge in a blame game regarding Governments.” It is a pity that she could not, like him, be a bit more statesmanlike.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the shift patterns issue, and I welcome the work that a number of police forces across the country, including Leicestershire, have taken forward, so that they can use their resources rather better to ensure they can prioritise front-line services to the public while making the necessary savings. I would expect my hon. Friend’s force to be prioritising front-line services in exactly that way in his constituency.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has to make sure that there is proper border security without long queues. In April, Ministers promised that all immigration desks at Heathrow would be fully staffed during peak periods over the summer. Instead, June BAA data show that in the early-morning peak at terminal 3, there were only seven staff and at least half the desks were closed, and queues reached almost two hours long as a result. There are only 18 days to go until the Olympics; why is it still such a mess?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady should have listened to the response that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration gave to the shadow Immigration Minister just now. Over recent months we have been increasing the number of staff who are available at Heathrow and elsewhere, including the number of contingency staff, in response to what were, when we looked at them in April, unacceptably long queues. The right hon. Lady refers specifically to the Olympics. Extra arrangements will be in place for the Olympics. That was always what was planned. They will come into play before the Olympics opening ceremony, and therefore before significant numbers of tourists arrive for the Olympics.

[Yvette Cooper]

But BAA has said the queues over the last few days have been unacceptably long. Targets have been breached throughout June. There has been chaos again this morning. Olympics visitors are already starting to arrive. The rest of the country is working hard to show the world the best of British. All the right hon. Lady is doing is showing visitors how to queue. She has had years to plan this, but now she has got only two weeks to sort it out and make sure the Home Office does not embarrass everybody else.

[Mrs May]

I repeat to the right hon. Lady that, under the plans for the contingency numbers during the Olympics, there will be an increase in the number of staff at the borders. We will be manning all desks at peak times during the Olympics. The numbers will be there to do that. It is important that we ensure that we are providing security and a good experience for people arriving at Heathrow, and I was very pleased when I was at Heathrow a couple of weeks ago to be able to welcome five members of the Chinese team and ensure that they were put through the games family member lane.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is not what the motion says. It deals simply with an issue of principle about whether Parliament should be able to set out how article 8 is interpreted. Various lawyers have said that the motion is little more than a statement of fact and is effectively the equivalent of the Home Secretary regarding the immigration rules as compliant with article 8.

That is what the motion does, but it is not clear whether the Home Secretary expects us to endorse the detailed content of individual immigration rules, only some of which she discussed in her speech—many were not discussed. She referred, for example, to foreign criminals. The Opposition believe that the Government’s broad approach to foreign criminals is the right one—we think it is right to take stronger action, including through the immigration rules and the Border Agency—but this process is not appropriate as a general rule for the scrutiny of the content of immigration rules. For Parliament to attempt such scrutiny just two sitting days after the rules were published would be inappropriate, and it would be unlikely to reassure the courts that the detail had been properly scrutinised and debated.

In particular, today’s debate cannot be about the detail of the wider family immigration rules, which were published only last week. Further scrutiny will be needed, because there are concerns about whether the rules are the most effective way of protecting the taxpayer, and whether they are fair and just. Those concerns should be debated properly, but that cannot happen in a debate on a general motion.

The motion refers simply to the broad immigration rules and cannot suffice as proper scrutiny or endorsement of the changes to individual rules. The Opposition are happy to support the Government’s approach to tackling foreign criminals, because we believe that more action needs to be taken, including through the immigration rules. We also believe the Government are right to consider how to ensure that article 8 is interpreted. In that way, they can provide a framework of guidance when it comes to dealing with foreign criminals through the immigration rules.

There is a wider challenge. The Home Secretary’s reason for introducing the motion was that she is concerned that more foreign criminals should be deported. She will know that the number of foreign criminals deported in 2011-12 fell by nearly 18%. If all those in the cases to which she referred—the 185 cases that the Home Office said were granted appeal on article 8 grounds—were instead deported, the number deported in the most recent financial year would still have fallen by around 15% on the previous year. Whatever the Home Secretary’s intention, the motion still deals with only a small minority of cases involving foreign criminals.

The border inspector has made it clear that one of the main reasons why people are not being deported is difficulty in obtaining travel documentation. Everyone recognises that that can be difficult and untimely in some cases, but those practical operations have clearly become significantly worse since the election, which is a deep concern. The Home Secretary has said nothing today to answer those concerns or to address the growing concern that the Border Agency’s performance is deteriorating substantially on the Government’s watch.

The Opposition want to be able to support the Government’s approach to tackling foreign criminals, but we need more answers from the Home Secretary about what she hopes the motion will do.

[Mrs May]

There is a very simple question for the shadow Home Secretary. Does she believe it is right that, as the courts have said, Parliament should give a clear view on what the public interest is in relation to the operation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, on the right to a private and family life? If she believes that that is the case, and that fewer foreign criminals should be allowed to stay in this country on the basis of article 8, she should support the motion and give a clear message to the courts. I am beginning to think that she is trying to confuse the courts and to prevent them from taking that interpretation of the motion. Does she support a clear message to the courts or not?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary talks about clear messages, but she is not giving a clear message to the House, never mind to the courts. She has been confused at every step about what the motion is supposed to do. Time and again, she has been asked whether it is supposed to trump case law or endorse the details of individual immigration rules, on which no opportunity for proper scrutiny has been given, and which have not even gone through the normal processes in the House. It is not clear whether this is supposed to be an endorsement of the existing immigration rules or the future immigration rules. She has not made her position clear.

We would like to be able to support the Home Secretary in her principled statement that article 8 should be discussed by the House and is a matter for legitimate debate. We also want to support her in taking action to deport more foreign criminals, but we urge her to do something about the real problem, which she is still ignoring. She also needs to provide answers to the House about how the detail on other aspects of the immigration rules, particularly on family and other parts of her proposed immigration changes, will be scrutinised, and whether she is trying to bypass the normal scrutiny processes.

The Home Secretary has not chosen a normal approach today. She needs to do more to deport more foreign criminals, but she should not try to subvert normal processes and should be straight with the House about what she is asking it to do.

Family Migration

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving us early sight of her statement on family migration, article 8 and foreign criminals. I thank her for giving us early sight of it in The Sunday Times and on “The Andrew Marr Show” as well.

I shall respond first to the Home Secretary’s points about article 8. Foreign citizens who come to Britain should abide by our rules. The Government should be able to deport people who break the law and, as she will know, the number of foreign criminals being deported trebled in the last five years of the Labour Government. However, there continue to be cases in which it is difficult to understand why the courts have allowed the foreign criminals involved to stay in Britain. We therefore agree with the Home Secretary that action is needed.

Article 8 of the European convention on human rights is a qualified right, and the right to respect for family life should be balanced against other issues, including public safety, economic well-being and preventing disorder or crime. Parliament is therefore entitled to set out how those rights should be balanced against those considerations when dealing with foreign criminals, and to provide a framework within which the courts should operate. We should discuss those details, but the way in which Parliament provides that framework must be legally effective.

I am puzzled by the Home Secretary’s decision to use a motion in Parliament that will obviously not change the law or override case law in the way that primary legislation would. Surely that approach will risk creating confusion and legal uncertainty. Would it not be better for her to do this properly, through primary legislation, instead? If that were to happen, we would happily hold discussions with the Government to work on getting that right.

On the measures on family migration, when people travel and trade across borders more than they ever did before, there needs to be a fair framework for those who fall in love and build family relationships across borders, too. We agree that stronger safeguards are needed for the taxpayer on family migration. If people want to make this country their home, they should contribute and not be a burden on public funds, but it is not clear that the best way to protect the taxpayer is to focus solely on the sponsor’s salary. For example, in the current economic climate, someone on £40,000 today could lose their job next month, and then, of course, there is no way to protect the taxpayer. The system does not take account of the foreign partner’s income, which might have a differential impact on women. Will the Home Secretary explain why the Government ruled out consulting on a bond that could have been used to protect the taxpayer if someone needed public funds later on?

There is also a wider problem about the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and reality. The Home Secretary admitted yesterday that these changes to the family visa will not mean “big numbers”, yet she said again today that she anticipates meeting her net migration target of tens of thousands, even though the latest figures show net migration still at around 250,000. Will she tell us when she expects to meet that target? Does she still think it will be met by the end of this Parliament, in line with the Prime Minister’s promise—“No ifs. No buts.”—that it would be met or are she and the Prime Minister making promises that they have no intention of keeping?

There is also a gap between rhetoric and reality on deporting foreign criminals. The number of foreign criminals deported increased every year until the election, but since then it has fallen, year on year. It fell by 18% in the last financial year alone, as nearly 1,000 fewer foreign criminals were deported in 2011-12 compared with the previous year. According to Home Office briefings to the newspapers, the Home Secretary’s measures on article 8 will apply to 185 foreign criminals. Even if every single one of those article 8 cases had been deported, the Government would still have deported hundreds fewer foreign criminals last year compared with the year before, and we would still have more foreign criminals in the community instead.

The truth is that this announcement does not deal with the growing problem under the Home Secretary’s Government. Too many foreign criminals are staying in Britain—not because of article 8, but, in the words of a borders inspector, because of

“difficulty in obtaining travel documentation”

resulting from the Border Agency’s weaknesses in enforcement and administration. This is another example of problems that have got worse for the Border Agency in the last two years.

We will work with the Home Secretary to get the detail right and on some of the sensible points she has made, but statements and parliamentary motions are not enough; she also needs to take action on the practical problems that have got worse on her watch.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for supporting the action the Government are taking in some areas, and I hope she will be able to carry that support through when the motion comes before Parliament, because a strong voice from this Parliament on article 8 and the rules on family migration will be all the more effective in relation to the courts.

The right hon. Lady asked why we have chosen to work through a motion in Parliament and immigration rules. We will change the immigration rules, and this Parliament will have an opportunity to make its voice heard and to give its clear view on where it feels the framework should sit in respect of article 8. I have every expectation that that will have an impact on how article 8 is interpreted in the courts.

The right hon. Lady asked why we had gone down the route of the income threshold. We asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise us on what we should do and on what income level we should adopt. It gave us a range of income levels from £18,600 up to a higher point, and we chose to adopt the lower point, adding in elements for individual children, rather than go down a route that would be available only to those people who had capital and were able to put up a bond in the first place.

Changes in the numbers were also raised. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the net migration figure shown in the last published set of statistics from the Office for National Statistics, which includes migration numbers up to September 2011. What she may have failed to look at, however, are the figures for student visas thereafter, as we have seen a significant decrease in the number allocated through to March 2012. [Interruption.] The shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), says “That is good”, as though getting rid of abuse in the student visa system were not good. I am not surprised, because for too many years Labour allowed too many people to come to this country claiming to be students when they were not students. We are getting on with dealing with that.

The right hon. Lady talked about the need to deal with deportation. We are increasing the enforcement action that is being taken. All Governments have experienced problems in regard to the acceptance of an individual as being from the country concerned and the granting of the recognised travel documents on that basis, but the right hon. Lady’s claim that this Government are somehow failing in relation to immigration sits ill with the record of her Government over too many years. Her Government failed to control immigration; this Government are controlling immigration. Her Government failed to end the abuse of student visas; this Government are ending the abuse of student visas. Her Government failed to deal with article 8; this Government are dealing with article 8.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That was one of the issues that Tom Winsor looked at in the second part of his review of pay, terms and conditions for police, and he has proposed a number of ways for direct entry at various levels in the police for those from outside the police so that we can see a broader range of experience and skills being brought into policing. Those proposals, like other proposals from the Winsor report part 2, are currently going through the appropriate police negotiating body and other bodies.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The borders inspector has said that the number of people absconding at border control, slipping through without permission, escaping from detention or disappearing after temporary admission has more than doubled since the election, and the number who are later caught has fallen. Can the Home Secretary explain why that has happened?

[Mrs May]

We take the issue of security at the border extremely seriously. That is why we have been following up the report of the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, as his title then was, in relation to the Border Force and ensuring that the—sadly—poor situation that had developed over a number of years under the Labour Government is being addressed.

[Yvette Cooper]

The problem has got substantially worse since the election. At terminal 3 alone the number of absconders was 115 in 2009; in 2011 the report estimates that it was “between 300 and 350, significantly higher than previous years”, and the proportion being caught later has halved. That is what the report says. Time and again, the situation is getting worse month on month, not better. Is not the truth that this is another example of failing border control and weaker action on illegal immigration on the Home Secretary’s watch? We have controls being downgraded hundreds of times, hundreds of staff being cut and at the last minute re-recruited, drugs and gun checks stopped, and more people like Raed Salah managing to walk through, when they should have been stopped. Will the Home Secretary get a grip?

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Lady that it is this Government who are putting in place controls on our immigration system; it was the previous Labour Government who allowed people to come in without any controls on the immigration system. We are putting in place a policy that will see the number of people coming into this country reduced and in both the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force, we are putting right the problems that grew up under the previous Labour Government. She talks about the relaxation of controls, but the inspector said that that had been happening since 2007. It is about time that the Labour party accepted responsibility for what it did in government.

Home Affairs and Justice

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many would have wished to see a conclusion to the Abu Qatada case rather more swiftly than has been possible so far. I am confident, however, that we are closer to the deportation of Abu Qatada today than we were two days ago. We need to go through the proper processes in the UK courts. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the written ministerial statement and the two available processes.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If I can finish providing an explanation to my hon. Friend, the right hon. Lady might not need to ask a question.

Two processes are available. A very high bar is set for the Government to go down the route of adopting the certification process. Declaring a case against deportation as unfounded is effectively the same as saying that there is no legal argument against the deportation. As I said, a very high bar has been set in relation to that, but I am, of course, taking advice on both options. I shall make the Government’s position clear in due course.

[Yvette Cooper]

Like the Home Secretary, I strongly welcomed yesterday’s decision by the European Court to refuse Abu Qatada’s appeal. I think that we all want him to be deported to Jordan as rapidly as possible. Of course we recognise that she will have to make complex and difficult decisions in order to ensure that she gets the next steps right, but will she now accept that she got it wrong when she told the House of Commons 12 times that the date of the deadline for Abu Qatada’s appeal was the Monday rather than the Tuesday night?

[Mrs May]

Obviously I welcome the fact that the European Court came out and refused Abu Qatada’s application for referral yesterday. As I told the Home Affairs Committee, I had been strongly advised that that was expected to happen because of the case that we had made.

Of course I accept that the Court has made its decision on the matter of the deadline. The Government still do not agree with that decision—[Interruption.] As I have said, we accept the Court’s decision. I made clear at every stage to the House and to the Home Affairs Committee that it was only ever going to be that panel of judges that finally decided whether the referral could be accepted. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to the European Court today drawing attention to inconsistencies in the guidance that it had published on how to calculate the date, and asking it to clarify the position for future purposes and provide revised guidance.

I was talking about the Crime and Courts Bill, and the matters relating to the criminal justice system that it reflects. We will ensure that fines represent real justice by making defaulting offenders, not the taxpayer, pay the cost of collection. A single county court and a single family court will be established to increase the efficiency of the civil and family court systems, and the judicial appointments process will be reformed to introduce greater transparency, flexibility and diversity. Court broadcasting will be allowed, in limited circumstances, to help to demystify the justice system. We will improve the efficiency of our immigration system by removing full appeal rights for family visit visas and removing in-country appeal rights for excluded persons, and we will strengthen our borders by extending the powers of immigration officers to tackle serious and organised immigration-related crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Government Members need to recognise that their decisions are cutting 16,000 police officers. Our approach is to say that we do not believe that 16,000 police officers should be cut. We believe that the police should have enough money to support those 16,000 officers. We should not have had to cut 5,000 police officers already from 999 units, from neighbourhood response units and from the urgent response units that we need to keep us safe and to arrive in an emergency.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us why she thinks that it is a good idea to have already taken more than 5,000 police out of 999 units, neighbourhood units and the traffic cops.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady just said that the 12% cut in police budgets that she has told us in this Chamber the Opposition would support includes the pay freeze, but it does not. She has said that she would support the 12% efficiency savings outlined by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, but those did not include either the pay freeze—£500 million—or the overtime cuts of a further £600 million announced by the shadow Policing Minister. What Opposition Members need to understand is that what she has said about cuts to police budgets would lead to cuts in police officer numbers and that they should not say anything other than that when they talk to the police.

[Yvette Cooper]

We heard nothing then to defend the 5,000 officers being cut from 999 response units, from neighbourhood policing units and from emergency response units across the country. The Home Secretary is dealing in fantasy figures. She needs to think about what she has just said. If the figures she has just used were correct, no police officers would be going—no front-line staff would be being cut—everything would be hunky-dory and she would be able to do it all through the pay freeze and through the back-office cuts that she has proposed. But that is not what is happening. Instead, 16,000 police officers are going, from every corner of the country. They are being taken from the very front-line services we need. Time and again the Government told us that the front line would be protected and would not be hit, but that is not happening. She is out of touch. The Prime Minister told us:

“We won’t do anything that will reduce the amount of visible policing on our streets.”

But 5,000 police officers have gone already, and many thousands more are to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman knows that that figure does not actually reflect what happens in police forces across the country. Barely an hour ago, I spoke to police officers who told me that they are now having to deal with more bureaucracy, not less. They have to do all their own recording of crime and all their own collecting of statements, which used to be done by civilian support staff. Those police officers told me categorically that they are now spending less time out on the beat and having to deal with more bureaucracy than they were before. The police are becoming less visible, not more visible, as a result of this Government’s decisions.

What then does the Queen’s Speech have to offer to cut crime or to improve public safety? The answer is: not much. The previous Queen’s Speech was bad enough: 17,000 suspected rapists were taken off the DNA database; 20% cuts were made in policing at the same time as £100 million could be found for elected police commissioners; counter-terrorism powers were watered down; and getting CCTV was made tougher. So what do the Government have to offer this time to make good the damage? The answer is: cameras in courts. I guess they had to put them somewhere, now that they are taking them away from the town centres and the housing estates.

The Home Secretary did promise stronger oversight of the intelligence and security agencies. We will support that, and I hope that she goes far enough. She also said that she wants more closed material procedures—the devil will be in the detail on that. There is a problem with foreign intelligence, and I agree with her that there is a problem with the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. The proposals that she set out in the Green Paper were not justified and went too far. I recognise from her remarks today that she has made some changes to those positions, but we will need to see the detail, reflect and give the matter consideration. She also talked about extending communication surveillance. Again, we will await the detail. Everyone wants the police to be able to keep up with new technology in the fight against terrorism, but no one wants the police or security agencies browsing personal e-mails or Facebook pages at will. I hope that we can have cross-party discussions on this. The Home Secretary will know that the practice of previous Home Secretaries has been to provide extensive briefing for the Opposition and for Select Committees, so we will wait to see what detail she is able to provide.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. May I please press her in particular on the point about closed material proceedings? When the Green Paper proposals were announced in this House, the Opposition made it clear that they supported closed material proceedings and recognised the need to protect certain material. Is she now suggesting that the Opposition’s position has changed?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the Home Secretary will know, we have said that the scope of the Green Paper was too wide. We recognise that there is a problem for the security agencies with regard to how civil claims are made and how material needs to be considered. However, proper safeguards need to be in place, as we have said. She also knows, as I have said this to her, that I am very willing to have further cross-party discussions with her about the detail. We have not yet seen what amendments she may have made to the Green Paper proposals and we will wait to see them and scrutinise them in detail. It is important that she should do that. On communications surveillance—I do not know whether she heard my points earlier, as she was conferring with her Front-Bench colleagues—it has been normal practice in the past for Home Secretaries to provide extensive briefing for the Opposition and the Select Committees. We will wait for that briefing and consider and scrutinise the detail as it is proposed.

The Home Secretary has also proposed stronger community sentences. That sounds good, although we gather that the Bill will be published and debated in the House of Lords without any clauses on community sentences. We should also consider what is missing. There is nothing on equal marriage—not even a draft Bill—even though, as Minister for Women and Equalities, she made it clear that she was consulting not on whether but on how to introduce the changes. There is nothing on violence against women and nothing on antisocial behaviour, even though she promised more than two years ago that new action would be taken. There is nothing on gangs, even though after the riots the Government told us that that was their big priority and even though we know that gang injunctions need to be improved. There is nothing on problem families, even though the Government told us in the autumn that they were the priority, and there is nothing to protect core public policing or to stop neighbourhood patrols being contracted out to private companies such as G4S or KBR as the cuts bite.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of that figure. There are usually about 400,000 job vacancies in the economy. It is important that we help women to take up those vacancies. That is why the youth contract and the Work programme are so important in delivering the support that individuals need to overcome whatever problems they have in getting into the workplace.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Unemployment among women has been rising for more than two years since the election and since the economy first started to grow again. Unemployment among women was up by 8,000 in the last quarter and 100,000 more women are unemployed than a year ago. The increase in unemployment over the past 12 months has been three times higher than the drop in inactivity. With women’s jobs still being hit hard by Government policies, does the right hon. Lady agree that in asking the House to welcome yesterday’s unemployment figures, she and the Prime Minister are again demonstrating their blind spot about what is happening to women, to women’s lives and to women’s jobs across the country?

[Mrs May]

No, the right hon. Lady is wrong. It is, of course, a concern that so many women are unemployed. That is why the Government are taking very necessary action to help women into the workplace and to set up their own businesses. As I said in response to an earlier question, 61,000 more women are now employed than in May 2010. We are providing real support to women, and that will continue through the changes that we make by introducing universal credit, the changes that will make it easier to access child care and various other proposals that we have put forward. However, our concern about women’s unemployment does not mean that we cannot welcome an overall fall in unemployment when it takes place. I would have thought that, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Lady would do that.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the deportation of Abu Qatada.

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

Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights informed the Government that, late on Tuesday evening, Abu Qatada applied for a referral of the judgment in his case to the Court’s Grand Chamber. He did so on the grounds that he would be at risk of torture if he returned to Jordan. The British courts and the European Court have found that, because of the assurances we have received from the Jordanian Government, there is no such risk.

The Government are clear that Qatada has no right to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday. Article 43 of the European convention on human rights explains that a request for referral to the Grand Chamber must be made:

“Within a period of three months from the date of the judgement of the Chamber”.

The letter that communicated the European Court’s judgement, dated 17 January, confirmed that, saying that

“any request for the referral of this judgement to the Grand Chamber must be duly reasoned and reach the Registry within three months of today’s date.”

Therefore, the deadline was midnight, Monday 16 April.

Because the European Court has no automatic mechanism to rule out an application for a referral based on the deadline, Qatada’s application will be considered by a panel of five judges from the Grand Chamber. They will take into account the deadline, as set out in article 43 of the convention, as part of their consideration. The Government have written to the European Court to make clear our case that the application should be rejected because it is out of time.

The Government believe that the case should be heard instead in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission court, as I outlined in the House of Commons on Tuesday. However, until the panel of the Grand Chamber makes its decision, a Rule 39 injunction preventing the deportation of Abu Qatada remains in place. That means that the deportation process and any potential SIAC appeal is put on hold, but we will resume the process as soon as the injunction is lifted. In the meantime, we will continue to build our case, based on the assurances and information we have received from the Jordanian Government. Abu Qatada remains in detention, and the Government will resist vigorously any application he might make to be released on bail.

As I said in the House of Commons on Tuesday, despite the progress we have made, the process of deporting Qatada is likely to take many months. The fact that he is trying to delay that process by applying for a referral to the Grand Chamber after the deadline has passed, and after he has heard our case in SIAC, is evidence of the strength of our arguments, the weakness of his, and the likelihood of our eventual success in removing him from Britain for good.

[Yvette Cooper]

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary told us that the deportation of Abu Qatada was under way; on Wednesday, it stopped. On Tuesday, she told us there would be no appeal to the Grand Chamber; on Wednesday, an appeal was under way. Yesterday, the Home Office said the appeal deadline was Monday night, but European Court officials said it was Tuesday night. So on the Tuesday night deadline, while Abu Qatada was appealing to European Court judges, the Home Secretary, who thought the deadline was Monday night, was partying with “X Factor” judges. [Interruption.] When the Home Secretary is accused of not knowing what day of the week it is, confusion and chaos have turned into farce. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

This farce has serious consequences: additional delays, a greater risk that Abu Qatada will be put out on bail and a risk he will sue the Government. Did the Home Office get specific assurances from the European Court that the deadline was Monday night? If so, will it publish them? If not, why not? Why did it not pick up the phone to sort it out? The Home Office was told by journalists on Monday, nearly 24 hours before Abu Qatada was arrested, that European Court officials were saying that the deadline was Tuesday. Did it do anything about it?

I hope that the Home Secretary’s interpretation is right, but at best there is uncertainty, and several eminent lawyers now say that they agree with the European Court. So why take the risk? What was the harm in waiting until Wednesday? Why create a legal loophole for Abu Qatada’s lawyers to exploit? We all want Abu Qatada deported as soon as possible, under the rule of law, and kept off the streets in the meantime, but both those things are now less likely because of her actions. On Tuesday, I warned that there was a troubling level of confusion around this case, but even I did not imagine that the confusion was this great. When will she sort this out?

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary tells us that she wants Abu Qatada deported, but I am beginning to wonder whether she really does. [Interruption.]

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary agree to return to the House this afternoon or tomorrow morning if the court does not agree to revoke Abu Qatada’s bail and return him to custody, so that we can hear what action she will take and what safeguards she will put in place?

I hope Abu Qatada will be back behind bars by tonight in line with the security assessment that the Home Secretary and the courts have previously made, and that we have a clear and reliable timetable for his deportation to Jordan. I hope we will not be back to square one. There was too much drift earlier this year and we have had a troubling level of confusion this afternoon. Will she assure the House that she is in control of events, and that the deportation everyone wants to see is back on track?

[Mrs May]

May I first say that I welcome the support the shadow Home Secretary has given to the resumption of deportation and to the work that has been done to receive assurances from the Jordanian Government? A number of the points she made in response to my statement were made in her press release yesterday, but I recognise that she received my statement late. Although I covered a number of her questions in my statement, I will respond to the points she has made.

The right hon. Lady asked whether the SIAC proceedings this afternoon were properly applied for. Of course they were, but I am sure she will understand that when we are moving to arrest an individual whom we intend to deport, there is a limit to the number of people we tell before we move.

The right hon. Lady seemed to suggest that the Government had done nothing about the Strasbourg ruling until the bail hearing a few weeks later, and quoted Mr Justice Mitting, the judge at the bail hearing. The quote she gave made clear that negotiations with the Jordanians had already begun at the time of the bail hearing. I know she is always keen to attack, but her arguments might have a little more strength if they did not contradict each other.

The right hon. Lady asked about my estimated timetable for Abu Qatada’s deportation. As I said in my statement, we have resumed deportation against him and he was arrested earlier today. He has the right to appeal to SIAC, and I understand that he or his lawyers have made it clear that he intends to appeal and to ask for revocation of the deportation, possibly beyond SIAC—there are rights of appeal beyond SIAC. Because any appeal will be based on narrow grounds and because of the quality of the assurances we have, I am confident of our eventual success, but the process could take a number of months. I have been clear about that and said it in my statement.

The right hon. Lady appears to misunderstand the process. She says that we are going back to the beginning. In fact, we are resuming the deportation, which was set to one side during the appeals that went through to the European Court. She asked why we were not referring the case to the Grand Chamber. Again, I covered that in my statement. I said absolutely clearly that referring to the Grand Chamber would open up the whole of the judgment set down by the court on 17 January, part of which was positive for us. We have looked at the issues involved and taken the decision that the appropriate and right course of action that will ensure we can deport Abu Qatada is to follow the action we have taken of gaining assurances from the Jordanian Government and resuming the deportation.

The right hon. Lady asked about the length of time it is taking to deport Abu Qatada. May I remind her that deportation proceedings began in 2001, nine years before the end of the Government of whom she was a member? The time it is taking to deport Abu Qatada is not down to political will, but down to the nature of our legal system. As I said in my statement, I am willing and keen to look at how other European countries deport dangerous foreign nationals quickly, which is something that the last Government never did. We are following what I believe to be the right course of action to ensure that we can deport Abu Qatada. I have been clear in my statement—and I am willing to repeat it—that I believe that Abu Qatada should be in custody. That is why we arrested him this morning, have taken him to SIAC and are asking for his detention. The work that we have done has resulted in assurances from the Jordanian Government that I believe will enable us to deport Abu Qatada. That is what the whole of this House should want: Abu Qatada deported from this country, back to Jordan.

Alcohol Strategy

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This announcement about the alcohol strategy is extremely important, but the way in which it has been done is a complete shambles. It has been rushed out on a Friday morning when many of our colleagues have engagements in their constituencies and without notifying the Select Committee on Home Affairs. So, despite the many pieces of work the Committee has done on this issue, its members do not have the chance to be here in Parliament to scrutinise the strategy.

Why are we debating it today rather than on Monday, as was previously planned? It cannot be to ensure that Parliament hears the details first, because we have had the chance to read them in the Daily Mail, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, and all the other newspapers that were given the details yesterday. I even have the press pack, complete with questions and answers, which was given to the media yesterday and not to the House. It includes considerable additional information that has not been given to the House as part of the Home Secretary’s statement today. Nor can the reason be for Parliament to debate the statement, when only two hours’ notice has been given of a statement on a Friday. I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to apologise to the students I was due to meet in Pontefract at lunch time and have had to let down. Many of our colleagues will be in the same position.

The only reason we are sitting on Friday is so that the Budget debate could take place today rather than next week, Parliament could finish 10 days early and the Prime Minister would not have to answer Prime Minister’s questions next week. There is no precedent for handling a long-awaited consultation document in this way, on a Friday morning, with no notice. Over the past 10 years, there have been only three Government statements on a Friday: on the Iraq war, on swine flu and on Libya—all of them involving serious issues around national emergencies. What is the national emergency today?

What is the national emergency that prompted a decision to be made late yesterday afternoon to brief an important and serious strategy to the newspapers which meant that a decision was made this morning to interrupt the debate and make an oral statement? The only emergency is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have gone wobbly over the coverage of their Budget. Their Budget has gone wrong because pensioners are furious about the granny tax, middle earners are shocked to discover they will be paying the higher rate and everyone else is furious that the Government are bringing in a £10,000 tax break for the highest earners in the country, including, we discover, half the Cabinet. This is not about a 40p minimum price; it is about their failings on the 40p tax. The Home Secretary is being used as a human shield for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and she should have said no.

The issue is extremely serious. The Home Secretary is right: 1 million violent crimes each year are linked to alcohol. Nearly 9,000 people die each year as a result of alcohol abuse. Many people—indeed, most people—drink moderately and responsibly, and we enjoy it. The Home Secretary is right to say that responsible drinkers should not be penalised, but we cannot stand by and ignore the serious problem of dangerous alcohol abuse. Many policies have been tried already, including linking duty to strength and giving the police stronger powers to clamp down on alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, but she is right: they have not solved the problem.

The Home Secretary is also right to say that more now needs to be done. Many of her policies are sensible and we will support them. I agree that this is the right time to try minimum pricing. There are serious questions that she should answer—and the House should have the opportunity to debate—about how we ensure that supermarkets do not simply get a huge windfall, and what safeguards there should be for pubs. I agree, too, that we should explore the issue of sobriety orders, but these are serious questions that the House should have the chance to debate, to make sure they are not used wrongly for domestic violence cases and do not tackle the seriousness of the abuse.

I agree too that licensing is important. I hope the Home Secretary will now support our proposals to put public health in the terms for licensing decisions. More needs to be done on prevention, which had little mention in the statement—little wonder perhaps, when alcohol education is being watered down in schools. These are all extremely serious issues and we should have the opportunity to debate them properly in Parliament; but we do not have the opportunity for many MPs to ask questions today and to intervene and discuss the issues with the Home Secretary.

Will the Home Secretary tell us when the decision was taken to make the statement today? Will she agree to come back to the House and properly debate the strategy, giving the Home Affairs Committee and others the proper chance to ask questions? Does she agree that she is wrong to treat something so serious in such a cavalier fashion in the announcements made to the House? Does she agree that the Government are wrong to use a serious alcohol strategy as a cover for their chaotic confusion over their dreadful Budget? Will she treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves? We will give it proper support, if she will do so for the future.

[Mrs May]

That was the usual response from the right hon. Lady—bluster and political point scoring. One thing was missing. After the disaster of Labour’s Licensing Act 2003, after election text messages saying, “Couldn’t give a XXXX for closing time,” and after all that drink-fuelled violence and disorder, there was not even a hint of apology from the right hon. Lady.

I suggest that the right hon. Lady speaks to the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who said that he regrets not doing more during his time in office to tackle the problems caused by binge drinking. It is a shame that she cannot bring herself to be as frank about her party’s record in office.

It was difficult to decipher the right hon. Lady’s questions about the actual statement on alcohol strategy. I think she raised two points. She asked about ensuring that the minimum unit price did not lead to a cash windfall for supermarkets. I do not believe it will, because the supermarket industry is highly competitive; it has small margins on its goods and I expect money made through higher alcohol prices to be passed on through lower prices for other goods. When the cost of living is an issue, I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would welcome that.

The right hon. Lady asked about health bodies. They will of course be in a position to contribute to local licensing decisions; indeed, the new public health and wellbeing bodies will be able to participate, alongside the police and local authorities, in setting strategies to deal with alcohol in their local area. The right hon. Lady now takes an interest in health bodies having a role, although sadly she and her party opposed the Bill that enabled them to be set up.

I recognise that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, is not in the Chamber, but last year he said:

“May I welcome the Government’s proposals for a minimum price for alcohol? They are of course in keeping with the recommendations that the Home Affairs Committee made last year.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 3.]

In 2008, the Home Affairs Committee talked about the cheap availability of alcohol, recommending that

“the Government establish as soon as possible a legal basis for banning the use of loss-leading by supermarkets and setting a minimum price for the sale of alcohol.”

What I think I deciphered from the right hon. Lady’s bluster is that the Opposition actually support the idea of an alcohol strategy and what the Government are doing. If I am correct, I welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely valid point. I have always had a particular bee in my bonnet about encouraging women to take up careers in engineering. We are trying to ensure that women are given proper information about such opportunities, by refocusing and recasting the careers advice that is given to young people and, indeed, to people of all ages throughout their careers. In that way, we want to open up opportunities to young people, including young women, so that they do not feel that they are simply being pushed down what one might call the traditional, stereotyped routes.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This week I was contacted about a mother who is working 22 hours in a local shop. She cannot get the extra regular hours she wants, although she has tried hard—she cannot find alternative work, but at least she has a job, is contributing to the economy and is supporting her family. Her husband has lost his job and is struggling to get a new one because he has had a stroke. In six weeks’ time the Government will take away the working tax credit from her family, and they could lose over £3,000. They will not be able to pay their mortgage; they will be better off if she gives up work; they will be better off if the family splits up. This is going to happen in April. Does the Home Secretary support this policy, which will hit thousands of working women, and what advice would she give to that mother now?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady raises a very particular case, but the issue is about the welfare—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members could wait for me to finish my sentence before they try to interrupt. The right hon. Lady has raised a particular case, but the issue is about welfare reform and the particular welfare reforms that this Government are putting through. I know that the Opposition find it difficult to decide where they position themselves on welfare reform, but it is necessary for us to reform the welfare system. Crucially, what we will do—and it will be of benefit to women—is introduce the universal credit, which will make work pay. I applaud people who want to get into the workplace in order to provide for themselves and their families, so it is important to ensure that the benefit system makes work pay. That is why we are introducing universal credit and making it easier under it for people to work fewer than 16 hours and still have access to child care support.

UK Border Agency

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement, in which she makes important points about the fiascos at our border last summer, but it does not cover everything in the report from John Vine. In less than the hour that we have had to look at the report, we have found that it says something very different from the points that the Home Secretary has made.

For example, on the watch index checks from Calais, the Home Secretary’s statement today gives the House reason to believe that the problems had been going on since 2007. In fact, the watch index checks were suspended zero times in 2007, zero times in 2008, six times in 2009, 33 times in 2010 and 50 times in the first nine months of 2011. The report states:

“Although the figure for 2011 only covered nine months to the end of September, this represented a 51% increase over the previous year. The Agency should assess whether this increase can be attributed to changes in port infrastructure, increases in passenger numbers, a reduction in staff or a combination of all three.”

So the clear suggestion in the report is that a lack of staff may have increased the problems at the UK Border Agency in the past year, but the Home Secretary in her statement to Parliament has hidden that information.

On secure ID, the report states that it was suspended 482 times under this Government. The Immigration Minister approved the reduction in secure ID checks as part of the risk-based approach in January 2011, and again the Home Secretary has not explained how far Ministers’ authorisation, even if provisional, contributed to the downgrading of secure ID checks.

On the Immigration Minister’s further agreement to proposals, the report quotes the former head of the Border Force, who said:

“The Immigration Minister was clear that this did not require Home Secretary sign-off and he had followed up with a note stating that we should progress with the implementation.”

Time and again the Home Secretary has not set out the full information in the report.

On the level 2 pilots, the report is clear that they were downgraded over 2,000 times. That is not occasional, or under the “limited circumstances” that the Home Secretary told us about last year.

We have asked the Home Secretary before about the operational instruction that states:

“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”

She told the House on 9 November 2011 that that operational instruction did reflect Government policy, and that is the very guidance that led to checks being downgraded 2,000 times, for hours at a time, covering huge numbers of people.

On page 12, the report states:

“We found that the language used in both the ‘Summer pressures’ submission to Ministers and the response provided, was not clear and as a result was open to misinterpretation… For example, the written response from the Home Secretary’s office said that ‘the change in checks should not be a routine measure but only used when the queues get beyond a reasonable length.’ As the key terms were not clearly defined, we found this had been interpreted and operated in different ways at different ports.”

The report is clear:

“Given the importance of decisions to suspend border security checks, it is imperative that the language used is absolutely clear and unambiguous.”

Clearly, the language from the Home Secretary’s private office was not clear and unambiguous, and that led to huge confusion in the Border Force across the country.

There is no evidence in the report of proper monitoring by Ministers. It is scathing about the way in which checks were downgraded and talks about unauthorised activity. Why on earth were Ministers not asking for information and not properly monitoring the pilot that they had authorised and introduced? One of the updates, which it appears did not go to Ministers, makes it clear that secure ID was suspended as part of the checks over the summer. Why did that update not go to Ministers and why did they not ask for that information? Why did they accept only three updates over the course of the summer, when seven were provided? Why were Ministers not visiting the ports to ensure that the pilot that they had introduced was being properly implemented? Ministers decided to roll back the principle that had been in operation for many years—that we should gradually strengthen and tighten our border checks, using new technology and biometrics—and to introduce a huge experiment with border security. They made no proper checks to see what was happening during the fiasco last summer.

Finally, when confronted last November with the problems that had arisen, the Home Secretary told us that

“initial UKBA statistics show an almost 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants and a 48% increase in the identification of forged documents compared with the year before.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 318.]

She said that that had happened as a result of her pilots. However, the facts in the report show something very different. The Heathrow data alone show that the number of people refused entry was more than 100 lower each month—not higher—compared with 2010. The official statistics show a 10% drop in the number of non-asylum seekers who were stopped at ports compared with the previous year. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to apologise to the House for giving it premature and inaccurate information about the supposed success of her pilots, when clearly they were a huge failure in controlling the border?

The Home Secretary told us that her pilots did not weaken border security. The report states that

“it is not possible to quantify the extent of the risk that these measures presented to the border.”

The implications of that for our border are very serious, yet the Home Secretary continues to hide. She has hidden behind a report and not set out its full consequences, just as she has blamed officials, hidden from the media and hidden behind spurious statistics. In opposition, she said of a former Immigration Minister:

“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”

That is what she is doing now. It is time for her to stop hiding and to take responsibility for things that have happened on her watch: the unclear instructions from her office, the policy decisions to downgrade our border controls, the failure to monitor and check what was going on, and her failure to take responsibility. This mess escalated on her watch with every month that went by. Unless she accepts responsibility for this fiasco, she will fail to sort it out and she will fail to reassure the House that she can cope with future fiascos and that she is the Home Secretary to keep our borders secure.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary’s mock outrage would have rather greater credibility if she had shown any real interest in immigration or border control at any stage over the year for which she has been doing her job. I remind her that the Vine report states that security checks have been suspended without ministerial authorisation since at least 2007. The suspension of checks of which I told the House in November happened without ministerial authorisation, and that unauthorised suspension had nothing to do with the pilot that I authorised last summer.

The right hon. Lady makes a number of claims in relation to the report. I suggest that she consider her track record on such claims. The Vine report exposes everything that she claimed last November as plain wrong. She said that the pilot was reckless, but the Vine report shows that Labour Ministers approved similar measures. She said that the pilot gave the Border Force the green light to suspend other checks, but the report shows that the suspensions were unauthorised.

The right hon. Lady said that by sometimes suspending warnings index checks on certain children, we risked an increase in trafficking. Not only is that wrong, but the Vine report makes it clear that Labour Ministers approved the suspension of checks on children. She said that we should have known about the unauthorised suspension of checks, but the Vine report makes it clear that information was withheld from Ministers and that unauthorised suspensions have been going on since at least 2007. She repeated that Labour increased checks on passengers and improved security, but the Vine report shows that it did not.

The right hon. Lady mentioned information about what happened during the pilot. I did indeed report figures to the House in November. They were the ones that were available at the time, and I faithfully reported them to the House. Since then, the chief inspector has discovered that unauthorised suspensions were made, so it is not possible to give a full picture of what effect the pilot had. We remain open-minded about risk-based checks, but they must be implemented in a controlled and authorised way.

The right hon. Lady blamed what has happened on cuts. I know that is her Pavlovian response to everything, but I would have thought she had noted that on the second page of the Vine report the chief inspector states that the suspensions were

“affected by a number of factors including…the numbers of staff deployed”—

the numbers deployed, not the numbers employed. As with the police, the right hon. Lady seems to find it very difficult to get her head around that. Just in case she has forgotten, I remind her that the previous Government planned to cut UKBA budgets.

The right hon. Lady talked about information that was available to Ministers about the pilot. I remind her that the Vine report makes it clear that updates to Ministers on the pilot

“were not balanced…presented an inaccurate picture of performance”

and

“could not be relied upon to determine the success or otherwise of Level 2.”

There is nothing more important than the security of our border, so it is a shame that the right hon. Lady has taken the approach that she has and has not addressed the measures that we are undertaking to secure our border and ensure that the Border Force is the law enforcement agency it should be. We did not hear any of her views on the recommendations in the Vine report, the proposal to take the Border Force out of the UKBA or the proposal to change the approach that the Border Force takes, because she has nothing positive to say about immigration or border security.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have been used, over time in my political life, to words that I have said being taken slightly out of context. I said that it was my personal view that the Human Rights Act should be repealed, not that I was about to repeal it—which my hon. Friend sort of implied in his question. I would simply remind him that even if we were to repeal the Human Rights Act, we would of course still be subject to the European convention and the European Court.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has given a serious account of the risk from Abu Qatada. She will know that we agree that he should be deported, on the grounds of being a risk to national security. However, she has not said much about what she is doing now in response to the judgment. She is right to look at the legal options for appealing against the European Court judgment, but what more is she doing to get further assurances from Jordan so that he can be deported now? She will know that an agreement was reached by the British Government before the election, so it is possible to make diplomatic progress. We understand that the British ambassador has been in some discussions, but what actions have Ministers taken? Has the Home Secretary taken this up herself with the Jordanian Government? If she has not done so, will she do so now? If so, will she go back to SIAC to ask for a stay of the bail until those high-level discussions with the Jordanian Government have been completed, given the urgency and seriousness of this case?

On the second issue—protecting public safety in the meantime—it is unclear whether the Home Secretary is looking for more evidence to take to SIAC to overturn the bail decision. However, what will happen if the negotiations with Jordan fail and if the courts conclude that bail cannot be extended in three months’ time? Those are the circumstances that control orders were introduced to address, but her decision has been to weaken those counter-terror laws, and that will make it harder. Under the current system, if TPIMs have to be introduced after three months if bail is stopped, she will not be able to ask the courts for a curfew—only an overnight residence requirement—and she will have to provide access to the internet and telephones. She will not be able to ask the courts to relocate Abu Qatada outside London, should that be appropriate—during the Olympics, for example—nor will she be able to extend those restrictions for more than two years. The restrictions that the Home Secretary will have available to her in three months’ time are a far cry from the restrictions that she and the courts understandably believe are necessary now to protect the public, which include the 22-hour curfew, no access to the internet and no access to phones.

The Home Secretary cannot blame the European Court for her decision to weaken British counter-terror powers. The courts, the security experts and the Home Secretary have all made it clear that Abu Qatada is a continued threat to public safety and national security. We support her in her actions to protect the public and get the deportation in place, but she should be straining every sinew, on behalf of the public, to get him deported. If she cannot, she should make sure that we have the legislation and the safeguards in place to protect the public now.

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary that she appears to have prepared her statement before listening to my answer, because I made it clear that I continue to believe that Qatada should face trial in Jordan and that the Government have begun discussions with the Jordanians to see what assurances we can secure about the quality of evidence used in their courts. We will be pursuing those discussions at every level that is appropriate to ensure that we work towards the aim that we share across the House: getting the assurances that will enable us to deport Abu Qatada. As I said, we will also consider the legal options that are available, including whether we should refer the case to the Grand Chamber, but we need to consider the consequences of those actions before we take a decision.

I referred, obviously, to the bail conditions that have been placed on Qatada, as the right hon. Lady did. I continue to believe that he should be behind bars. The bail conditions are among the most stringent on anybody facing deportation from Britain. She referred to the difference between TPIMs and control orders. I remind her that the bail conditions are stronger than would be possible under TPIMs or control orders. I also refer her to the wider point that I have made about TPIMs in the Chamber in the past, which is that the police and the Security Service are content with the package that was negotiated in relation to TPIMs and with the extra funding that has been made available to the Security Service and the police.

We should be able to deport Abu Qatada; that is the view across the whole House. He should be behind bars. Home Office Ministers and previous Home Secretaries under the previous Government have tried to do everything possible to get him to Jordan, and that is what this Government are trying to do. The case has been ongoing since 2001. In 2008, there was a brief period during which he was released on bail. We should send a clear message from across the House that we believe he should be deported, and this Government are doing what we can to ensure that we achieve that. That is what is right for the security of our citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I join the Home Secretary not only in congratulating, but in paying our tributes and respects to, Her Majesty the Queen on the 60th anniversary of her accession? The Home Secretary has talked a lot today about the deployment of police and about increasing the number of police officers on the front line. Will she tell the House what has happened to the number of police officers in front-line jobs since the general election?

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary will know full well that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is making it clear that the proportion of officers on the front line has increased and will continue to increase. The question that she has to ask herself, given that she and her colleagues are now supporting the spending cuts that the Government have been putting through, is why they will not be clear to police officers and members of the public about the impact it will have.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has ducked the question. I do not know whether she knows the answer. She will know that we are clear that there should be a 12% reduction in the policing budget, which would protect the number of police officers, not her 20% cut, which will mean 16,000 police officers being lost.

The Home Secretary needs to answer the question about the front line. I asked her about the number, not the proportion. The same HMIC report that she has been given includes data showing that the number of police officers in front-line jobs was cut by 4,000 in one year alone, following the general election. So will she now admit that her claims that she is protecting the front line are rubbish, and will she give the public a straight answer about protecting the police?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady said that the Opposition supported a 12% cut in police budgets. They also support the pay freeze and the savings available through the outcome of the police arbitration tribunal. They said that we should accept the recommendations on those matters. The shadow policing Minister has also indicated that a significant sum of money should be taken out of overtime and shift patterns. That all adds up to a commitment by Her Majesty’s Opposition to a 20% cut in police funding—the same position as the Government. Now let us get on with talking about things like deployment rather than about the right hon. Lady’s failure to be clear with people about her position on supporting police cuts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I feel the need not to let it rest there, Mr Speaker, but to respond to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked. I am sure that he will agree that what matters is accessibility to police. That is why one thing the Government are doing is reducing the amount of bureaucracy that the police have to deal with so that they can get out on the streets more. It is also why a number of forces up and down the country are considering accessibility in a different way, rather than simply having fixed police stations. I understand that Essex, for example, has seven mobile police stations that go to areas where people congregate, such as supermarket car parks, to increase accessibility to the police for members of the public.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

At the end of this month, the control orders legislation expires and the police and security services will have just six weeks’ transition to get the new weaker terrorism prevention and investigation measures and extra surveillance in place. The assistant commissioner of the Met, in a recent letter placed in the Library of the House, confirms the Met’s position last summer that

“it would take at least a year to recruit and train additional surveillance teams”.

She also says that

“not all the additional assets will be immediately in place”.

Why, then, is the Home Secretary so determined to push ahead with weaker counter-terror powers so quickly? Why does she not delay them and avoid piling extra pressure and risk on to the Met in the new year?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows full well that the Metropolitan Police Service and the Security Service will not have just six weeks to put transitional arrangements in place. They have been aware for some time that TPIMs would come in and extra funding would be available for extra surveillance. Subsequent to the letter sent by the assistant commissioner, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to make it absolutely clear that effective transitional arrangements from control orders to TPIMs will be in place to ensure that we continue to do what we want to do and what everybody wants us to do: that is, maintain the security of people in this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Met has been put in a very difficult position. This is Olympic year and it will have considerable additional pressures from policing the games, from counter-terrorism and from an £80 million budget gap. There are no guarantees that it will not have to stump up for some of the riot compensation, too. The letter from the Met says that

“it is not possible to assess fully how the measures will work with the additional capability until both are fully in place and bedded in.”

The Home Secretary is forcing the police to conduct an experiment with security in Olympic year. The letter says:

“We will…seek to ensure that there is no substantial increase in overall risk to the UK.”

Why does this Home Secretary want to be personally responsible for any increase in the overall risk to the UK in Olympic year as a result of the timing of her legislation? Why does she not think again?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows that when we introduced TPIMs we were able to give assurances about the mitigation of risks in relation to TPIMs and their replacement of control orders. I ask her to reflect on why the coalition Government reviewed counter-terrorism legislation when we came to power. It was because of a concern about the impact of some of the legislation that her Government had introduced. It was a rebalancing of the necessary role of ensuring national security and maintaining civil liberties that led us to review that legislation. We have in place measures that I believe will enable us to provide the security that we need to provide. The package of measures includes TPIMs and extra money for surveillance for both the Security Service and the police, and I am confident that that package will give them the degree of cover they need to ensure that we maintain security.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The operational instruction did reflect Government policy because it allowed for a risk-based assessment when opening the biometric chip of EEA passports and checking EEA national children against the warnings index when they were travelling with parents or as part of a school party.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has just made an extremely important statement. She said that the UK Border Agency’s interim operational instruction did reflect Government policy. That operational instruction says

“We will cease:

Routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.

Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings index” .

If that is Government policy, it is little wonder that, across the country, people have been routinely stopping doing the biometric checks in EU passports and stopping doing the watch index checks. The instruction does not say “Only in exceptional or limited circumstances”. It says “We will cease routinely” to do those checks.

[Mrs May]

The whole point is that they were allowed, in certain circumstances, not to open the chip—[Interruption.] The whole point is that they were allowed, in certain circumstances, not to check children against the warnings index. And the whole point is that officers were allowed to exercise their discretion.

Where the instruction says that officers should escalate further measures, it refers of course to the warnings index checking policy put in place in 2007 under the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a member. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that the quotes she has been eagerly e-mailing around the Lobby come from a policy put in place by her own Government.

The right hon. Lady referred to staff numbers. What she failed to tell the House was that in April 2010 the Labour Government had already announced that they would cut the budget and the staff of the UK Border Agency.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered an extremely important question. She has accused officials of going much further, of using routinely the reduced checks that she wanted in only limited circumstances. That is one of her main allegations—officials going further than her decision and her advice. The interim operational instruction that the Home Secretary says reflects Government policy and was her intention is described as “Trial of risk-based processes at the border,” and states:

“We will... Cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”

The document goes on to talk about discretion, but the discretion is to go further, not to cease the process only in limited circumstances. Will the right hon. Lady now recognise that the document shows that her intention and her policy were substantially to expand the reduction of checks for EEA citizens across the country and to reduce controls at our border?

[Mrs May]

I answered that point on Monday, on Tuesday and this afternoon. The right hon. Lady knows full well what was in the pilot I authorised.

The right hon. Lady asked what information was given to Ministers when we decided to extend the pilot programme. As I told the Select Committee yesterday, Ministers were provided with four updates on the progress of the pilot prior to the agreement to extend it. The updates provided information about seizures of drugs and detection of illegal immigrants. They did not refer to unauthorised actions; in fact, they explicitly said that officials were sticking to the terms of the pilot and not going beyond them.

The right hon. Lady asked about child trafficking. I answered that question on Monday in the House and before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. For the information of the House, in 2010, 8 million EEA-national children were checked against the warnings index. An alert came up for one child, and after further questioning the child was allowed in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is returning to topics that I know he has pursued for some considerable time. Obviously, there was significant use of CCTV. That is why this Government continue to support its use.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to instigate an inquiry into border control this summer, which we will discuss shortly, but let me ask her a security question: what is her estimate of the number of people who passed into Britain through our ports and airports this summer under the reduced security and passport regime that the UK Border Agency was operating?

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady knows, I will make a full statement to the House later this afternoon, and will have a full opportunity to answer her questions then, but I should like to make a few things clear. In the past, under the last Government, some security checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border, including one instance when local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made—not even cursory checks of passports.

To prevent that from happening again and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that UKBA could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers. We have since discovered that Brodie Clark, the head of the UK border force, authorised the wider relaxation of border controls without ministerial sanction. As I said, I shall make a statement to the House later today and will answer questions on this matter fully then.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary did not answer my question on how many people went through under the reduced security regime, and I am concerned that she does not know. As she will know, previously, both Labour and Conservative Ministers have committed to the roll-out of e-Borders so that proper screening could be available for everyone entering and leaving the country. She seems to be rolling that system back, not forward. When describing the rolling back of checks for EU citizens this summer, a UKBA staff member told me, “We were told not to check children travelling with family groups. That was ridiculous. Supposing a man…had taken them away from their mother and they were wards of court, they would pass through undetected. I have detected many wards of court simply by running them through the warnings index.”

The Home Secretary took the decision to reduce the checks for EU citizens this summer. Why did she do so?

[Mrs May]

As I have indicated to the right hon. Lady, I shall set out exactly what decisions were taken in my statement to the House later today. I indicated in my first answer to her that we were looking at targeting intelligence-led checks on higher risk categories of travellers. She referred to e-Borders, but this has nothing to do with e-Borders. When we took office, we had to stop the contract with the contractor that the last Labour Government agreed for e-Borders because it was significantly behind schedule in putting it in place.

UK Border Force

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Our task now is to ensure that those responsible are punished and that border force officials can never take such risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and welcome her agreement to establish an independent inquiry. That inquiry must get to the truth, but it should do so considerably more rapidly than by January.

Reports have already reached me from the UK Border Agency today that the shredders are on and that there is a ban on internal e-mails. Will the Home Secretary look urgently into those allegations, and into what documents perhaps are being shredded and what e-mails deleted in the Home Office and UKBA on this issue? It is also important that the inquiry has access to all communications between Ministers, the Home Office and UKBA. The scope must cover the resource pressures facing UKBA. We now know that 6,500 staff are being cut from the agency, including 1,500 from the border force. We need to know what pressures officials were put under to cut corners as a result and keep queues down with reduced staff.

We also need some answers from the Home Secretary now. In questions earlier and in her statement, she could not tell the House how many people came through our ports and airports this summer without proper checks. On average, 100,000 foreign citizens enter Britain every day. UKBA staff have claimed that reduced checks were in place almost daily from August, lasting at least half of the shift. How many people were not checked against the watch list? How many people did not have their biometrics checked? What is the Home Secretary’s estimate of whether anyone from the watch list entered Britain at that time? Did any convicted criminals or security suspects enter? The truth is that the Home Secretary does not know. She says that we will never know. Even now, she seems to be doing nothing to find out and assess who has entered the country and what the security risk might be.

The Home Secretary has admitted that she took the decision to reduce checks for EU citizens in July—not checking under-18s against the warnings index or doing biometric checks on EU passports—yet she will know that cases have been identified by border officials involving EU citizens, including people involved in organised crime, people trafficking, falsifying passports or removals of children who are wards of court. She made that decision—not Labour Ministers in the past: this Home Secretary—and that decision is her responsibility. She cannot run away from it or hide behind cases from 2004, long before new systems were introduced. She knows that the intention of Labour—and, we had assumed, Conservative—Ministers was to roll out e-Borders and to put the technology in place so that everyone could be properly screened entering and exiting the country, and not only at quiet times. In fact, the immigration Minister claimed in May that 90% of non-EU flights and 60% of EU flights were covered, but it turns out that he meant 90% of flights in the winter or at quiet times in the afternoons.

The truth is that instead of strengthening the checks year on year, as all previous Ministers had committed to do, this Home Secretary decided to water them down, as official Government policy, even though she never told the House. She has blamed officials for relaxing the checks further than she intended, yet she gave the green light for the weaker controls. She claimed in her statement that she did not intend it to be routine not to check the biometric chip in EEA passports, yet I have a copy of the interim operational instruction that she has refused to publish, which states:

“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports, checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the warnings index”.

It adds:

“If for whatever reason it is considered necessary to take further measures, local managers must escalate to the Border force duty director to seek authority for their proposed action.”

So the Home Secretary gave agency staff the green light to go ahead and experiment to meet the pressures from queues, and look how far they went. A member of the Border Agency staff said this morning:

“Every day I let in 10 people who I think there would be a good case against”.

How on earth did Ministers not know about this? How on earth could there be continual complaints from staff for months without the immigration Minister or the Home Secretary knowing what was going on? At best, they were deeply out of touch; at worst, they were complicit in a loss of control at our borders.

This Home Secretary is presiding over growing chaos and corner cutting at our borders: Raed Salah was banned from this country by the Home Office, yet he was allowed to waltz in at Heathrow; 100,000 asylum cases have been written off as just too difficult to deal with; Ministers have now given the green light to an experiment to water down, rather than increase, border controls; and the Home Secretary does not even know how many people entered Britain without proper checks this summer. Thousands of people entered without proper checks, and without the Home Secretary having a clue what was going on. It is no good blaming the previous Government, or blaming officials. This is happening on her watch, these are her decisions, and this is her Government’s mistake. She needs to get a grip and stop passing the buck.

[Mrs May]

I must say that I regret that response from the right hon. Lady. There is no more serious issue than border security, but, instead of engaging with the facts, she has chosen to play party politics. She knows that the checks that I approved and the relaxation of checks, which I did not approve, are two very different matters.

Let me take her points in turn. She alleges that the pilot scheme and the unauthorised actions were the result of cuts. I explained the basis for the pilot scheme in my statement. I would remind her that the last Government were planning to cut the UK Border Agency and that it remains the stated policy of her party in opposition to cut the Home Office budget. She mentioned in passing that the House had not been informed about the pilot programme, but it has never been the policy of any Government to notify the House of operational matters such as those. Her own Government did not notify the House when they introduced a risk-based warnings index policy, or when they let passengers through Heathrow without even looking at their passports.

The right hon. Lady suggests that the problem was related not to unauthorised official actions but to the measures that we piloted in July. Let me remind the House again that, as I said in my statement, these measures allowed greater intelligence-led checks to be made against higher-risk passengers. Does the right hon. Lady think that was wrong; if so, why did the last Government introduce a warnings index policy that allowed risk-based checks back in 2007?

Let me remind the right hon. Lady of what I said. The pilot allowed officials in limited circumstances to use their discretion whether to check the biometric chip of EEA nationals and whether to run EEA nationals’ children travelling in family groups or school groups against the warnings index. Under her Government in similar circumstances, adults were not run against the warnings index, and on at least one occasion at Heathrow the border was opened up, so no checks were made against inbound passengers. She says that officials at UKBA are telling her that they were suspicious about individuals, yet they were being let through. It was clear in the guidance on the policy that for any EEA national or EEA national child against whom suspicion was felt, the officer should do the necessary biometric chip checks or warnings index checks.

The right hon. Lady asked whether the inquiry should include the decisions of Ministers as well as officials. I have already said that I am happy for John Vine’s investigation to look at what decisions were taken by Ministers and when. She asked about the publication of paperwork between Ministers and officials. We will certainly make all the relevant paperwork available to the investigations. I can assure her and the House that the paperwork will show without ambiguity that the relaxation of checks that occurred was not sanctioned by me.

The right hon. Lady asked whether any dangerous individuals had managed to come to Britain. That is a very serious issue; that is why I addressed it in my statement. I made it clear to the House that we are not in a position to be able to say how many people entered who should have been prevented after being flagged by the warnings index. We would have known, however, if anybody had tried to enter the country during the pilot, as the pilot was due to operate, because all adults were run past the warnings index and all non-EEA passengers were checked against that index. It was only EEA nationals’ children travelling with their parents or in a school group who were not automatically run against the warnings index. That is more stringent than the controls put in place by the last Government, who in similar circumstances did not check all adults against the warnings index.

I have said on a number of occasions that there is nothing more important than the security of our border, and I made clear in my statement the measures we are taking to address the lapse. In addition, we are reforming every route to the UK to reduce net migration; we are clearing the asylum backlog; we are improving removals; we are addressing the problem of article 8; and we are creating a border policing command in our National Crime Agency to improve our border security in the long term.

I will take no lectures, however, from the party that gave us a total net migration of more than 2.2 million people, the foreign national prisoners scandal, Sangatte, widespread abuse of student visas, the botched e-Borders contract, a 450,000 asylum backlog, no transitional controls for eastern Europeans, the Human Rights Act and a points-based system that failed to reduce immigration. My task now is to make sure that those responsible for this lapse are properly dealt with and to make sure that border force officials can never take these risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the cross-Government report into ending gang and youth violence. Following the shocking scenes of disorder over the summer, the Prime Minister asked me to lead a review, alongside my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, of gangs and youth violence. Today’s report is not the end of that process. It is merely the start of a comprehensive, long-term programme of work to tackle the violence that blights too many of our towns and cities.

We have visited front-line projects; we have analysed youth violence and street gangs; we have met local authority chief executives, senior police officers, voluntary organisations and former gang members; and we have hosted an international conference of experts. Using this research, we have identified what can be done by Government and other agencies to stop the violence and to turn around the lives of those involved. Today’s report is an important first analysis of the problem, and of the interventions that work. It provides a platform for the intensive support we will provide to the most affected areas.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need to accept that not enough was done over the years to deal with a problem we all knew existed and we knew was not being addressed. But the riots brought home to the whole country how serious a problem gang and youth violence has become. The statistics show that one in five of those arrested in connection with the riots in London were known gang members. Similar figures were recorded by West Yorkshire police, and Nottinghamshire had only a slightly lower proportion. Most other police forces identified fewer than 10% of all those arrested as known gang members, so gangs were not the sole cause of the riots, but they were a factor. The fact that so many young people who are not involved in gangs were still willing to carry out such serious acts of criminality merely reinforces the urgent need for action.

Gang members and young people engaged in violence do not appear out of the blue. Analysis of their life stories shows certain common factors: parental neglect early in life, often linked to drug addiction or alcohol abuse and violence in the home; a history of poor discipline at school, truancy and exclusion; early brushes with the law for more minor offences; and exposure to older gang members, often based around their local estate. Those factors come up time and again, and during the review we heard powerful real-life examples. Our analysis also showed that gang membership itself can be an important driver of criminality and violence. In London, for example, almost 50% of shootings and 22% of serious violence are committed by known gang members.

Our considered and evidence-based approach is designed to deal with each and every aspect of gang culture and youth violence. It will be based on five areas: prevention, pathways out, punishment, partnership working and providing support.

Preventing young people from becoming involved in gangs and youth violence means starting at the beginning. Research shows that early intervention is the most cost-effective way of reducing violence later in life, so we are recruiting 4,200 extra health visitors and doubling the capacity of family nurse partnership schemes, to help 13,000 young mothers. We are providing £18 million to identify and support domestic violence victims and their children, who are at particular risk of turning to violence in adulthood.

In schools, the pathway for young people into crime is all too clear: from low-level absence, to persistent absence and truancy, to low literacy and poor attainment. That is why our education reforms are focused on: early intervention in the foundation years; taking a rigorous approach to eliminating illiteracy; improving behaviour and discipline; and ensuring that every young person is taught in a way that inspires them and prepares them for the world of work.

If prevention fails and young people are drawn into gangs and youth violence, we need to ensure that we provide viable pathways out. Moments of crisis in a young person’s life, such as arrest, exclusion from school or attending an accident and emergency department offer vital opportunities to intervene, so we will work with A and E departments and children’s social care providers to help young people who may be affected by gang violence.

For those who are arrested, we will expand schemes to help young offenders with mental health and substance misuse problems, and we will look to provide ways out of gangs for those who have been convicted and served their time. We will therefore improve education provision in young offenders institutions and ensure that all young people who leave prison and claim jobseeker’s allowance are referred immediately to the Work programme.

We will also establish a new ending gangs and youth violence team of community activists, NHS experts and police officers. It will offer intensive support to gang-affected areas to help them understand their problem and develop their own solutions, which could include rolling out schemes to re-house gang members who want to exit the gang lifestyle and mediation schemes to prevent retaliatory violence.

Our review found some excellent police work to identify and manage the highest-risk gang members through a combination of targeted surveillance, enforcement and arrest for any offence, however minor, and positive offers of training, employment and drugs treatment for those who want a different life. However, those not prepared to break away from violence will face harsher and tougher punishments. That is why we will consult on making a new offence of possession of an illegal firearm with intent to supply, and on whether the penalty for illegal firearm importation should be increased. We are also consulting on whether the police need additional curfew powers. It is why we are extending the new gang injunctions to 14 to 17-year-olds, for example, to stop gang members entering rival territory, prevent them from being in public with dangerous dogs and require them to undertake positive activities; and it is why we are strengthening our laws on weapons possession so that anyone, including offenders aged 16 or 17, convicted of using a knife to threaten and endanger others will now face a mandatory custodial sentence. Any adult who commits a second very serious violent or sexual crime will now face a mandatory life sentence.

This is not, however, solely a police and criminal justice programme. All the agencies that young people deal with, from teachers to health service workers and social services, need to develop better systems for identifying high-risk individuals, sharing information and working together. Simply throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. We need a more intelligent approach.

We know, for example, that there are families on whom multiple Government agencies spend hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, yet their problems persist. That is why Louise Casey is today starting her work as the head of a new troubled families team to drive forward our commitment to turn around the lives of 120,000 troubled families. We will also deliver our commitment that all hospital A and E departments should share anonymised data on violent assaults with the police and other agencies. Sharing information and taking a multi-agency approach might not sound very exciting, but they work.

Finally, to support local areas, we will target Home Office funds on those places where the most serious gang and youth violence problems exist. We will therefore provide £10 million in funding next year to support up to 30 local areas and invest at least £1.2 million of new resources over the next three years to improve services for young victims of sexual violence in our major urban areas, with a new focus on the girls and young women caught up in gang-related rape and abuse.

For too long, communities have lived in fear of gangs. Many young lives have been ruined; many young lives have been lost. The summer showed that it is time for society to take a stand. It is time for a long-term programme, with intervention at each stage of vulnerable people’s lives; it is time for a locally led approach, with agencies working together and sharing information; and it is time for tough enforcement to be backed up by work to address the root causes of gang and youth violence. That is what our programme will deliver and I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement and the Government report.

The Opposition agree with the Government’s aim of tackling gang culture. The Home Secretary is right to point to the devastating impact on the victims of gang violence and intimidation and to be concerned about the damage that gangs do to those who get sucked into them, sometimes even in the search for protection. The violence is horrifying; the long-term scars for young people and society are severe. She is right that gangs played a part in the riots, but also that they have played a part in problems such as knife crime that affect some of our major cities.

The Home Secretary also recognises that the overwhelming majority of young people do not get involved in gangs. Indeed, youth crime fell over the course of the previous Parliament as fewer young people were drawn into criminal activity, but we want youth crime to fall further, not to go back up. That is why action on the pernicious effect of gang culture is so important.

I therefore agree strongly with the Home Secretary that effective action requires prevention, early intervention, working in partnerships, tough action and crackdowns on persistent gang activity, and punishment. Effective action needs to involve the NHS, schools and councils as well as the police. We also need action on domestic violence and to consider the impact on women and girls. She should also consider increasing the focus on housing and on the victims of gangs.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s work to build on Labour’s approach in government, including the family intervention projects and implementing the extension of gang injunctions to 14-year-olds, for which the previous Labour Government legislated before the last election.

I agree with the Home Secretary that we need to go further. I, too, am impressed by some of the work that police and local councils are doing in some areas to target gang members by offering them a way out, but rightly getting tough on them if they will not take it, but I am deeply concerned that the reality of the Government’s policy does not live up to the rhetoric. For a start, there is still complete confusion about sentencing policies. Last week, the Home Office told the papers that there would be longer sentences for gang members; yesterday, the Home Secretary told them that there would not be. Her plans on powers are also confused. She will know that many police forces and councils find that ASBOs are one of the most useful tools in disrupting gang activity, yet her policy still is to abolish them and replace them with weaker injunctions, so she is making it harder and not easier for the police to crack down.

We welcome the emphasis on early intervention in the report, but that sits badly with the 20% cuts to Sure Start and well over 20% cuts to the youth service. We welcome the learning of lessons from successful work in places such as Strathclyde, but here is the real problem: the work in Strathclyde alone required an additional £5 million, but she has announced only £10 million for the country as a whole, and the Home Office has already said that that funding is not new. At the same time, she is halving the local community safety budgets, which councils and the police use for gang prevention work right now—£44 million of cuts over the next two years alone, on top of the cuts to community safety funding in the emergency Budget.

Before the election, Haringey, where the riots started, received £2.2 million for community safety, including the action it was taking, with the police, to target gangs. By next year, that figure will be £200,000—a 90% cut in one borough alone. In Liverpool, the youth offending service, which works with gangs and young offenders, is facing more than £2 million of cuts—an overall reduction in its budget of 34%. All that comes on top of 16,000 police officer cuts, nearly 6,000 of which are in the forces that face the biggest problems with gangs.

The Government are cutting too far, too fast, hitting not only the criminal justice system, but our economy, which risks costing us more. Higher unemployment and higher crime will cost us more. Ministers are right to be concerned about gangs and youth crime and to want action, but what does this really add up to on the streets of Lambeth or Liverpool or for the young people of Birmingham or Brent? Given that the Government are pushing up youth unemployment to nearly 1 million, cutting 16,000 police officers, ending ASBOs, slashing youth services and cutting crime prevention, can the Home Secretary put her hand on her heart and tell the House that during this Parliament the youth crime rate will fall, as it did in previous Parliaments?

We agree with much of what the Home Secretary said today, but when we look at the reality behind the rhetoric—the reality behind her words—we see the truth, which is that the Government are still making it harder, not easier, for the police and communities to tackle gang violence and cut crime.

[Mrs May]

We have heard a typical response from the right hon. Lady. I shall start with the statements where she agreed with what we were doing, with the need to do more to draw young people out of gangs and reduce youth violence and with the point that this is not just about the police, but about how the NHS, schools and a variety of other agencies need to be involved. As I said in my statement, that is the basis of this first truly cross-Government report. She mentioned good projects by the police. There are a number of very good projects out there in parts of the Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester, the west midlands, Merseyside and, of course, Strathclyde. Those projects are already starting to make a difference.

Sadly, however, having said that she agreed with a lot of what I said, the right hon. Lady then, as she did in August when we were talking about the riots, chose to be party political. I am sorry that she chose to do that, but I shall address her various points. She said that we should not scrap ASBOs, but what good have ASBOs done, given that, as she said, gang culture has been getting worse? We are getting rid of ASBOs and replacing them with measures that will actually deliver for local communities, deter antisocial behaviour and put communities back in charge. She mentioned funding for Sure Start. That funding is provided through the early intervention grant, but, crucially, we are ensuring that Sure Start is focused on the very families it was set up to help in the first place—the very families that most need our help and support.

The right hon. Lady talked about police cuts. She never misses a chance to demonstrate her fiscal irresponsibility, and I knew that today would not be any different. She attacked cuts in police spending, but she did not say that it was the stated policy of her party to cut police spending. On her comments about police numbers, let me tell the House what she said about gangs and police numbers in August:

“Boots on the streets are not enough to sustain safe communities”.—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1151.]

I wonder why she has changed her mind.

The right hon. Lady also talked about other spending cuts. Let me tell her what Jacqui Smith, the former Labour Home Secretary, said just this morning:

“You need to be much better at measuring the impact of the money we spend as well as simply spending it.”

I suggest that the right hon. Lady take a lesson from her. The shadow Home Secretary seems to think that gang problems have been caused by this Government and did not exist under the previous Government, but let me remind her what she said in August:

“I agree that more needs to be done about gang culture, which has been getting worse.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1151.]

Yes: getting worse under the Labour Government. Just this morning, Jacqui Smith said that Labour “hadn’t done well enough” in tackling gang violence”. She has been straight about her record; it is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary cannot bring herself to be straight too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

If I may say to the right hon. Gentleman, I expect to be having a further conversation with the Mayor after Home Office questions, but I hope to be sending a recommendation to the palace, and I firmly expect to do so, later today.

In relation to the funding figures for the Metropolitan police, the right hon. Gentleman will know full well that we are providing support to it, and indeed to other forces, as a result of the riots that took place recently. However, I am pleased to say that the previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner was able to increase visibility with police on the streets within the resources he had, by the simple and effective method of moving from police patrolling in pairs to single-patrol policing.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

It is intriguing to discover that the Home Secretary and the Mayor have not yet agreed on the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

The previous question was about the comprehensive spending review. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary estimated that 16,000 officers would be cut as a result of the CSR. Since then, the police have faced substantial additional costs of £125 million from policing the August riots. The Home Secretary has said that she is supporting the Met police and other forces, but the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his letter that this will be only

“where forces are not in a position to cover the costs of recent events themselves”.

That leaves the police with no clarity at a time when their budgets are already being cut. Will she therefore now guarantee that no police force will have to cut any officers or services to pay for policing the riots, and will she stand by the Prime Minister’s commitment to pay this extra money to the police?

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely clear—and has been made clear to police forces affected by the riots—that police forces should put in claims to the Home Office and that we will look at them. We will be looking at claims for operational costs and riot damage costs. On the right hon. Lady’s first statement, however, I do not think that she should try to transpose on to this Government the sort of disputes that took place within the previous Government. As I understand, from reading the recent book by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), she even disputed the extent of the deficit—as she and other Labour Members appear still to do.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am afraid that the Home Secretary did not answer the question. She said that the Home Office is “looking” at the claims. That provides no certainty for the police or clarity for police budgets. Police officers are having to make decisions right now about making people redundant. The truth is that she is happy to find extra resources for elected police chiefs, but she will not find the extra money for the police. She is spending more than £100 million on elected police chiefs that no one wants when she could spend the same money on the costs of policing the riots or on 3,000 extra constables in Olympics year. Does she think that the public would prefer the money to be spent on elected police chiefs or on constables who will cut crime?

[Mrs May]

I think that the public want a Government who actually look after taxpayers’ money, which is exactly what we will do. The police forces know that there is a process by which they can put in claims to the Home Office. Those claims will be properly considered, and as we have made clear, the Home Office will be making funds available in relation to the matters that the right hon. Lady has raised.

Public Disorder

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I think it was right to increase the number of police officers and to introduce police community support officers. PCSOs have done an excellent job across the country, working with police officers and communities, and have been an important part of addressing some of the tensions, concerns and difficulties that we have faced in the past few days.

Today, the Prime Minister again ruled out reopening the police budget. I implore him to think again. The newspapers report that Ministers now have doubts, and I urge him to listen to them.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is making much of a point about police cuts that was made by a number of her right hon. and hon. Friends during questions to the Prime Minister. Will she clarify for us the Opposition’s policy on police cuts? Do the Opposition still support police cuts of 12%, or do they want a review of or a moratorium on that? Will she guarantee police numbers, or will she not?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary will know, because we have had this debate in the House many times, that we believe it is important to give the police enough resources to sustain the number of police officers. We maintain that position now.

The HMIC gave its view that the police could sustain a reduction of about 12% in their budget over the course of the Parliament. The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), also said that his assessment when he was in office was that 12% could be sustained over the course of the Parliament and that that would allow the police to sustain the police numbers that we believe are so important. Instead, the Government are cutting by 20% and the steepest cuts are in the first two years. They are cutting more in the first few years than we would have done over the course of a Parliament. That is why the police, despite making immense efficiencies and taking immense actions to deliver savings, are finding that the number of police officers is being cut. That includes some of the most experienced police officers in the country, who are being forced to take early retirement against their wishes—officers whom we need and whose experience and contributions we need now.

Metropolitan Police Service

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the resignations of Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates, the Metropolitan police investigation into phone-hacking, and allegations of police corruption. I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for the late receipt of the statement. As I am sure she will appreciate, events have been changing rather rapidly through the day.

As the House will know, last night Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As I told him last night, I am sorry that he took that decision. He has led the Met through difficult times, and, although current circumstances show there are still serious issues to be addressed, the Met is stronger operationally today than it was when he took over. I will turn to those difficult circumstances in a moment, but first I wish to update the House on today’s developments and on the next steps for the Metropolitan police.

I have already started work with the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan police to arrange an orderly transition and the appointment of a new commissioner. I have agreed that Sir Paul Stephenson will leave his post as swiftly as possible. In the meantime he will remain commissioner, in post at New Scotland Yard and in operational command. Sir Paul will be replaced by Tim Godwin, who will again become acting commissioner, a role that he filled very effectively during Sir Paul’s illness between December and April this year. With Tim Godwin as acting commissioner, the Mayor and I are clear that additional resilience is essential from outside the Metropolitan police. I am therefore pleased to announce that Bernard Hogan-Howe has agreed to take on the responsibilities of deputy commissioner on a temporary basis. We are seeking to expedite the process for selecting and appointing the next commissioner.

The House will know that within the last couple of hours Assistant Commissioner John Yates has also resigned. I want to put on record my gratitude to John Yates for the work that he has done, while I have been Home Secretary, to develop and improve counter-terrorism policing in London and, indeed, across the whole country. I can confirm to the House that Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick will take over his role.

I want hon. Members, Londoners and the whole country to know that the important work of the Met—its national responsibilities such as counter-terrorism operations as well as its policing of our capital city—must and will continue. That important work includes the related investigations Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden.

Operation Weeting, the investigation into phone hacking led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, is now going through the thousands of pieces of evidence relating to the allegations. Unlike the original investigation into phone hacking, Operation Weeting is proceeding apace, with officers interrogating evidence that was neglected first time round, pursuing new leads, and—as we saw once again at the weekend—making arrests.

Operation Elveden, also led by Sue Akers, is investigating allegations that police officers have received payments from the press in return for information. This investigation has independent oversight by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. At this stage, it is a supervised investigation—which means that the IPCC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report—and as soon as individual suspected officers have been identified, IPCC investigators, overseen by an IPCC commissioner, will take over and lead a fully independent investigation of those officers.

In the future, both these matters will be considered by the Leveson inquiry established by the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I can tell the House that Elizabeth Filkin, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has provisionally agreed to examine the ethical considerations that should in future underpin relationships between the Metropolitan police and the media, how to ensure maximum transparency and public confidence, and to provide advice. The management board of the Met has agreed a new set of guidelines relating to relationships with the media, including recording meetings and hospitality and publication of information on the internet.

These allegations are not, unfortunately, the only recent example of alleged corruption and nepotism in the police, so I can tell the House that I have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties. I have asked HMIC to make recommendations to me about what needs to be done to address that.

There is nothing more important than the public’s trust in the police to do their work without fear or favour, so at moments like this it is natural that people should ask who polices the police. I have already asked Jane Furniss, the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, whether she has the power and the resources to get done the immediate work at hand. She has assured me that she does, but additional resources will be made available to the IPCC if they are needed.

I can also tell the House that I have commissioned work to consider whether the IPCC needs further powers, including whether it should be given the power to question civilian witnesses during the course of its investigations. Given that the IPCC can at present only investigate specific allegations against individual officers, I have also asked whether the commission needs to have a greater role in investigating allegations about institutional failings of a force or forces.

Finally, I want to say one last word about the future of the Metropolitan police. The Met is the largest police force in the country, and has important national responsibilities beyond its role policing our capital. The next Metropolitan Police Commissioner will lead thousands of fine police officers, community support officers and staff, the great majority of whom have spent their careers dedicated to protecting the public, often at risk to their own safety. Just three nights ago, hon. Members will know that in Croydon an unarmed Metropolitan police officer was shot as he tried to arrest a suspect. I know that the whole House will agree with me that it is for the sake of the many thousands of honourable police officers and staff, as well as of the public they serve, that we must get to the bottom of all these allegations. Only then will we be able to ensure the integrity of our police and public confidence in them to do their vital work. I commend the statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and also for her apology; I understand the timing pressures she faced. May I also join her in paying tribute to the Metropolitan police officer who was harmed during the course of duty in Croydon?

The Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to the work of Sir Paul Stephenson. He has done excellent work in London, backing neighbourhood policing and taking action to cut crime in the capital. The Home Secretary also recognised the vital work of John Yates on counter-terrorism. She referred to Sir Paul Stephenson’s decision to resign. It was an honourable decision, to protect the ongoing operational work of the Met from the ongoing speculation, but his departure raises very serious questions for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, Home Office Ministers told the press that the Home Secretary would make a statement today on her concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis. Today she has been completely silent on that issue in this House. The truth is that the Met commissioner and the head of counter-terrorism have now gone because of questions about this crisis and about the appointment of the former deputy editor of the News of the World, yet the Prime Minister is still refusing to answer questions or apologise for his appointment of the editor of the News of the World. The judgment of the Met has been called into serious question for appointing Neil Wallis, but so has the judgment of the Prime Minister for appointing Neil Wallis’s boss, Andy Coulson. People will look at this and think there is one rule for the police and one for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister agreed with that this morning. He said this morning:

“The situation in the Metropolitan Police Service is really quite different to the situation in the Government, not least because the issues that the Metropolitan police are looking at, the issues around them, have had a direct bearing on public confidence in the police inquiry into the News of the World”.

But the Prime Minister runs the country. The issues that he is looking at and the judgments that he makes have a direct bearing on public confidence in the Government’s ability to sort this crisis out.

The Home Secretary is right to have had serious concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis, but it would have been better if she had told us what they were today. She is also right that she should have been told about the potential conflict of interest in the Met. This does raise serious questions for the force, but the Met commissioner has said that he could not tell her or her boss because of the Prime Minister’s relationship with Andy Coulson. So how did it come to this? The most senior police officer in the country did not feel able to tell the Home Secretary about a potential conflict of interest for the force because of the Prime Minister’s compromised relationship with Andy Coulson—it was an ongoing relationship, as they met at Chequers in March, months after the new police investigation began. This morning, she refused to defend the appointment of Andy Coulson and today the London Mayor refused to defend the appointment of Andy Coulson. They all seem to have forgotten rather quickly what Andy Coulson used to say—they are “all in this together”.

The Home Secretary has been absent from this crisis, despite the serious allegations that have been made about phone hacking potentially affecting criminal investigations, the serious questions for policing and the growing cloud over the national and international reputation of British policing as a result of this crisis. She has said nothing and done nothing for two weeks. We welcome many of the announcements that she made today, but they are precisely the things that we called for last week.

I called last week for five things, three of which the Home Secretary has now done. First, I called for new standards for the Met to govern the relationship between officers and the press. Secondly, I called for a review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into the wider concerns about leaks of information, payments for the press and corruption in other forces too. Thirdly, I called for work to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints Commission and an independent complaints procedure to deal with failed investigations in future. We welcome those, just as we welcome her agreement to the judicial inquiry that we called for too, but she should have announced two further things that we also called for.

First, the Home Secretary needs to call for immediate openness and transparency across the Met in respect of all the dealings between senior officers and members of the press, including those at the News of the World—that needs to cover private as well as public meetings. Secondly, she needs to review her decision to go forward with elected police and crime commissioners. The nearest that Britain has to an elected police chief is the London Mayor, and that did not stop the problems at the Met—instead it made them worse. Boris Johnson described the phone-hacking allegations as “codswallop” and said that it

“looks like a politically motivated put-up job by the Labour party”.

What backing does the Home Secretary think Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates would have expected from the Mayor if they had decided to reopen an investigation that he had described as “politically motivated”?

Instead of their tackling this problem, we have had an AWOL Home Secretary, a “codswallop” Mayor and a compromised Prime Minister. There is a problem—it is one of leadership. The work of police officers across the country is too important to be tarnished by her failure to get a grip of the problems now. The Home Secretary will not answer all the questions, so I leave her with just one. She knows the importance of leadership to get the country through this crisis and she has criticised the misjudgment of the Met in taking on Neil Wallis, so will she now apologise to the House for the Prime Minister’s misjudgment in taking on Andy Coulson, so that the Government can now move forward, exercise some leadership untarnished and sort the crisis out now?

[Mrs May]

I say to the shadow Home Secretary that from the response she has just given one could have been forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister had not been anywhere near the House of Commons in the past week, but he stood at this Dispatch Box last week, he answered questions in this House, he answered all the points that the shadow Home Secretary has made and he will be in this House again on Wednesday.

The right hon. Lady asked a long list of questions. She asked why I had not said anything about openness and transparency across the Met, as I had promised to. I made specific reference in my statement to the management board decisions taken by the Metropolitan police to publish details of meetings held by senior officers with members of the press, and they will be available on the internet.

The right hon. Lady asked about the difference between the Met and the Government. Of course there is a difference. The Metropolitan police were investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the News of the World, and it is absolutely right that there should be a line between the investigators and the investigated. The issue I raised with Sir Paul Stephenson—which she is aware of because it was made public last week—was the fact that I had concerns that he had not informed us about a conflict of interest. The police in this country should be able to act against crime and criminals without fear or favour, but when they think there is a conflict of interest that should be made transparent.

The right hon. Lady asked about the impact of elected police commissioners. I think everything that has happened shows not that we should be going slow on reform of the police but that we need to ensure that we reform the police.

We then have the extraordinary situation in that the shadow Home Secretary appears in one breath to be saying that I have been absent and doing absolutely nothing and in the other breath saying that I am doing everything she asked for. She cannot simultaneously claim that I am doing nothing and doing something—that is the have-your-cake-and-eat-it opportunism of Opposition politics to which I note that both she and the shadow Chancellor belong.

Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things—[Interruption.]

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The answer to the question about the written note is that we were waiting for the judge who had made the decision to produce his own written judgment, so that it would be absolutely clear to us what we would need to interpret. What Greater Manchester police were dealing with was the oral judgment that had been delivered on 19 May. As I have just said, Mr Justice McCombe himself indicated that he did not think that the consequences would be especially severe. Only after further consideration did Greater Manchester police conclude that it would be necessary to appeal against the judgment.

It is important to understand that it was not simply a question of looking at the legal judgment. It was for the police to consider, in operational terms, whether they were able to work within that judgment. When the written judgment was made available to them, the operational implications became clear. It is those operational implications that give cause for concern, and they are the reason for the Bill that we are introducing today.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has been dealing with issues relating to the emergency legislation. Will she tell us why the Attorney-General did not immediately join Greater Manchester police in applying for a stay of judgment as well as joining them in applying for an appeal?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has already raised a number of questions relating to this matter, including the question of the stay of judgment. She has claimed that there was a considerable delay before we came to the House, but, as I said earlier, one hour and two minutes after we received the formal and final judgment from ACPO on the basis of advice from the two QCs whom it had been consulting, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made his statement here. As for her previous question about why the Home Office did not join the police in requesting a stay, the answer is simple: we had no locus standi. We were not part of the initial legal proceedings, and it was not open to us to be party to that request.

Let me add—just in case the right hon. Lady intends to ask about this—that she has implied in the past that if Greater Manchester police had applied for a stay earlier, a different decision would have been made and everything might have been okay. However, it is now clear, both from the decision that the Supreme Court issued earlier this week and from what has been said by leading legal commentators such as Joshua Rozenberg, that it is not even certain that the Supreme Court has the power to order a stay in relation to such an appeal.

[Yvette Cooper]

Did the Attorney-General consider joining the case for both the appeal and the stay as soon as he was made aware of the position? In the end the Supreme Court asked him to do so, but did he consider doing so as soon as he was told, and when was he told?

[Mrs May]

I thought I had made the position clear to the right hon. Lady. Those who were party to the initial legal proceedings were able to grant a stay, and Greater Manchester police were able to make a decision—which they did at a certain point in the timetable—on whether to apply for one.

If the right hon. Lady is trying to play party political games with the question of the application for a stay, she should consider the comments that have been made and the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as I have just said, suggests that there is considerable doubt not about the timetable for a stay, but whether the court even has the power to order one in this case. The right hon. Lady should think about that very carefully.

I think it important that the Home Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and also, fortuitously, an opportunity to ask me questions about it during the evidence session that I held with the Committee on Tuesday. I also note the support of leading legal figures such as Professor Michael Zander—who was mentioned earlier—and Liberty, which has said:

“Liberty supports the Government’s intention to amend the law as proposed. In our view the proposed reform is clarificatory and would do nothing more than return the law to the original intention of Parliament and the way in which it has been interpreted—by judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers—for the best part of 25 years.”

I could not agree more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The point is that the Home Office should have prepared. Immediately after the oral judgment was issued, it was possible that there would be concerns and Professor Zander knew enough about the judgment to write a considered view in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 17 June. He was clearly extremely worried and on that basis he was already offering advice. Home Office officials should have sought information and should have been concerned even on the basis of the oral judgment.

[Mrs May]

On a point of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm the time line? She just referred to Professor Michael Zander in a way that might give Members the impression that his article was written off the back of the oral judgment. Will she confirm that it was made available after the written judgment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The article was published on 18 June, following the written judgment becoming available on 17 June. He will have needed time to write it, however, and to seek more information and details about the case; Home Office officials, however, chose not to do that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches might think that this is amusing or a case for dismissing the argument, but they ought to consider the serious consequences for domestic violence victims and police operations across the country. Faced with such circumstances, Home Office officials are obliged to consider that risks are involved. They might not have known the final details until the written judgment arrived, but they should have been preparing, asking for further information from the judge and starting to work out options in case Home Office Ministers needed to act fast when the full information became available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The new border police command within the national crime agency will play a very important role in ensuring that we can protect our borders. What is crucial about its role within the agency is that we will be able to bring together a number of bodies that deal with crimes and activity across our borders. That will enable us to get much greater effectiveness in dealing with such problems.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

In January the Government let lapse provision for pre-charge detention for 28 days. The Home Secretary said that she needed a fast way to restore it if needed, but her counter-terror review stated that the current order-making power was too slow. We warned her then that her new proposal for emergency primary legislation was not workable, and the senior Joint Committee has now concluded that it is “totally unsatisfactory and ineffective”. It is now six months since she changed the limit, and there is still no satisfactory emergency back-up plan in place. When will she get this sorted out?

[Mrs May]

We remain of the view that it is important to have that legislation available for Parliament to enact, and that in the vast majority of circumstances it is appropriate that that is done after Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the matter. There is a question about what happens when Parliament is dissolved. We have considered that and will bring forward proposals for an order-making power to cover the dissolution of Parliament.

Women (Government Policies)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

Yet again, we have heard a speech from the Opposition Benches that included no recognition of the economic mess that the last Government left us, no constructive suggestions and no positive policy proposals for the future of this country. That is not constructive opposition, it is shameless opportunism.

Let me remind the Opposition once more why we are having to take action to restore sanity to our public finances. They left us with the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, and they left us spending £120 million every single day just on paying the interest on the debt that they racked up. That is more than we spend each day on policing, schools or child benefit. They left us with a deficit higher than that of Portugal or Greece, which have had to go cap in hand to the EU for a bail out. The experience of those countries shows that the risks of not dealing with Labour’s deficit are not imaginary but very real.

[Yvette Cooper]

Does the right hon. Lady think that the Labour Government should have cut public spending in the middle of a recession, and not allowed additional support for those who were unemployed and for businesses? If so, does she think the economy would have been growing at the time of the election if that had been done?

[Mrs May]

The Labour party, and the right hon. Lady as a former Treasury Minister, knows full well the risks of failing to deal with the deficit today. That is shown not just by what we are doing, but by what the Labour party itself said it would do if it was in government. I am talking about the position that we are in today, which was left us by the Labour Government, and the actions that we are having to take to deal with it. She must recognise that if the Labour party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 that the current Government are cutting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I shall make some progress.

Yes, the Government have taken the difficult decision to remove tax credits from higher earning families, but that has meant that we can increase child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against increases in child poverty. In fact, that decision has meant that we can increase child tax credits by £180 and then £110 a year over and above the level promised by Labour. Those policies are not just about helping women, but about protecting the most vulnerable.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady said that the increase in tax allowances helps women. In fact, the figures produced by the House of Commons Library show that the increase in the tax allowance benefited 13,500 women and 16,800 men. Even what she did to benefit households benefited more men than women. In addition, her cuts—in child tax credits, child benefit and so on—all came from women. That is the point. She is taking far more from women, but when she gives some back, she gives more back to men.

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely clear that the majority of the lowest-paid workers are women, as are the majority of workers who were taken out of tax. The right hon. Lady refers again to the House of Commons Library figures—she keeps quoting them—but they were produced on a remit that she gave to the Library. Interestingly, she earlier spoke of the distribution and sharing of incomes within households. However, the assumptions on benefits made in the figures that she quotes go against what she was saying about what happens within families.

For the first time, people will have the information to judge for themselves whether they think the Government’s decisions are fair. We have been making some difficult decisions, but for the first time the Government published an overview of the impact of the spending review on groups that are protected by equalities legislation, including women. The analysis demonstrated that our decisions mean that services used by women are protected. With our Budgets in 2010 and this year, and with the spending review, we published unprecedented distributional analysis of our proposals, as the IFS has acknowledged. Such analyses were never published by the previous Government. Perhaps if they had thought to publish such information, they would have avoided policies that hit some of the poorest the hardest, such as scrapping the 10p tax rate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned.

I reject the Opposition notion that we can judge the value of a policy simply by looking at the number of men or women who are affected by it. We should not reduce the amount that we invest in tackling youth unemployment just because more young men than young women are unemployed, but that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. They say that spending on tackling youth unemployment would be unfair on women.

We should not stop investment in policies that will return Britain to growth, such as cutting corporation tax, because more men run companies than women. However, again that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. I reject that argument. We need to ensure that more women can start businesses as we invest in getting Britain’s economy going. In fact, one symptom of the inequality between men and women is that more women than men rely on state spending.

We need to continue to support all women who need it, which is why we have ensured that we have protected child benefit and tax credits for women on low incomes, and why we will increase the value of the state pension, and protect benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for older women. However, if the previous Government taught us one thing, it is that more state spending might help to deal with the symptoms of inequality, but it does not address the causes. This Government are determined to get to grips with the causes of inequality between men and women, from job opportunities to the number of women in top, senior positions, to tackling the shameful levels of violence against women, and working to reverse the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

National Crime Agency

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the new National Crime Agency. Last year’s national security strategy recognised that organised crime is one of the greatest threats to our national security. The social and economic costs are estimated at between £20 billion and £40 billion per year, and its impact is seen on our streets and felt in our communities every single day. The drug dealing on street corners; the burglary and muggings by addicts; the trafficking of vulnerable young women into prostitution; the card cloning and credit card fraud that robs so many—all are fundamentally driven by organised criminals.

Our law enforcement agencies assess that there are some 38,000 individuals engaged in organised crime, involving 6,000 criminal groups; and yet, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said last year that law enforcement is impacting in a meaningful way on only 11% of those 6,000 organised crime groups. We must do better.

For too long, central Government micro-managed and interfered in local policing, but at the same time national and international crime was neglected and our borders became porous. There was no cross-government strategy to tackle organised crime, no national tasking and co-ordination, and no co-ordinated border policing. Different agencies had varying responsibilities for policy, prevention and investigation, and there was a tendency to operate in silos. The overall effect was a fragmented and patchy law enforcement response, and we are putting that right.

By introducing police and crime commissioners, we can get central Government out of the way of local policing. We are putting the Government’s focus where it should have been all along: on securing our borders, and tackling national and international serious and organised crime. So we will shortly be publishing the first ever cross-government strategy on tackling organised crime and we will establish a powerful new operational body—the National Crime Agency.

The National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation. It will tackle organised crime, defend our borders, fight fraud and cybercrime, and protect children and young people. With a senior chief constable at its head, the NCA will harness intelligence, analytical capabilities and enforcement powers. Accountable to the Home Secretary, the NCA will be an integral part of our law enforcement community, with strong links to local police forces, police and crime commissioners, the UK Border Agency and other agencies.

The NCA will comprise a number of distinct operational commands. Building on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—SOCA—the organised crime command will tackle organised crime groups, whether they operate locally, across the country or across our international borders. Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders, and help to prevent terrorism, drug smuggling, people trafficking, illegal immigration and other serious crimes. It will ensure that all law enforcement agencies operating in and around the border work to clear, mutually agreed priorities. The economic crime command will make a major difference to the current fragmented response to economic crime. Working to a new unified intelligence picture, the economic crime command will drive better co-ordination of cases, and better tasking of resources, across agencies such as the Financial Services Authority, the Office of Fair Trading and the Serious Fraud Office. That will mean that a greater volume and complexity of economic crime cases can be tackled. In due course, we will review the relationship between the economic crime command and the other agencies.

Building on the significant contribution that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—CEOP—already makes within SOCA, CEOP will, as a key part of the NCA, be able to draw on wider resources and support to help protect even more children and young people. The NCA will also house the national cybercrime unit, which will have its own investigative capacity and help local police forces to develop their own response to the online threat. Each command will be led by a senior and experienced individual, and will manage its own priorities and risks, but, crucially, capabilities, expertise, assets and intelligence will be shared across the entire agency and each command will operate as part of one single organisation.

Intelligence will be at the heart of what the NCA does. Learning from our experience of counter-terrorism, the NCA will house a significant multi-agency intelligence capability. It will collect and analyse its own and others’ intelligence, building and maintaining a comprehensive picture of serious and organised criminals in the UK: who they are and who they work with; where they live; where they operate; what crimes they are involved in; and what damage they cause. The NCA will then use that intelligence to co-ordinate, prioritise and target action against organised criminals, with information flowing to and from the police and other agencies in support of tactical operations. Using this intelligence picture, the NCA will have the ability and the authority to task and co-ordinate the police and other law enforcement agencies.

For the first time, there will be one agency with the power, remit and responsibility for ensuring that the right action is taken at the right time by the right people—that agency will be the NCA. All other agencies will work to the NCA’s threat assessment and prioritisation, and it will be the NCA’s intelligence picture that will drive the response on the ground. That will be underpinned by the new strategic policing requirement.

As well as having the ability to co-ordinate and task the response to national crime threats by the police and other agencies, the NCA will also have its own specialist operational and technological capabilities, including surveillance and means to deal with fraud and threat-to-life situations. This is a two-way street; the NCA will be able to provide its techniques and resources in support of the police and other agencies, just as it will task and co-ordinate the response to national-level crime.

NCA officers will be able to draw on a wide range of powers, including those of a police constable and immigration or customs powers. That will mean that NCA officers, unlike anybody else, will be able to deploy powers and techniques that go beyond the powers of a police officer.

The agency will be an integral part of the golden thread of policing that runs from the local to the national and beyond. At home, the NCA will work in partnership with police forces, chief constables, police and crime commissioners and agencies such as the UK Border Agency. Overseas, it will represent the UK’s interests, working with international law enforcement partners. It will also provide the central UK contact for European and international law enforcement.

The agency will come fully into being in 2013, with some key elements becoming operational sooner. The total cost of the organisation will not exceed the aggregate costs of its predecessors. The combination of a single intelligence picture, the tasking and co-ordination function, the specialist operational support and the operational commands will result in a dramatic improvement in our response to national and international crime.

Organised crime, border crime, economic crime, cybercrime and child exploitation are real problems for real people. All areas of the country suffer their effects—from the very poorest communities to the most affluent, from the smallest villages to the biggest cities—and it is often the most vulnerable in our society who suffer the greatest harm. We owe it to them to do more to tackle the scourge of drugs, better to defend our borders, to fight fraud and to protect our children and young people. The National Crime Agency will do all those things and more and I commend the statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for providing an advance copy of her statement. We have already had another day, another debate—now it is another day, another statement. Once again, to listen to the Home Secretary one would think this was year zero, that everything failed in the past and that everything will be nirvana in the future. Yesterday, she told us that the Labour Government’s Prevent strategy had failed and her new strategy would make no mistakes. Today, she claims that there was no cross-Government organised crime strategy and no effective work on organised crime before, but that for the future we will see a dramatic improvement in the fight against national and international crime just as a result of these changes. There is no end to this Home Secretary’s hostages to fortune.

The right hon. Lady also contradicts herself. She says that there was no cross-Government strategy on organised crime, but then she says the organised crime command will build on the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which was set up by Labour in 2005 to take the fight to organised crime. It had a conviction rate of more than 90%. She says that the National Crime Agency will be a crime-fighting organisation with intelligence at the heart of what it does, with the combined powers of police, customs and immigration officers, but that is what SOCA is. Whereas yesterday we had control orders and son of control orders, today we have SOCA and SOCA plus. It is hardly year zero and hardly a new nirvana.

We think we should build on SOCA. Sometimes, it became focused too purely on intelligence and it makes sense to do more to reform national policing. There are considerable benefits that can flow in this area, but reforms also need to be handled effectively or they can go badly awry—and they have already gone awry. Child protection experts have resigned, counter-terrorism plans have been publicly slapped down by the Met and the Serious Fraud Office has been put in a state of suspended animation. That has all happened at a time when 12,000 police officers are being cut across the country and the Government are pushing ahead with American-style plans for police and crime commissioners whom nobody wants. The truth is that these plans have been dogged by chaos and confusion. From her statement, there is no sign that the Home Secretary has a grip. Let us consider the individual points that she has made.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency had good results this year, but Jim Gamble, its successful head, resigned from the agency after seeing the Government’s plans to merge CEOP with the NCA. He said today:

“I don’t believe that the rebranding or the submerging of CEOP within a far greater entity will allow the critical child protection focus that we need.”

He made the point that CEOP will also suffer a 10% reduction in its budget by 2014 and said that he hoped the Government would release the submissions to the consultation on the merger, because they were overwhelmingly against it. We hope too that the Home Secretary will release them, because she has clearly not persuaded the experts on those plans.

On financial crime, the grandly titled economic crime command is a far cry from the Home Secretary's plans to merge the Serious Fraud Office and parts of the Financial Services Authority. Instead, do we have a co-ordinating committee? Or is this just another agency to work with the many already in the field? Does this risk limbo for the SFO, whose director has already said:

“This is a distraction and it is important that a clear direction is made as soon as possible so that the SFO is focused on delivering results for the public.”

The Home Secretary has clearly not persuaded the experts or the Chancellor of her plans.

On the border command, the Home Secretary says: “Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders, and help prevent terrorism”, but the coalition pledge was for a border police force, not just a command. In the Conservatives’ manifesto, it was more boots on the ground. They were talking about 10,000 people a few years ago. Has that been replaced simply by a board to oversee better cross-agency working?

Plans to move counter-terrorism from the Met have been ditched after the commissioner said that national security is “too important” and

“must be based on more than mere structural convenience”.

Can the Home Secretary confirm that she does not plan to destabilise matters by revisiting this issue during the important period in the run-up to the Olympics?

On the National Policing Improvement Agency the Home Secretary has said nothing at all, but she is disbanding it in 2012—a year before the NCA starts. We still do not know what is happening to the DNA database or to a whole series of other functions. The chief constable of Derbyshire has said:

“We face an issue that there are absolutely critical services provided by the NPIA that, at the moment, have a date that is going to drop off, with nowhere to go.”

What will happen to them? The Home Secretary has not explained how tasking will work, what will happen if chief constables disagree and who will make the final decision when resources become overstretched.

On resources, the Home Secretary says that the total cost of the organisation will not exceed the aggregate costs of its predecessors, but she has not commented on set-up costs. Peter Neyroud has estimated that this top-down reorganisation will cost between £15 million and £20 million. When that is added to the cost of police and crime commissioners we have £120 million being spent on top-down reorganisations while 12,000 police officer posts are being cut, putting the fight against crime at risk across the country. There is a risk that chaos and confusion will make it harder for the police to cope given the drop in resources that they are experiencing.

For this renamed crime agency to be successful, it needs steady leadership, clarity and the resources to deliver. In the end, reorganisation is no substitute for police officers on the ground doing the job on national and local crime and going the extra mile to catch criminals and keep communities safe. That means we need an end to the confusion and a bit more realism both about the past and about the detail of the reform. We need to start closing the gap between the rhetoric and the reality on the ground.

[Mrs May]

Yes, another day, another Home Office statement and, sadly, yet another similar response from the shadow Home Secretary. Indeed, she repeated many of the phrases that she used in her response to yesterday’s Prevent statement. She really needs to go away and think very carefully about what we mean by a cross-government organised crime strategy. She said that the previous Government had such a strategy because it set up SOCA and because SOCA existed, but we are talking about bringing together all the strands of law enforcement, including law enforcement agencies and police forces, that deal with organised crime. We are developing a comprehensive, coherent cross-government approach to dealing with organised crime. That is an organised crime strategy, which is not what the previous Government had.

I accept that SOCA has been doing good work and we want to build on that as part of the organised crime command within the new National Crime Agency, but there are other areas of crime that we need greater focus on. Yes, we need to look more closely at what is happening on our borders and to enhance our ability to bring together various agencies that have responsibility for and operate on the borders. We need to do that in conjunction with organisations such as the organised crime command and CEOP to ensure that we have the advantage of using not only the intelligence capability that will be at the centre of the NCA but the synergies that will be available when those agencies work properly together.

We will also be setting up a new economic crime command. There is a need in this country to look much more closely at economic crime. There is a whole swathe of what could be called middle-level economic crime that we have not dealt with appropriately and properly in the past, and the economic crime command will enable us to put a clear focus on that. It will enable us to ensure that the various agencies dealing with economic crime are working together, are co-ordinated and are working to the same priorities. It will also enable us to ensure that resources are being put in the right place, at the right time, where they are needed. This is a new development and a very important one in enhancing our work on economic crime. Indeed, it will not wait until the NCA is set up. Within the next few months we will establish a co-ordinating board on economic crime which will already start that important work. This is a powerful new crime-fighting body which I believe will make a real difference to our ability to deal with organised crime.

Prevent Strategy

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the review of the Government’s strategy to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

Intelligence indicates that the UK faces a serious and sustained threat from terrorism. Osama bin Laden may be dead, but the threat from al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism is not. Indeed, the threat level from international terrorism remains at “Severe”, meaning an attack is highly likely. That threat comes both from foreign nationals and from terrorists born and bred in Britain.

To tackle that threat, as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in Munich earlier this year, we must not only arrest and prosecute those who breach the law, but we must stop people being drawn into terrorist-related activity in the first place. That will require a new approach to integrating our divided communities, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and delivered by Ministers across the whole of Government. In counter-terrorism policy, it will require an effective strategy to tackle radicalisation in this country and overseas. That is why, last year, I launched a review of the existing counter-radicalisation strategy known as Prevent. That review found that the Prevent programme that we inherited from the previous Government was flawed. It confused Government policy to promote integration with Government policy to prevent terrorism. It failed to tackle the extremist ideology that not only undermines the cohesion of our society, but inspires would-be terrorists to seek to bring death and destruction to our towns and cities. In trying to reach out to those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes even reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting. We will not make the same mistakes.

Our new strategy is guided by a number of key principles. Prevent should remain an integral part of our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, a full update of which we will publish later this summer. Its aim should be to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. Prevent should address all forms of terrorism, including the extreme right wing. That is only right and proper and will also provide a more flexible basis to adapt to emerging threats in the future.

In a world of scarce resources, it is clear that Prevent work must be targeted against those forms of terrorism that pose the greatest risk to our national security. Currently, the greatest threat comes from al-Qaeda and those it inspires. The majority of Prevent resources and efforts will therefore be devoted to stopping people joining or supporting al-Qaeda, its affiliates or like-minded groups. But Prevent must also recognise and tackle the insidious impact of non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views that terrorists exploit.

Prevent depends on a successful integration strategy, but integration alone will not meet our counter-terrorism objectives, and our integration programme should go much wider than just security and counter-terrorism. This was a fundamental failing of the last Government’s approach. They failed to promote integration, and where they did promote it, they did so through the narrow prism of counter-terrorism. So we will do more than any Government before us to promote integration, including through teaching our history and values in our schools, through the national citizen service, and through other policies, but we will do so separately and differently from Prevent. The combined effect of this work and of the new Prevent strategy will be an unyielding fight against extremism, violent extremism and radicalisation.

It is critical that agencies, Departments and local authorities work to a common set of Prevent objectives to deliver the outcomes that we want. Public funding for Prevent must be rigorously prioritised and comprehensively audited. The previous Government were far too lax in spending in this area, as they were in so many others. Let me reiterate that under this Government, public money will not be provided to extremist organisations. If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, participation in society—if they do not accept these fundamental and universal values—we will not work with them and we will not fund them.

Within this overall framework, the new Prevent strategy will have three objectives. First, Prevent will respond to the ideological challenge and the threat from those who promote it. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in his speech in Luton, we must be much more assertive about our values. Let me be clear: the ideology of extremism and terrorism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Tackling that ideology will mean working with mainstream individuals and organisations to make sure moderate voices are heard. It will mean robustly defending our institutions and our way of life. So where propagandists break the law in encouraging or approving terrorism, it will mean arrest and prosecution, and where people seek to enter this country from overseas to engage in activity in support of extremist or terrorist groups, we will exclude them. Since coming to power, I have already excluded 44 individuals from the UK either because of unacceptable behaviour or for national security reasons.

Secondly, Prevent will stop individuals being drawn into terrorism and will ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support. Radicalisation is a process, not a one-off event. During that process it is possible to intervene to stop vulnerable people gravitating towards terrorism. We will do this by building on the successful multi-agency “Channel” programme, which identifies and provides support for people at risk of radicalisation. I want to use this opportunity to make one thing clear—Prevent is not about spying on communities, as some have alleged. It is about acting on information from the police, the security and intelligence agencies, local authorities and community organisations to help those specifically at risk of turning towards terrorism. It is incumbent on everyone in this country to play their part in helping them do so.

Thirdly, we will work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation. It is right to acknowledge that progress has been made in this area, but that progress has been patchy and it must be improved. So we will work with education and health care providers, universities, faith groups, charities, prisons and the wider criminal justice system. We will also work to tackle the particular challenge of radicalisation on the internet, and to make better use ourselves of social media and other modern communications technologies.

This review has been independently overseen by Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I pay tribute to him for his contribution. Lord Carlile has said that the new Prevent strategy has his full support. He said that

“it provides a template for challenging the extremist ideas and terrorist actions which seek to undermine the rule of law and fundamental British political values and institutions. Its tone is clear, and its policy compelling. It offers a positive message for mutual respect, tolerance and liberty.”

Prevent has not been without controversy. In the past, it received allegations that it was a cover for spying. Those allegations have been found to be false, but now we will make sure that this is seen and known to be the case. In the past, Prevent was muddled up with integration. It operated to confused and contradictory objectives—not any more. At times funding even found its way to the sorts of extremist organisations that themselves pose a threat to our society and to our security—not under this Government.

Let me be clear. We will not fund or work with organisations that do not subscribe to the core values of our society. Our new Prevent strategy will challenge the extremist ideology, it will help protect sectors and institutions from extremists, and it will stop the radicalisation of vulnerable people. Above all, it will tackle the threat from home-grown terrorism. I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We should take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who work so hard to protect our national security. Today we expected the Home Secretary to update the Prevent strategy, but she has done nothing of the sort. We support updating the Prevent strategy, but there is a massive gap between her rhetoric today and the reality of her policies. Where she should be building consensus around counter-terrorism, instead she has been political point-scoring. She has set out no actual proposals on how she would deliver in such an important area.

Most of the work on the development of Prevent was done after the 7/7 bombings and it was treading completely new ground. Urgent work was needed to disrupt the process of radicalisation, but there was no experience to draw on, and a range of different approaches was rightly tried. Much of that work was supported by the Opposition at the time. Some like “Channel” were very successful; some were not as effective. We were clear from the very beginning that it would need to be reviewed and evolve in the light of the evidence. The same is true now.

The Home Secretary, however, has claimed with great certainty that she will not make mistakes. If she believes that she now knows all the answers on how to tackle extremism and radicalisation, she is heading for a fall. In her desire to blame the previous Government for everything she is blinding herself and her Government to the fact that this is difficult work. Some of what she would like to do will work, but some will not, and it will need to be reviewed again, but that should be on the basis of evidence, not political positioning.

The Home Secretary has not even told us what her new mistake-free strategy involves. We agree that some groups should not be funded because of their extremist views, but the review says that it found no evidence to indicate widespread, systematic or deliberate funding of extremist groups, either by the Home Office or by local authorities or police forces. She has told us nothing about the new framework that will somehow prevent it happening inadvertently with local decisions in place. She has said that there will be a new focus on integration from the Department for Communities and Local Government, but what is it, what will it do and how will it be funded? She has already cut 40% from the Prevent funding for local councils this year alone and they have major cuts still to come.

The Home Secretary has claimed that there will be stronger work by universities and the NHS, but the Universities UK and the British Medical Association have already rejected her views. How workable are these plans if such critical stakeholders are hostile from the start? She has not set out different approaches for dealing with violent extremism, non-violent extremist and integration and seems to be confusing all three. Is it not the truth that there is a massive gap between her rhetoric and reality?

The Prime Minister has claimed that there will now be no more of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism, but what will the Government actually do and how will they deliver? Police counter-terrorism budgets are being cut in real terms, as are the Foreign Office’s counter-terrorism programmes, and later today the Home Secretary will introduce a Bill that will make it harder, not easier, to prevent terrorism attacks by watering down elements of control orders. Despite all the Prime Minister’s strong claims about getting tough on extremists, there is still no sign that he will meet his pre-election promise to ban the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

I know from previous experience of the Home Secretary’s statements that if I give her a long list of questions, she will not answer them, so let me leave her with just one: will she confirm that the Government will not meet their promise to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and admit that sometimes it is not as easy in practice to deliver counter-terrorism and work to prevent extremism as it is to make grand political promises as she has done today?

[Mrs May]

I am rather disappointed in the tone that the right hon. Lady has taken in her response. On the one hand she said that she recognised that the Prevent strategy needed review, but on the other hand she has completely rejected the review that has taken place. She claims that no change is taking place, but clearly there is. On Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Government are concerned about that group’s actions and keep it under constant review. She asked me to confirm that that is a very difficult area in which to work, which I am happy to do. It is difficult to make the proper judgments in this area.

When we came into office we looked at the previous Government’s approach and found that they had not looked at the issue of extremism but focused instead on violent extremism. We believe that it is important to look at extremism, because people involved in it can be led on to violent extremism and terrorist acts. We believe that it is also important to look at extremism because it can create an atmosphere in which people can more easily be radicalised towards terrorism. That is a key change that we are bringing about. We are looking at all forms of terrorism and have made that clear in what we are doing.

I have identified a number of areas where I think not enough has been done to look at radicalisation. The right hon. Lady said that Universities UK had rejected the review’s statements relating to universities, but I have to say to her and to Universities UK that I consider one of the problems to have been a degree of complacency in universities and their unwillingness to recognise the radicalisation that can take place on their campuses and do anything about it. We aim to work with universities to ensure that in future, with regard to their pastoral duty of care to students, they take radicalisation seriously and act accordingly.

There will be real differences in the approach we are taking. It has been a problem in the past that, because Prevent covered both integration and the counter-terrorism aspects of the strategy, it was perceived to be the securitisation of integration, so it is right that the Department for Communities and Local Government will take on the integration aspect of our policy and work on aspects of community cohesion.

Finally, I think that it is absolutely right that the Government should look very carefully at the groups that are being funded, analyse and evaluate them properly and carefully monitor how money is spent. The previous Government did not do that.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I hope my hon. Friend is grateful for the opportunity I gave him to clarify that particular point. I simply say in response to that and his comments about the judiciary that legislation is, of course, set by Parliament, but I believe that the relationship between politicians and the judiciary has changed as a result of the operation of the Human Rights Act. As a Government, we have set up a commission, which will report in due course, to look at the Human Rights Act and the possibility of introducing a Bill of Rights.

I said that I felt the Bill was necessary because public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers. Protecting the British public will always be my top priority, but the current control orders regime is neither perfect nor entirely effective. I believe that the Bill will give us appropriate, proportionate and effective powers to deal with the risk posed by people we believe are involved in terrorist-related activity whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.

Our approach is clear, consistent and coherent. We will repeal the control order regime and replace it with a more focused and targeted regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures. We will then support the new measures with increased covert investigative resources. So this Bill starts by repealing the Act that provides the power to impose control orders on individuals: the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

The Bill sets out the essential elements of the TPIM—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—regime that will replace control orders. It enables the Secretary of State to impose specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures on an individual by means of a TPIM notice. Unlike under the control order regime, the detail of the measures that will be able to be imposed will be specified in legislation and so will be specifically approved by the House. It is only right that it is Parliament, and not the Executive, that decides what types of measures may be imposed.

The Bill establishes 12 types of measures that could be imposed as part of a TPIM notice. It also provides clear limits on the restrictions that may be imposed under each measure. These measures include: an overnight residence measure; a travel measure, mainly to prevent travel outside the United Kingdom; an exclusion measure to prevent individuals entering specified areas or places; a financial services measure; an electronic communication device measure; an association measure; a reporting measure and a monitoring measure.

The overnight residence measure is not the same as the control order curfew requirement. Under control orders, curfews could last up to 16 hours and apply at any point in the day. Our intention is not to force individuals to remain in their homes during the day, when they might normally go out to work or study, but to ensure they are in their homes overnight, as most people normally would be. This will reduce the scope for involvement in terrorism-related activity and reduce the risk of absconding.

The travel measure will allow the banning of overseas travel without permission. It will also allow the individual to be required to surrender their passport or travel documents. This measure is, I believe, absolutely vital to stop travel for terrorist training, for example.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has said that the overnight residence requirements are different from curfews and that she does not want to prevent people from going out in the evening. Why, then, did she apply for a control order that included a curfew between 5 pm in the evening and 9 am in the morning—a total curfew of 16 hours?

[Mrs May]

We are currently operating—and have been since the Government came to power—the control order regime that was put in place by the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That is the basis on which I am currently operating. The new regime that will be put in place—of terrorism prevention and investigation measures—is a package that includes not just the measures in the Bill, but, as the right hon. Lady knows, the extra resources for the security services and the police.

[Yvette Cooper]

But will the Home Secretary confirm that she has the power to specify how many hours a curfew should be for and that she has chosen to specify a curfew for 16 hours rather than for fewer hours?

[Mrs May]

I will not comment on a particular case, which the right hon. Lady appears to be trying to get me to do. What I will say is that under the current control order regime it is possible to specify the length of a curfew. As she will know, the length of curfew has been challenged—and challenged successfully—in the courts. What we are doing with TPIMs is taking a different approach to the issue. The TPIMs in the Bill are intended to ensure that we allow prevention of terrorism activity for national security requirements, while also ensuring that individuals can take part in what is regarded as normal activity, such as work or study.

Policing and Crime

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am saying to all police officers that we value the work that they are doing, though it is important that we look at their pay terms and conditions, which have not been changed significantly for some time. We need to ensure that we have a modern, flexible work force in the police who can take us forward in the policing that we need today in the 21st century. That is why I thought it important to set up an independent review. We will look at the results of the proper processes that that independent review report is going through with the Police Negotiating Board.

I have set out a number of areas in which it is possible to make savings over and above those identified in the HMIC report in areas, such as increasing efficiency, IT, procurement, and a pay freeze. Together, these savings amount to £2.2 billion a year—more than the £2.1 billion real-terms reduction in central Government funding to the police. Even that ignores the local precept contribution from council tax payers, which independent forecasts suggest will rise by £382 million, or 12%, over the comprehensive spending review period.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Home Secretary is so confident in her savings figures, why does she think that chief constables from across the country, including in Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Kent and Norfolk, are all saying that front-line services will be hit as a result of her cuts, and why are 12,000 officers going?

[Mrs May]

Chief constables up and down the country are giving a commitment to maintaining the quality of their front-line services. The chief constables of Gloucestershire, Kent and Thames Valley, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, are all saying that they have a commitment to ensuring front-line services.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The chief constable of Staffordshire is another chief constable who is committed to protecting front-line and neighbourhood policing and ensuring that he does so in a way that makes sense and introduces greater efficiency in several areas. The problem with the position taken by the Opposition is that they do not want to see any change of any sort in policing, and yet there are chief constables out there who know that a transformation of policing is what is needed in the circumstances that we find ourselves in. In many cases, as has been evidenced by my hon. Friends, we may see an improvement in the service that is given to people.

[Yvette Cooper]

Then what does the right hon. Lady say to the chief constable of Lancashire, who says,

“we cannot leave the frontline untouched and that is because of the scale of the cuts”;

to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, who has said,

“we will be unable to continue to provide the level of service that we do today in such areas as neighbourhood policing”;

to the chief constable of Kent, who said that 20% is

“a significant drawback into police numbers, both civilian staff and police numbers, and clearly there's a potential impact that crime will rise”;

and to the chief constable of Norfolk, who says that given the scale of the cuts,

“Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary…report confirms what we have always maintained, that…the constabulary will have to reduce its front line over the next four years”?

Her policing Minister has said that he likes chief constables who stay quiet. Does she want to gag the chief constables of Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Kent and Norfolk, or does she think they are doing a bad job?

[Mrs May]

A number of those chief constables, including the chief constable of Kent, have made it absolutely clear that they are going to protect neighbourhood policing. Perhaps the right hon. Lady should reflect on the evidence given by the chief constable of Greater Manchester to the Home Affairs Committee, when he said that an artificial numbers game had been necessary under the last Labour Government, with the result that some officers were being put into back-office roles that need not be undertaken by officers.

Crucially, all the savings that I have set out can be made while protecting the quality of front-line services. At the same time, as I have made clear in response to several interventions, we are reviewing police pay, terms and conditions to make them fair to police officers and to the taxpayer. If implemented, Tom Winsor’s proposals to reform police pay and conditions will help the service to manage its budgets, maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles, and enable front-line services to be maintained and improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget, because we recognised the importance of that.

The next mistake in Labour’s motion is on antisocial behaviour. We are giving the police and local practitioners a simpler and much more effective set of tools. The current alphabet soup of powers is confusing, bureaucratic and, far too often, simply not effective. The number of antisocial behaviour orders issued has fallen by more than half, and more than half of them are now breached at least once. More than 40% are breached more than once, and in fact those that are breached are now breached an average of more than four times.

We are introducing a smaller number of faster, more flexible and more effective tools that will allow practitioners to protect victims and communities. Far from making it harder for communities to get action on antisocial behaviour, we will introduce the community trigger, which will give communities the right to force agencies to take action to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour if they have failed to do so. The last shadow Home Secretary said:

“I want to live in the kind of society that puts ASBOs behind us.”

I find it rather concerning that the current shadow Home Secretary does not want to live in the same kind of society as the shadow Chancellor.

The Opposition’s final mistake in the motion is on child protection, and it brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) raised. There are no loopholes in the programme that we have proposed. If by “loopholes” the Opposition mean that our scheme will no longer require 9 million people to register and be monitored by the state, they are right. We will not put nearly one in six of the entire population on to some enormous, intrusive Government database. We will not stop famous authors from reading poetry to schoolchildren. We will provide an appropriate and proportionate scheme that will give vulnerable people and children the protection that they need, while allowing those who want to volunteer to do so without fear or suspicion. That will make children’s lives better, by encouraging, not discouraging, people to work with them. I am sure that many Members, like my hon. Friend, can give examples of people who have found the whole process difficult and, sadly, been put off volunteering.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary respond specifically to the NSPCC’s concern? It has raised the issue of a loophole whereby someone who has been barred from working with children can apply for a voluntary or part-time supervised job with a sports organisation or school, and that organisation will not even be told that they have been barred. Her junior Minister confirmed in the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee that that was the case, and children’s organisations, the Children’s Commissioner and Labour Members are deeply concerned about that loophole. Can she confirm that it does indeed exist?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for mentioning the NSPCC, because it enables me to put the record right and quote its chief executive, Andrew Flanagan, who has said:

“The Government’s amendment is absolutely right. We welcome this wholeheartedly as it will make a huge difference to the safety of young people. We look forward to working with the Government as the new scheme is implemented.”

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady will know that the matter was discussed in detail in Committee, and my hon. Friends who served on the Committee were clear that that NSPCC comment referred to the changes for 16 and 17-year-olds. She rightly listened and made the changes in question. Will she also make a change in the case of someone who has been barred? It might be known that there is a problem with someone working with children, yet they will be allowed to do so again. The organisation that is supposed to be supervising them will not even be told that they have been barred from working with children. Will she look again at that matter? It is very serious.

[Mrs May]

The issue was discussed in Committee, and the points that were made were very clear. As she said, she is talking about a situation in which an individual will be supervised. In the past she has talked about people with part-time jobs in schools, whose activity will be regulated. The potential for barring will therefore apply. In situations in which people’s activity is supervised, information will be available from the enhanced CRB check.

I accept that throughout, there has been a difference of opinion between Government Members and the Opposition. Labour wanted to put millions of people on to the database, which prevented people from volunteering to work with children and prevented authors from going into schools to read to children. Frankly, the scheme needed to be revised, and the Government are doing so.

We have a clear and comprehensive plan to cut crime. We are empowering the public, cutting bureaucracy, strengthening the fight against organised crime, providing more effective and appropriate powers and getting better value for money for the taxpayer. Those are the right reforms at the right time. In contrast, the Opposition are wrong on police numbers, the HMIC report, front-line availability, police and crime commissioners, DNA, CCTV, antisocial behaviour and child protection. They are wrong on each and every point, and that is why their motion deserves to fail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the previous question, there will be proper and careful consideration of all these issues as the Bill goes through Committee and its further stages in the House of Lords. I am aware that issues have been raised about the police and crime panels and how they use properly the checks and balances in place to hold police and crime commissioners to account. It is our intention to introduce commissioners across England and Wales.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will know that on the Bill’s Third Reading five weeks ago we called on the Government to stop and think about the plans for police and crime commissioners, given the deep concerns about the lack of checks and balances in this American-style reform, but she refused. She will have heard Liberal Democrat Front Benchers’ plea to listen. The Deputy Prime Minister has now said that he supports pilots first, his parliamentary aide said this morning that this is the key area, in addition to the NHS, on which Liberal Democrats want to see changes, and Liberal Democrat peers are proposing a two or three-year pause for proper pilots to take place. Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether she is indeed listening, and whether she will consider amending the Bill to introduce pilots first?

[Mrs May]

I have to tell the right hon. Lady, after that lengthy question, that I answered the point about our intention regarding pilots in response to the previous two questions. I gently remind her that this is not an idea of which we have no experience: the Labour Government made the Mayor of London responsible for overseeing the Metropolitan police and therefore acting as a pilot for police and crime commissioners.

[Yvette Cooper]

So this, it seems, is the Home Secretary’s answer to the Liberal Democrats: they have done a pilot and it was the Mayor of London. In fact, as she will know, the Mayor of London works under a completely different arrangement, and I am not sure that the Liberal Democrats will see that as the Prime Minister’s so-called listening mode. These American-style plans concentrate considerable policing power in the hands of one person without putting in place the proper checks and balances. They are opposed by crime and policing experts and are deeply illiberal and not very British. The Deputy Prime Minister says he wants to hear a louder Liberal Democrat voice. It sounds like they are shouting, but she is not listening. The so-called new business relationship is just business as usual: the Conservatives take the decisions, the Liberal Democrats take the blame.

[Mrs May]

It was a coalition agreement commitment that we would introduce directly elected individuals to oversee police forces and to hold them to account, and that there would be proper checks and balances. Far from there not being proper checks and balances, as the right hon. Lady suggests, the police and crime panels will provide real checks and balances to the police and crime commissioner. Perhaps she needs to speak to the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who a couple of years ago said that

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.

We agree with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made a very important and valid point. Of course, a number of the recommendations refer to Transport for London and to emergency responders. The proposals that have come specifically from the coroner will be looked at in great detail and with great care because it is absolutely right that we ensure that the lessons that can be learned from 7 July 2005 are learned.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s words about the 7/7 inquest and add our thanks to Lady Justice Hallett and the team. That inquest brought out the heroism and the tragedy of that terrible day. The moments of bravery shown by the emergency services, many members of the public, those who were directly affected and their families will be remembered, as will the tragic loss of the 52 people who were killed.

It is important that Lady Justice Hallett’s recommendations are taken forward and that the relevant services have the resources to do that. May I ask the Home Secretary when she expects to be able to report back to the House on the detail of her response to those recommendations? Can she give the House a sense of whether she expects to be able to support the broad thrust of the recommendations because they were each considered in great detail and it is important that they can be taken forward?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. On the issue of timing, the formal position is that anybody to whom recommendations are made is given 56 days to respond to the coroner’s report and recommendations. We will be responding within that timescale but, as I indicated in my previous answer, I intend to do so within a timescale that will enable me to make a statement to the House about that response. I am sure she will understand that as the recommendations were made to a number of bodies across government, as well as Transport for London, it is necessary to co-ordinate that response and make sure that all considerations have properly been taken into account.

On the right hon. Lady’s final point, significant improvements have already been made since 7 July 2005, but the Government are always looking to learn lessons from that incident and any other incidents that take place—should they do so. In doing that, of course we always put at the forefront of our thoughts the intention of ensuring that we can provide the highest level of public security and safety possible, but sadly we can never guarantee that no further terrorist incident will take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is necessary to look at the career advice given to girls to ensure that they are aware of all the opportunities open to them. That will help to increase their ambition about the sort of careers they can go for, and it is also important in respect of equal pay to let them know the financial consequences of the career decisions they make.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady will know that the regional development agencies did some excellent work across the country, helping women to support and start their own businesses, but those agencies are now being abolished. Women and small businesses are also being hit by the cuts to child care tax credits, cuts to Sure Start places and child benefit, while a Netmums survey found that one in five mums say they will have to give up work as a result of what is happening to the child care tax credits alone; many are extremely angry as a result. Women are also being hit twice as hard by the Government’s tax and benefit changes. Has she raised these concerns and this anger from women with the Prime Minister—or did he just tell her to “calm down, dear”, too?

[Mrs May]

On that last comment, I have no intention of suggesting that the right hon. Lady should calm down on this matter. She makes a point about what the Prime Minister said, but when I heard it, I immediately thought of Michael Winner. Sometimes I just think Opposition Members need to get a bit of a sense of humour. On the issue of women and the regional development agencies, we are abolishing the latter for extremely good reasons and putting in place local enterprise partnerships, which will ensure that opportunities are opened up for all businesses at local level. Through initiatives such as the desire to extend the right to flexible working and flexible parental leave, we are going a great deal further than the last Government in ensuring that there are opportunities for women in the workplace.

Government Reductions in Policing

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The right hon. Lady is making a lot out of the issue of police numbers. What would she say to Chief Constable Peter Fahy from Greater Manchester, who in January said to the Home Affairs Committee:

“The other issue has been political—if I can say it—almost an obsession with the number of police officers, which meant that we've kept that number artificially high. We have had lots of police officers doing administrative posts just to hit that number.”?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the Home Secretary will know, chief constables have been put in an impossible position. They are rightly trying to do everything they can to deliver strong policing within the budgets they have been given and to reassure the communities for which they have to provide services, but the rug is being pulled from underneath them. If the Home Secretary now believes that police numbers are artificially too high and higher than they ought to be, she is the first Conservative Home Secretary in history to say that the problem with the police force is that police numbers are too high.

The right hon. Lady referred to chief constables. Chief Constable Steve Finnigan of the Lancashire constabulary, who is the ACPO lead on police performance management, was asked whether he would have to reduce front-line policing in order to meet the Government’s budget cuts. He replied: “I absolutely am.” He has also said:

“Let me be really clear. With the scale of the cuts that we are experiencing…we can do an awful lot of work around the back office…but we cannot leave the front line untouched.”

That is because of the scale of the cuts and it is what chief constables are saying across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes two extremely important points. First, judging by the replies from the shadow Home Secretary to a number of interventions from my hon. Friends—as well as the noise just made by Labour Members from a sedentary position—all those on the Labour Benches fail to recognise the state in which they left this country’s economy, with the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. By the necessary measures we have taken to cut public spending, we have taken this country’s economy out of the danger zone. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about bureaucracy. Central to our reforms is the need to get central Government out of the way and to start trusting the police again.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary claimed that our plans would have been the same as hers. By what maths does she make 12% over a Parliament the same as 15% in the first two years and 20% over a Parliament, which is what she is doing?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely clear that if Labour had been in government, it would have made cuts. We are making cuts. My point was very simple: she is claiming today that it would have been possible for a Labour Government to have protected police numbers. It would not have been possible, as the last Labour Home Secretary admitted during the election campaign. The right hon. Lady must consider that very carefully.

The one thing that the previous Labour Government failed to do was to address the bureaucracy that ties up our police officers in filling in forms rather than doing the job that they want to do and that the public want them to do out on the streets. Indeed, the former president of the Police Federation and the previous Government’s own police bureaucracy fighter, Jan Berry, said that as a result of their

“diktats the service has been reduced to a bureaucratic, target-chasing, points-obsessed arm of Whitehall”.

We have done away with the diktats, we have scrapped the central targets, and we are ripping up the red tape. Instead, we are putting our trust back in the police and we are making them accountable to the people who really matter—the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

No. I shall make some more progress.

I have made the point about the bureaucracy, but what we have done is just the start. Working with the police, we are looking at sweeping away a wide range of the red tape, bureaucracy and paperwork that get in the way of officers doing what they want to do—getting out on the streets and keeping us safe.

[Yvette Cooper]

What does the home Secretary say to the police and Warwickshire and South Yorkshire and the HMIC, who have all said that the scale of cuts means that police officers will be doing more bureaucracy and will be less available because of the scale of the cuts and the support staff who used to do those jobs being lost?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady just does not get the fact that this Government are getting rid of much of the bureaucracy that has been tying up the police in red tape and taking them off the job that they want to do—something that the previous Government singularly failed to do. I would have thought that Labour supported us in our efforts to get officers out from behind their desks and back on the streets, but when one of their several former shadow Home Secretaries was asked by the Home Affairs Committee:

“Do you think it would be better if police spent more time on patrol than they do on paperwork?”,

he replied:

“I think that is too simplistic a question for me to give a sensible answer.”

Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to tell us whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that the police should be behind their desks, filling in forms, or does she agree with me that they should be out on the street, fighting crime?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Many chief constables have made the point that what is happening will not mean that there will be no change to front-line services but that they can protect front-line services. That is exactly what chief constables such as the chief constable of Greater Manchester have made clear. There might need to be reform in front-line services, but that does not mean a reduction in the front-line services available to members of the public.

Directly elected police and crime commissioners will bring real accountability to local policing. They will ensure that the police focus on what local people want and not on what the national Government think they want.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I see that the piece of paper has been passed to the right hon. Lady, so I will give way to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to follow up that point with the Home Secretary. She is right, I have the full quote to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred, which was from the “Today” programme. Chief Constable Finnigan was asked:

“You are chief constable of Lancashire which has a bit of both”—

meaning urban and rural areas—

“are you going to have to reduce frontline policing in order to meet the budget cuts that the government wants to see?”

His answer was: “I absolutely am”. Faced with that categorical statement from a chief constable, will she admit that front-line services are being hit as a result of her decisions?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that her intervention and that of the hon. Member for Rhondda betray the difficulty that the Labour party has had, both in government and in opposition, with this issue of front-line services. Chief constables such as Chief Constable Steve Finnigan have said that they are determined to protect the front-line service that is provided to members of the public. There is a difference between the service that can be provided and the number of police who are there, and the trouble with Labour is that it has always focused on numbers. What we have seen recently is that there are great variations in, for example, invisibility and availability of the police who are out there on the streets being seen by members of the public. Percentages can vary from 9% of police being available and visible to the public to 17%, as in Merseyside. If that highest figure was followed by every force, then just under 8,000 more officers would be visible and available to members of the public. This is about the efficient use of resources. Police and crime commissioners, as I have said, will bring accountability to local policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

After 50 hours of debate and evidence, the Commons stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill has come to a close. The Members from all parts who endured the Committee stage will doubtless be delighted that in 19 minutes they will be released from custody. The Policing and Criminal Justice Minister will, I am sure, be relieved to have reached the end of this round of interrogation and hope to be released without charge, with his DNA destroyed and his fingerprints wiped.

I thank all Opposition Members for their work, but I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), aka Station Sergeant Coaker, who has ably led our investigative team, and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), Custody Sergeant Tami, who has granted but few bail applications and always on the toughest terms.

Members have had the pleasure of debating the details of pub drinking, the definitions of a duvet and whether a toothbrush counts as sleeping equipment, and during the passage of the Bill we have welcomed some of the Government’s measures to which the Home Secretary referred, such as those on supporting local government, on licensing and on universal jurisdiction.

Other measures still have us baffled, however. The last time the Home Secretary spoke in the House on legislation she told us that the Government offered

“a chance to roll back the creeping intrusion of the state into our everyday lives, and to return individual freedoms to the heart of our legislation.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 205.]

Today, she has defended a Bill that lets councils leap to the barricades when their byelaws are breached. She will support them in confiscating dogs that foul verges, guitars that are played near churches and even shoes that leave mud on the pavements. More importantly, she has supported a Bill that puts at risk centuries of independent policing, free from political interference, and concentrates considerable policing powers in the hands of one individual with hardly any checks and balances. That is hardly a defence of traditional British liberties.

[Mrs May]

I hesitate to interrupt what started as a comic turn by the right hon. Lady, but she knows full well that throughout the debate on the Bill we have been at great pains to ensure that there is operational independence for chief officers and for forces. We will defend that operational independence. The police and crime commissioners do not have policing powers; they have powers to ensure that the police are accountable, and respond to local people.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is what the right hon. Lady says, but where is the protocol? Time and again we have been told that there will be some sort of code of practice or some kind of protocol to reassure people that there will be operational independence, but where is it? We have not yet seen it, and the House is being asked to let the Bill go through without being given the opportunity to vote on such a protocol or agreement when it is reached. A draft has been given to the Association of Chief Police Officers, yet this week ACPO still raised some serious concerns about the way in which impartial policing will be protected, and that leaves us with considerable suspicions that she is not yet close to reaching an agreement with ACPO about how the operational protocol will perform. I have to say to the Home Secretary that asking the House to give consent to this Bill without providing crucial reassurances about the operational independence of our police is frankly irresponsible in the light of the traditional and historic British liberties that she has previously been so keen to defend.

During these 50 hours of debate, the Bill has not changed in its fundamentals. This period follows one in which crime fell by over 40%, public confidence in policing went up, and substantial improvements were made in the fight against crime. Yet instead of building on those improvements made under the Labour Government, this Government instead want to launch a massive experiment in governance alongside the steepest cuts in many generations.

The Government are putting considerable policing powers in the hands of individual politicians without any of the serious safeguards or checks and balances that are needed. We do not support the approach of elected police commissioners. During the passage of the Bill, we have tried to suggest ways of limiting the damage and providing additional checks and balances, yet each time they have been rejected. People want responsive and accountable policing, but they also want impartial policing that is accountable to the rule of law—a tradition secured in Britain since Peel. The Government face a grave challenge from the most senior police officers in the country, who have argued this week that that tradition is being put at risk by the Bill. ACPO said that

“the developing framework of safeguards is too undeveloped and uncertain, and in several respects too weak, to be confident that it will effectively ensure that this Peelian principle will not be compromised.”

That is a very serious charge.

We still wait for the protocol and for other explanations of how this will work. This is about the impartiality of our police force and the public perception of that impartiality. For the first time, policing powers will be concentrated in the hands of individual politicians, with hardly any checks and balances on what they do. The Home Secretary at least has to answer to Parliament. She has to persuade her Cabinet colleagues. She can be scrutinised, she can be challenged, and she can even be sacked if she makes a real mess of it—which I am sure, of course, that she will not—but a police and crime commissioner is there for four years, with just a toothless watchdog to keep guard in between.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is continuing to use the term “policing powers” in relation to the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioners. That is inaccurate and wrong. These individuals will not be “policing”—they will be elected to hold the chief constable to account to ensure that the local voice is heard and that what local people want in policing is being undertaken. There will be checks and balances through the police and crime panels. She talks about politicians having a relationship with the chief constable in relation to operational independence. Politicians already have a relationship with the chief constable through the police authority.

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately, none of those reassurances has been enough to convince the most senior chief constables in the land that their operational independence will be safeguarded. That is the primary issue that this House should be worried about. We do not think that the Home Secretary has done enough to, for example, provide enough powers for the police and crime panels to allow them a stronger role as checks and balances in the system. Time and again, she has not provided enough safeguards for national policing. She will know that some experts have raised concerns about corruption, too. Of course, the public do not want this either. A YouGov poll commissioned for Liberty found that 65% of people preferred to have a chief constable reporting to a police authority, compared with 15% who wanted her reforms.

Then, of course, there is the cost: £100 million to be spent on elections and bureaucracy at a time when 2,000 of the most experienced officers are being forced into early retirement. If she ditched the police and crime commissioners and put that money back into policing, she could save almost a third of those jobs.

Disturbances (London)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to report on the violent disturbances over the weekend.

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

On Saturday, 4,500 police officers worked to keep order during the TUC march of up to 500,000 people. During the afternoon and evening, gangs of thugs carried out acts of violence against the police, private property and public monuments. I want to place on record my gratitude to the officers who put themselves in harm’s way during Saturday’s operations. I want also to praise the Met’s senior officers—Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens and Commander Simon Bray—for their leadership, and I want utterly to condemn in the strongest possible terms the mindless behaviour of the thugs responsible for the violence.

I can confirm to the House that 56 police officers were seen by force medical examiners and that 12 of them required hospital treatment, while 53 members of the public were also hurt. I can also confirm that officers arrested more than 200 people on Saturday, and that 149 of them have already been charged. I expect that number to increase as the police go through video evidence, as they did after the student protests last year. The message to those who carry out violence is clear—they will be caught, and they will be punished.

Throughout Saturday and Sunday, Ministers were kept informed of events. The Home Office was in regular contact with the Metropolitan police and City Hall. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has spoken to Kit Malthouse, the deputy Mayor, and I have spoken to Lynne Owens to thank her for the police operation, which was, on the whole, a success. The police might not have managed to prevent every act of violence, but they were successful in preventing wider criminality and are now actively engaged in investigating the perpetrators so that they can be brought to justice.

In my statement to the House following the student demonstrations in December, I said that the police would learn the lessons of that experience. Since then, the Metropolitan police have been learning the lessons necessary, and the tactics deployed on Saturday reflected that learning, but there is more that can be done. Just as the police review their operational tactics, so we in the Home Office will review the powers available to them. I have asked the police whether they feel they need further powers to prevent violence before it occurs. I am willing to consider powers that would ban known hooligans from attending rallies and marches, and I will look into the powers that the police already have to force the removal of face coverings and balaclavas. If the police need more help to do their work, I will not hesitate in granting it to them.

That is the right way of doing things. The police are operationally independent, the Mayor holds them to account for their performance and the Home Secretary’s role is to ensure that they operate within the right legal framework and have the right powers to do their job. I know the whole House will want to join me in sending this message: we will always back the police when they do their important work, and we will back them as they do everything they can to bring these mindless thugs to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer to my urgent question, after she withdrew her planned statement earlier today.

Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated peacefully on Saturday in support of their families, services, jobs and communities, but a few hundred mindless idiots and thugs launched violent attacks against property, businesses and police officers, and 31 police officers were injured. In a democracy, that kind of violence is no form of political protest. It is violent assault and criminal damage, it is thuggish behaviour of the worst kind and it must face the full force of the law. I welcome the speed with which the police have acted to charge 149 people with offences already. They will have the Opposition’s support in taking a strong line.

The police have made it very clear that those violent incidents were separate from the legitimate, peaceful march, and the Home Secretary has rightly done the same today, but I have three things to ask her. First, she rightly praised the police—like her, I have thanked Lynne Owens and Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin for the work of the Metropolitan police and other police forces, to which I pay tribute—but in addition to the 4,500 officers on the streets hundreds more officers and support staff worked on the operation behind the scenes. Will she join me in paying tribute to all of them, and assure the House that the police will have the resources that they need on the front line and behind the scenes to deal with future events?

Secondly, I welcome the Home Secretary’s consideration of further action. Will she consider co-ordinated action to deal with the so-called anarchist groups? It is vital that we do not let a violent minority undermine the power of peaceful political protest in a democracy. Such incidents have been increasing every time there is a crowd event, and, frankly, people are fed up with it. Co-ordinated, determined action was successful some years ago in tackling the football hooliganism that used to hijack crowds and frustrate ordinary fans. May I offer her the Opposition’s support? We will work with her and the police on a parallel or similar co-ordinated approach to wider action to deal with problems at crowd events.

Thirdly, we have a tradition in the House of standing together against extremism to protect public safety, property and the public right of peaceful protest. The Home Secretary will know that the Mayor of London today claimed that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will feel quietly satisfied—[Interruption.] I want to quote the Mayor of London accurately because this is important. The Mayor said that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will

“feel quietly satisfied by the disorder”

and that:

“They will be content to see the police being unfairly attacked on all sides”.

Will she condemn those disgraceful and outrageous remarks? The Mayor is the man whom she wants to put in charge of the governance of the Metropolitan police. Does she agree that it is the worst kind of politics to slur those who supported hundreds of thousands of peaceful marchers?

Will the Home Secretary answer those three questions on the police, a future strategy and the London Mayor? Let us be united in this House on rooting out hooliganism and supporting peaceful protest.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone in which she conducted most of her comments. Unfortunately, towards the end, she chose to move into a rather more political tone.

May I make two factual corrections to the right hon. Lady’s remarks? First, she claims that I withdrew a statement to the House, but I never asked to make one. Secondly, she said that I intended to put the Mayor of London in charge of the Metropolitan police, but, of course, he is in charge of them.

I, too, put on record the House’s support for and thanks to all those involved with the Metropolitan police who were not in police uniform or not warranted officers who took part in the policing operation on Saturday, both in relation to the march and the mindless acts of violence that took place.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of co-ordinated action. She will have noted that I said in my response that I was prepared to look at the possibility of some sort of pre-emptive banning orders for hooligans, which we have in place for football hooligans. It is now worth our looking at such experience, and I welcome the support she was willing to give on behalf of the Opposition. Everybody in the House wants to ensure that the police have the right powers and tools available to do the job of keeping our streets safe. The great majority of the march went ahead peacefully, but, sadly and unfortunately, it was damaged by the mindless violence of the thugs. The description given by Liberty is a very good one:

“The demonstration appeared to have been infiltrated by violent elements who periodically separated from the main route in order to attack high profile commercial properties and the police before melting into the demonstration once more…This minority presented significant challenges for the police and trade union stewards alike and at times jeopardised both the safety and ability to protest of those with peaceful intent.”

Student Visas

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The UK has a worldwide reputation for providing quality education to overseas students, and Britain is rightly the destination of choice for many people wishing to study abroad, but under the previous Government the student visa system became the symbol of a broken and abused immigration system. Labour claimed that it had capped unskilled immigration at zero, but it was happy just to sit back and watch as unskilled migrants abused the student route to come here. We had too many people coming here to work and not to study, we had too many foreign graduates staying on in the UK to work in unskilled jobs, and we had too many institutions selling immigration, not education.

We want to attract only the best and the brightest to Britain. We want high-quality international students to come here, we want them to study at genuine institutions whose primary purpose is providing a first-class education, and we want the best of them—and only the best of them—to stay on and work here after their studies are complete. That is exactly what we are doing across all the immigration routes: tightening up the system, tackling the abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants.

I have already announced and begun to implement our plans to limit economic migration—cutting the numbers by more than one fifth compared with last year. I will return to the House later this year with a consultation that will set out proposals to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement. I also intend to consult on changes to the family migration route. I will be bringing forward proposals to tackle sham marriages and other abuse, promote integration and reduce the burdens on the British taxpayer. We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands.

The most significant migrant route to Britain is the student route, and we must take action there, too. Immigration by students has more than trebled in the past 10 years, and it is now far larger than immigration through the work or family routes. It is unsurprising that more and more overseas students are attracted by our world-renowned higher education institutions, but there has also been an increase in abuse in the private further education sector.

Students now make up the majority of non-EU migrants: including their dependants, they accounted for about two thirds of the visas issued last year under the points-based system. When Labour introduced the current system in 2009, almost a third more student visas were issued that year than the year before—an increase from 230,000 to 300,000. Numbers were so high that the UK Border Agency had to suspend student applications in some parts of the world because it could not cope with the demand, and much of that demand was simply not genuine. We have so-called students turning up at Heathrow airport who cannot answer basic questions in English or even describe what their course is about. One institution has an intake of 90% international students and asks only for GCSE-level qualifications to do a supposedly degree level course. Another college’s own sales agent actually helped a student to cheat in their entry exam. Legitimate colleges should still be able to recruit legitimate overseas students, but we need to stop the abuse and return some common sense to our student visa system.

The current system is based on a sponsorship regime that trusts educational institutions to assess the quality and ability of students, and puts the responsibility on the institution to ensure that the student is in fact studying and obeying the immigration rules. That trust has been well placed in some sectors: universities, independent schools and publicly funded further education colleges mostly take their sponsorship duties seriously and act responsibly. But some, particularly in the private FE sector and parts of the English language college sector, are not exercising the due diligence we expect. Those institutions make up the largest single group on the sponsor register. The sector is essentially unregulated; those institutions are not subject to a statutory system of education inspection and can offer any type of course they like. Although some of them are legitimate, for many their product is not an education, but immigration, together with the ability to work here.

It is absolutely clear that the current regime has failed to control immigration and failed to protect real students from poor-quality colleges. That is why the proposals I am announcing today are unashamedly targeted at the least trustworthy institutions. Our proposals protect the interests of our world-class universities, protect our leading independent schools and public FE colleges and, ultimately, are in the best interests of legitimate students.

In future, all sponsors will need to have been vetted by one of the approved inspectorates—Ofsted and its devolved equivalents, the Quality Assurance Agency or the relevant independent schools inspectorate—and all must become highly trusted sponsors. Once they achieve that status, private colleges offering quality, bona fide training programmes of genuine educational value will be able to continue to recruit legitimate international students. All current sponsors who do not meet the requirements will be allowed to stay on the register for a short period from April 2011. During that time they will be limited in the number of students they may sponsor. They will first have to apply for highly trusted sponsor status and accreditation. They will then be required to achieve highly trusted sponsor status no later than April 2012, and accreditation by the relevant agency by the end of 2012.

As well as cracking down on bogus colleges, we will crack down on bogus students. Students who want to come here should be able to speak English, to support themselves financially without taking paid employment, and to show that they are coming for study, not for work. So we will toughen up the entry requirements. First, we will strengthen the evidence that students need to demonstrate that they have the financial means to fend for themselves. Secondly, we will streamline the requirements for students from low-risk countries and prioritise resources on high-risk students. Thirdly, we will toughen up the rules on English language competence. Those coming to study at degree level will have to speak English at upper intermediate level; others will have to speak English at intermediate level. UKBA officers will be given the discretion to refuse entry to students who cannot speak English without an interpreter and who do not meet the required minimum standards. Let me be clear: you need to speak English to learn at our education establishments; if you can’t, we won’t give you a visa.

If someone is coming to the UK as a student, study should be their main purpose, not work. So we will end permission to work during term time for all students other than those at university and publicly funded FE colleges. Students at public sector FE colleges will be allowed to work for 10 hours per week in term time, and students at university for 20 hours per week. We will reduce the amount of work that can be done on work placement courses for non-university students from 50:50, as now, to two thirds study, one third work. At present, students on courses of six months or more can bring their dependants with them. In 2010, over 31,000 student dependants came here. We will remove this right for all but postgraduate students at universities and Government-sponsored students.

Coming to the UK to study for a course should, by definition, be a temporary step, so we will limit the amount of time that students can spend in the UK. Too many students who originally came here for short courses have been staying for years and years by changing courses, often without showing any tangible academic progress. We will limit the overall time that can be spent on a student visa to three years at lower levels, as now, and to five years at higher levels. There will be exceptions for longer courses such as medicine and veterinary science, and for PhD study, but no longer will students be able to stay here and switch from course to course to course.

We want the best international graduates to stay and contribute to the UK economy. However, the arrangements that we have been left with for students who graduate in the UK are far too generous. They are able to stay for two years, whether or not they find a job and regardless of the skill level of that job. In 2010, when one in 10 UK graduates were unemployed, 39,000 non-EU students with 8,000 dependants took advantage of that generosity.

We will therefore close the current post-study work route from April next year. In future, only graduates who have an offer of a skilled graduate-level job from an employer licensed by the UK Border Agency will be allowed to stay. Post-study migrants must be paid at least £20,000 or the appropriate rate for the occupation, as set out in the relevant code of practice, whichever is higher. That will prevent employers from recruiting migrants into skilled occupations but paying them less than the going rate. We estimate that had this measure been applied last year, it would have halved the numbers staying in the UK through this route. We will not impose a limit on that group next year, but we will keep the position under review. If the number of foreign students entering the labour market as post-study workers increases significantly and unexpectedly, we will ask the Migration Advisory Committee to look at how abuses can best be addressed. That would potentially include the introduction of a separate temporary limit on post-study workers.

As we restrict the post-study work route, we will ensure that innovative student entrepreneurs who are creating wealth can stay in the UK to pursue their ideas. The message to the brightest and the best students around the globe is clear: Britain’s world-class universities remain open for business.

We recognise the need to implement these changes in a staged manner that minimises disruption to education providers and students. We will therefore implement the measures in three stages, starting with new rules, which will be laid by the end of this month. I will publish the full details shortly.

The package of measures that I have outlined today is expected to reduce the number of student visas by between 70,000 and 80,000—a reduction of more than 25%—and it will increase the outflow of foreign students after they have concluded their studies. There will be a proper system of accreditation to root out bogus colleges; tough new rules on English language skills, financial guarantees, working rights and dependants, to root out bogus students; and new restrictions on post-study work to make sure that all but the very best return home after study. This package will stop bogus students studying meaningless courses at fake colleges, protect our world-class institutions, stop the abuse that became all too common under Labour, and restore some sanity to our student visa system. I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the half-hour’s advance sight of her statement, as has become the form for the Home Office. Helpfully, however, we were, of course, able to read about the main changes in the newspapers this morning. As has become the form for this Government, we were also able to read opposing stories in opposing newspapers. The Business Secretary briefed the Financial Times that the policy had been completely changed so that he could support universities in expanding the number of their foreign students; the Home Secretary promised The Sun that the policy meant slashing foreign student numbers. Different policies for different papers, policies changing all over the place, and an unseemly row at the heart of the Government—such is the chaos at the centre of the Government’s immigration policy for students.

The Home Secretary is right to say that migration makes an important contribution to our economy, the strength of our business and our vibrant society. She is also right to say that migration needs to be properly controlled to sustain social cohesion and an effective labour market. She will recognise the importance of the higher and further education sector to the British economy. Non-EU students contribute an estimated £5 billion to the UK economy, support thousands of jobs in teaching and related areas, and make education an extremely important export industry. It is important that we recognise that economic value in providing workable migration policies. She will know that the Home Affairs Committee stated in its important report that it

“would caution against measures which could be detrimental to a thriving, successful industry.”

Does she recognise, too, that CentreForum has said that moves to tighten the restrictions on overseas students will risk nearly 12,000 jobs in education and another 12,000 in the wider economy?

Some of the damage has already been done. Anecdotally, some universities are already noticing a significant drop in applications from foreign students as a result of the signals being sent out by the Home Secretary’s consultation. Does she believe that the 80,000 drop in student visas to which she has referred will consist entirely of visas for bogus students on bogus courses, or does she believe that some legitimate students, too, will be put off as a result of the measures that she has announced?

We agree that we should not tolerate bogus colleges and fake students. People who want to come to this country need to play by the rules. That is why the Labour Government introduced a system of highly trusted sponsors through our respected universities, and we support measures that will build on that, so long as they are introduced in a workable way. It is also why we closed 140 bogus colleges.

Can the Home Secretary tell the House how the UKBA is going to increase its checks on colleges and students when it is facing staff cuts of 9,000?

What is the Home Secretary’s position now on pre- degree courses? In the consultation she said that she would introduce substantial restrictions on pre-degree level courses being covered by tier 4 visas, but there was silence from her on that issue in her statement today. Can she confirm that she has now ditched that proposal to remove pre-degree level courses?

We also agree that there should be appropriate restrictions on students’ employment. It is welcome that the Home Secretary has taken into account some of the evidence about the international competitiveness of UK higher education, but she put that into the context of trying to help youth unemployment. Is not the truth that her figures will mean restricting post-study work permits for non-EU students by about 19,000 at a time when youth unemployment is nearer 1 million? If she were serious about tackling youth unemployment she might be talking to the Chancellor about reversing some of his cuts, and reinstating the future jobs fund. Is not the truth that this policy is not about youth unemployment or bogus courses, but about hitting higher education because she cannot meet her promise to cut net migration to tens of thousands over the course of this Parliament?

What is now the Government’s policy towards foreign students studying bona fide courses at legitimate institutions? Does the Home Secretary want their number to increase or fall? The Business Secretary has said of the higher education sector:

“It’s an export industry; we want to grow it.”

But the Home Secretary has said that she wants the numbers cut. The Business Secretary wants more foreign students, and she wants fewer. If Britain’s major universities and colleges, faced with nearly £3 billion of cuts, decide to expand their courses and double the number of legitimate foreign students paying full fees in order to subsidise British students, will she support them or not? If they increase their legitimate students by 80,000, will she support them or not?

Finally, will the Home Secretary tell the House what the position is on student visitor visas, which she did not mention? Will she confirm that although she is restricting tier 4 student visas, in December she increased the number of students and courses eligible for student visitor visas? Will she confirm that under that visa, people can still apply for non-degree courses that are not run by highly trusted sponsors and do not have any minimum language requirement? Will she confirm that she has done nothing to prevent an increase of perhaps 80,000 in student visitor visas, and will she admit that the people on those visas will not be included in the net migration figures? Does that not expose the real con at the heart of her policy? Although she is making restrictions in one area, she is increasing the student visitor visas in another area that does not count towards her net migration targets.

The Home Secretary promised that she would put an end to non-EU students working once they had finished their course: the plan is ditched. She promised that she would put an end to non-EU applicants taking courses that were not degrees: that plan is ditched. She promised a new border police force, and that is still on the Conservative party website, but instead the Government have cut 5,000 staff from the UK Border Agency.

Time and time again policies are switched backwards and forwards, and in the end, it is all because the Home Secretary knows she cannot meet the promise that she made to cut migration numbers to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament. Is that still her target, will she still deliver it by the end of this Parliament, and is it not time she made policies that are in the interests of British universities, the British economy and a sensible, controlled migration policy, rather than taking risks with an important export industry for the sake of promises she knows she cannot keep?

[Mrs May]

I have to say that I am incredibly disappointed by the right hon. Lady’s response—but to be fair to her, there was one bright spark in it: she actually gave a statement on Labour’s immigration policy, which she has failed to do for two months. She said that the Labour party agreed that migration should be properly controlled. Sadly, however, in every other statement that the Opposition have made, be it in response to this announcement or the announcement on curbing the number of non-EU economic migrants, they have refused to support the measures that will bring about that proper control. We see that policy approach from the Labour party in relation to other things as well, such as public spending. The Opposition say they want to do something, but do not support anything that would enable it to be done.

The right hon. Lady made an amazing series of statements and asked an amazing series of questions. It would have helped her if she had actually listened to my statement and looked at it properly before she responded. She asked me whether it is still our aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, but as Hansard will confirm, the answer to that was on page 3 of the text of my statement. The very sentence I used was, “We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands.” I said that in my statement; she did not need to bother with that question.

Let me go through the right hon. Lady’s other points. I find it difficult to take some of her statements. She said that the previous Labour Government targeted bogus colleges, but listening to her, one would have thought that immigration was fine under the previous Government—that it was controlled, and there were no problems with abuse of the student visa system. I could take such things from her a little better if the number of student visas had not increased by a third to 300,000 when the Labour Government closed tier 3 of the points-based system. They were not controlling the student visa system or immigration at all. Because of their lack of control, the most recent figures show net migration of over 200,000 in the last year. Far from Labour controlling that, it was going up under the previous Government.

There are one or two other facts that the right hon. Lady might like to reconsider. She claims that 9,000 staff have been cut in the UKBA, but that is not the correct figure; the correct figure is around 5,000. She said that the Government were not going to do anything about courses below degree level. The whole point of the private FE college sector is that it offers courses below degree level. We intend to remove the bogus courses, colleges and students so that we can do what her Government failed to do: deal with and control immigration.

The right hon. Lady made a lot of statements about the importance of universities to the UK. Yes, universities are an important part of the UK economy. That is precisely why the measures that I have introduced take great pains to ensure that we protect universities. We are protecting universities, our independent school sector and public sector FE colleges, and we are ensuring that those who want to come here as legitimate students on legitimate courses of study at legitimate institutions can do so. We are doing what she failed to do: we are cracking down on the abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The requirements will be B2 for university-level study and B1 for below degree-level study, so there will be a B1 requirement for the pathway courses. As the hon. Gentleman will know—this enables me to answer a question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) —we are piloting a system enabling student visitor visas to remain valid for 11 months. The right hon. Lady appeared to suggest that they were included in the migration figures, but they are not.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is the point.

[Mrs May]

They are not included in the migration figures, and they are therefore not covered by my statement. However, as the hon. Gentleman will probably know from discussions in which he has engaged in the past with, among others, the Minister for Immigration the requirements of the English language colleges were of particular concern to us, and we have dealt with that by piloting the extension of the visitor visas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary confirmed to the House that under her new arrangements, someone who is barred from working with children could still get a job as a voluntary teaching assistant without the school or the parents knowing that they were barred. Now that she has had a few days to think about it and about how concerned parents will be, has she changed her mind?

[Mrs May]

I think what matters for parents is the decisions that are made about individuals who play any part in dealing with their children, in a school or any other setting. As I made clear to the right hon. Lady last week, information that informs the decisions on barring will be available as part of the check that I would expect employers to make in such circumstances. We have a simple view: employers must take some responsibility for ensuring that they make the appropriate checks and judgments about who should be involved in dealing with children.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady said last week that employers would get “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities. However, Home Office officials have told some people in the charities something rather different. Will she therefore confirm whether employers will be given “exactly the same information” as the barring authorities? If so, why not give them the barring authorities’ expert recommendation about whether someone should be barred? Parents want to know that the teaching assistant in their child’s classroom has not been previously barred by the experts from working with children. Safeguarding children is too important to have such loopholes. I urge her to listen to the experts and think again.

[Mrs May]

Of course safeguarding children is important—we all have that as top priority. Of course, the regime that is in place will in future cover those who deal with vulnerable adults as well as children. That is important. The information that informs a decision on barring will be available as part of the check so that a decision can be made. However, as the right hon. Lady has raised a query about that, I am happy to write to her with the detail on it so that she will have that to inform her questions in future.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No I do not agree, and my hon. Friend will see that that will not be the case if he looks at the many provisions in the Bill setting out the circumstances in which people’s DNA can be retained. I come back to the fundamental issue, which is whether we think it is right for the DNA profile of innocent people to be retained on the database. Before and since the election, both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have consistently taken the view that it is not right for the DNA of innocent people to be retained on the database, but that it is right for guilty people’s DNA to be retained. The last Labour Government did not do that.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that under her proposals the DNA of innocent people will be kept on the database? She is not removing from the database the DNA of everyone who has not been convicted.

[Mrs May]

Indeed, the police will be able to apply for the DNA of some people who are arrested but not charged to be retained. I would expect that application to be made in certain circumstances, such as when the victim has been vulnerable, which may mean there is very good evidence that the individual concerned has committed a crime but the victim is not able or not willing to come forward and see that case through.

I also say this to the right hon. Lady: the last Government wanted the DNA of all innocent people to be retained on the database indefinitely. We do not think that is a proportionate response, and what we are introducing today is a proportionate response. We would expect the DNA of the majority of the 1 million innocent people on the database would now to be removed from it.

An adult who is charged with, but not convicted of, a serious offence will have their fingerprints and DNA profile retained for three years, with the option of a single extension for two years with the approval of a district judge in the magistrates court, and an adult who is arrested for a minor offence but not convicted will have their fingerprints and DNA profile destroyed as soon as possible once a decision has been taken not to charge them or once they have been found not guilty by the courts. Different arrangements will apply for under-18s who are convicted of a first minor offence, and there will be special provisions for DNA and fingerprints to be retained for national security purposes. If the police believe there are sufficient public protection grounds to justify the retention of material following an arrest for a qualifying offence that does not lead to a charge, the Bill allows them to apply to the new commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material, who will decide whether retention of the DNA profile and fingerprints of the arrested person is justified.

We must protect the most vulnerable in society, so when the victim of the alleged offence is under 18, vulnerable or in a close personal relationship with the arrested person the expectation is that the police will apply to the commissioner for retention. I believe that these rules give the police the tools they need without putting the DNA of a large number of innocent people on the database. In all cases, the DNA profile and fingerprints of any person arrested for a recordable offence will be subjected to a speculative search against the national databases. That means that those who have committed crimes in the past and have left their DNA or fingerprints at the scene will not escape justice.

The Bill also fulfils our coalition agreement commitment to outlaw the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission. I must say that I found it amazing that any school ever thought it appropriate to fingerprint schoolchildren without their parents’ permission. The Bill will contain a double lock, whereby a school or college must obtain the consent of the parents and the child before processing their biometric data. If either opts out, the school or college must ensure that reasonable arrangements are in place to enable the child to access the full range of school services.

I shall deal now with surveillance. As with DNA, it is clear that CCTV can act as a deterrent to criminals, can help to convict the guilty and is warmly welcomed by many communities. This Government wholeheartedly support the use of CCTV and DNA to fight crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman has considerable legal expertise, and I shall not attempt to get into a detailed debate about that point, but the critical issue is the complicated interaction between not only the work of the police and the role of Parliament, but the necessary role of the judiciary, and the alternatives merit more thoughtful debate, so that we do not prejudice individual cases or put the House in a difficult position.

[Mrs May]

Given what the right hon. Lady says about our proposals for emergency legislation on 28 days, will she explain why the previous Government put on the stocks emergency legislation for 42 days?

[Yvette Cooper]

Legislation is not the right way to respond in such extreme circumstances. In the end, it might be the backstop that the right hon. Lady needs, but she should do more to avoid the situation arising. She is not even looking at what the appropriate special bail conditions might be, for example, or at other measures that could prevent her from ever needing to use emergency legislation in the middle of an extreme situation. She should look at the possible alternatives.

Part 5 makes significant changes to the vetting and barring regime, which works to protect children from abuse. As the Home Secretary knows, the Labour Government said that changes were needed to the system to ensure the right balance between protecting children and vulnerable adults without being unnecessarily burdensome. Indeed, Sir Roger Singleton recommended removing a series of unnecessary checks, and we welcome the recent technological developments that will enable portable Criminal Records Bureau checks and substantially simplify the system.



Some practical issues have been raised, and we will want to pursue those further in Committee.

We think that this is an important development. However, the Home Secretary’s proposals go too far. She is creating a series of loopholes in child protection that parents will rightly be very worried about. The evidence from the NSPCC makes that clear. It says that her proposals leave

“a disturbing gap in the planned legislation that could put children at harm.”

Under these plans, it will be possible for people to spend long hours in positions of authority and in regular intensive contact with children without being covered by the barring arrangements because someone else is in a supervisory role. For example, voluntary teaching assistants may well not be covered. As the NSPCC points out,

“supervised employees and volunteers are still able to develop and exploit relationships with children…A volunteer part time teaching assistant in a classroom of 30 children with only light touch supervision by the classroom teacher has plenty of opportunity to develop inappropriate relationships and groom children.”

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I can help the right hon. Lady and the House. This afternoon, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who is responsible for criminal information matters, had a meeting with a number of children’s charities, including the NSPCC, and was able to reassure them on that precise point. The employer will be able to get an enhanced CRB check for an individual who is volunteering in a capacity such as a teaching assistant, which will contain the same information that has been available in making the decision on the barring of that individual. The employer will therefore be able to make a decision based on exactly the same information as that on which the decision on barring was taken.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the Home Secretary is changing her policy, perhaps she will take the opportunity to intervene again to clarify this point. Will somebody in these circumstances—

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me ask the question. Will somebody in these circumstances be able to find out whether the Independent Safeguarding Authority has made the judgment that somebody should be barred?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to intervene again on the right hon. Lady, but may I just correct her on one thing? I have not changed the policy. The policy remains exactly as it was, and the Bill remains exactly as it was. A misinterpretation of what was in the Bill has led to the comments from the NSPCC, which, as I said, is one of the children’s charities to which my hon. Friend the Minister has been speaking today. In the circumstances that the right hon. Lady outlines, the fact of the barring will not be available to the employer, but the information that led to the decision on the barring will be available to the employer. We take a slightly different position from that of the right hon. Lady and her party—that the employer must then take some responsibility for making a decision as to who it is appropriate to have potentially dealing with children in the classroom.

Sex Offenders Register

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The sex offenders register has existed since 1997. Since that time, it has helped the police to protect the public from those most horrific of crimes. Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life, as they do now, has broad support across the House, but the Supreme Court ruled last April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to seek a review was a breach of their human rights—in particular, the right to a private or family life. Those are rights, of course, that those offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruellest and most degrading manner possible.

The Government are disappointed and appalled by that ruling. It places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of their reoffending, but there is no possibility of further appeal. The Government are determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders, so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with the ruling. I want to make it clear that the Court’s ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders register. The Court found only that they must be given the right to seek a review.

The Scottish Government have already implemented a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal for removal from the register after 15 years. We will implement a much tougher scheme. Offenders will be able to apply for consideration of removal only after waiting 15 years following release from custody. In England and Wales, there will be no automatic appeals. We will deliberately set the bar for those reviews as high as possible. Public protection must come first. A robust review, led by the police and involving all the relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered.

The final decision on whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, and not, as in Scotland, the courts. The police are best placed to assess the risk of an offender committing another crime, and they will rightly put the public first. There will be no right of appeal against the police’s decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register, and will do so for life if necessary.

When we are free to take further action to protect the public, we will do so. We will shortly launch a targeted consultation aimed at closing four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register. We will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad for even one day. That will prevent them from being free to travel for up to three days, as they are under the existing scheme. We will force sex offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are living in a household containing a child under the age of 18. We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities weekly of where they can be found when they have no fixed abode. We will tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their names by deed poll.

Finally, I can tell the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of rights. It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and, above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.

I commend my statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This is an important matter involving some of the most serious crimes in society. I thank the Home Secretary for supplying me with the statement within the last half hour, but I must say that it is worrying that the Home Office has again allowed information to be given to the media before it has been given to the House.

The depravity and seriousness of sex offences, and the harm and damage that they do to victims, mean that the systems that we operate to protect the public must be paramount. We have an obligation to ensure that vulnerable children and other victims can be protected from such terrible crimes. As the Home Secretary knows, that is why the sex offenders register was established in the first place. The law rightly requires people who have been convicted of such serious crimes to meet further registration requirements once their sentences have been served, in the interests of public protection and to prevent further terrible crimes from taking place.

The priority now must still be public safety, and the protection of our young and vulnerable people. Those victims of crime have suffered and continue to suffer greatly because of the actions of sex offenders. We know, too, that many such offenders can still pose a serious threat to the public. The court judgment to which the Home Secretary has responded today itself quotes the research finding that just over a quarter of those imprisoned for such offences did reoffend. Those offences included some that were very serious, a large number of which were committed many years later.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, while of course proper and fair processes must always be followed for individuals through the courts, the protection of families and communities up and down the country is paramount? She has said that the new system will be tough. Let me say to her that it is vital to the safety and protection of children in particular, but also to that of other victims, that the new system is extremely tough if it is to have the support of the House.

The Home Secretary said that Parliament should decide the level of protection that is needed, and that Parliament should set the laws. However, she has given Parliament very little information today about the way in which the new system will operate. Will the new framework be enshrined in legislation? Will Parliament have an opportunity to debate the details? The Home Secretary will know that many Members of Parliament and members of the public will be very concerned about the possibility that any new framework might enable serious offenders to manipulate the system. It is essential that that is not allowed to happen, but it is also important for Parliament to have an opportunity to debate it to ensure that it does not happen.

Will the Home Secretary ensure that the focus is on public protection, rather than on the convenience or rights of those who have been convicted of serious crimes? Will she tell us how many offenders will be affected? Will she tell us what the level of the police assessment will be, and what standards the police will seek to meet as part of their review?

Will the police be given additional resources to do this? She will know that there is concern in the House about the police’s resources and about whether they are stretched already as a result of the cuts the Government are making. Will she say what additional resources the police will have, what additional resources they will require and the number of people on whom they will be expected to carry out reviews as a result of the changes she is proposing? She will know that some police forces have already expressed concern that as a result of the 20% cuts they are facing, their need to respond and their need to try to keep as many people in neighbourhood policing as possible, many specialist units within police forces are coming under the greatest pressure as a result of the decisions she has made. What reassurance can she give the House and the public that there will be no increased risk to the public as a result of these changes and of pressure on the police?

I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal to consider other tighter measures on sex offenders, but does that have any implications for the changes that she appears to be making in the opposite direction to the vetting and barring provisions? She has also raised, as part of her statement, discussion of a Bill of rights. We would welcome a debate about that, although wider issues associated with written constitutions can also be debated. However, I am concerned at the form that this announcement has taken, because it is, in itself, a major announcement and the House should have an opportunity to have that debate and raise questions.

In conclusion, the Home Secretary will know that the public would be horrified if the rights, or even the convenience, of people who have been convicted of very serious crimes were to be put above the right to safety and family life of the public and of vulnerable people and vulnerable victims. She will know that Labour Members will not support any changes that will do that, and I hope that she intends not to do that. I look forward to her answers to the questions.

[Mrs May]

I can say categorically to the right hon. Lady that it is indeed the Government’s intention to put the protection of the public first. Had she listened to my statement or read it beforehand, she would have noted that it says that in a number of places. We are appalled by the Court’s decision. I would far rather not have to stand here saying that we have to make a change to the sex offenders register, but we do have to make a change. We will do so in the most minimal way possible to ensure that we do put public protection first, and that we give the police and others the ability to ensure that the public are protected from such serious and appalling crimes as have been committed by individuals on this register.

The right hon. Lady asked quite a number of questions. She asked whether we are making the protection of families paramount, and I have said that we are. She said that the system should be extremely tough and, yes, our intention is that it will be as tough as possible. That is why we have looked not only at what we can do in the minimal way to put this judgment into effect, but at ways to toughen up the sex offenders register regime—for example, by the requirement that we want to introduce for individuals on the register to have to notify when they are going abroad for at least a day. That is a toughening of the current system.

The right hon. Lady asked about Parliament’s opportunity to debate this measure. It will be introduced through an order—a statutory instrument—so there will be an opportunity to debate it. She asked about the numbers who will be affected. That will be set out in the regulatory impact assessment that will accompany the statutory instrument. She asked about the process of consideration that the police will go through. They will be talking to all other agencies that have an interest in this area, so they will talk to the probation service, local authorities, social services, youth offending teams and a variety of other agencies to ensure that they have the best possible picture of the individual concerned in order to make the best possible judgment. I am sure that she will agree that the police are very clear about the importance of public protection. That is why I want the police to make these decisions; I believe that they will put public protection first. They will examine a series of issues, such as the seriousness of the offences originally committed and the age of the victims. They will address a range of issues when they are considering whether a review should be upheld and whether the individual should stay on the register.

The right hon. Lady asked about the ability of the police to deal with this. ACPO and the National Offender Management Service have been actively involved in putting together and shaping the policy. One of their considerations has, of course, been its deliverability. We are confident that the policy can be delivered, as is ACPO. Like us, ACPO wants to ensure that we have the toughest possible policy to protect the public. It is different from the vetting and barring scheme, where the problem was that lots of innocent people found themselves on it and were subject to its requirements. This proposal is about the people who have been found guilty of heinous crimes and is about making sure that we reduce the risk of reoffending to members of the public. As I have announced in relation to the Bill of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will make further announcements about that imminently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of small businesses and their concerns. I hope that he will have seen from today’s announcement by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the issue of employment tribunals that the Government understand that there is a real difference between how small businesses can cope with regulation and that burden and how a large business with a big human resources department can cope. We have already started discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses on flexible parental leave and flexible working, and we will be taking those issues forward. We are concerned to ensure that anything we do involves the least possible administrative burden for small businesses.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

These measures on flexible working are welcome, but they will not be taken up if people are afraid that their employer can still dismiss them without any consequences. Today, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is announcing measures to remove protection against unfair dismissal for people who have been in jobs for less than two years. The right hon. Lady will know that women are more likely than men to be in jobs for less than two years and so, once again, they will be harder hit by these proposals. There is no sign yet of an equality impact assessment from BIS this morning. Can she tell me whether one has been done? Has BIS examined the impact on equality? What is she doing to stand up for women across the Government?

[Mrs May]

I remind the right hon. Lady that the Business Department is today issuing proposals, on which it is consulting, on the future of employment tribunals. It is important that we take action on employment tribunals, because I have discovered from my discussions with businesses that they are often wary of issues such as flexible working and the extension of flexible working, precisely because of the tribunal costs that they could incur, were those regulations to be put in place. The right hon. Lady asked what I was doing to stand up for women. We are going to extend the right to request flexible working to all, which is more than her Government did.

Counter-terrorism Review

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas, such as particular buildings or streets, but not entire boroughs. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate. They will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions necessary to protect the public. We will add the crucial power to prevent foreign travel. These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person’s conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and they will be required to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.

I have asked the incoming independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to pay particular attention to these issues in his first report on the new regime and to make recommendations that he considers appropriate to ensure the new regime is working as intended.

I am also today laying a written ministerial statement outlining the next steps in the work to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in court. We will repeal the current provisions which permit control orders with restrictions so severe that they would require the United Kingdom to derogate from the European convention on human rights. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Government would seek to introduce such draconian measures.

So the review I am announcing today will create a more focused and flexible regime. However, in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary. We want to prepare for this possibility while ensuring that such powers are used only when absolutely necessary. So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement. These measures will require an even higher standard of proof to be met and would be introduced if in exceptional circumstances they were required to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms. These powers would be enacted only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.

All of these measures will be accompanied by a significant increase in resources for the police and security and intelligence agencies to improve their surveillance and investigative capabilities. This will underpin the effectiveness of the regime and support the gathering of evidence admissible in court which could lead to a successful prosecution.

We will bring forward legislation to introduce the new regime in the coming weeks. We want to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise our proposals properly. I am sure the whole House would agree that in the past, too many laws in this area were rushed through without the opportunity for adequate debate and consideration. So while Parliament considers that legislation, we will renew the current regime to the end of the year. Many of the other measures I have outlined will be brought forward in the forthcoming protection of freedom Bill.

I wish to finish by thanking the police and the security services for the tremendous work they do to keep our country safe. The measures I have outlined today will help them continue to ensure our safety and security at the same time as we restore our civil liberties. They are in keeping with British values and our commitment to freedom, fairness and the rule of law. They will restore public confidence in counter-terrorism legislation and it is my hope that they will form the basis of an enduring political consensus. I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of the review. The horrific attack at Moscow airport brings home to us all the terrible damage, loss of life, carnage and fear that terrorist attacks can cause. The threats that we face from organised groups with international connections and lone individuals radicalised at home mean that our police and our security services face an incredible task in protecting this country. They match that threat with incredible effort. We pay tribute to the work that they do today.

The challenge for democratic Governments in the face of terrorist threats must be to protect both our national security and our historic freedoms. It is right to update powers and policies in response to ever-changing threats, so we welcome the fact that the review is being held. However, it would have been better to do this alongside a full assessment of the risks and challenges, through the updating of the Government’s wider counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, which was due in January, but which I understand has now been delayed until the summer.

It is our responsibility as the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s proposals in detail and, wherever we can, to support the Government on national security matters on the basis of the evidence. We will support some of the measures that the Government have announced today. We support their approach to deportations with assurances to countries with which we can reach agreement, which continues the work that we did in government. We note that the Government have decided to continue with the existing regime for proscribing groups that are engaged in terrorism. That seems to be a sensible approach. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether that means that the Prime Minister has abandoned his commitment in the Conservative manifesto to

“ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir”?

We also agree that the use by local authorities of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should be restricted. Some of the uses that we have seen in practice go far beyond the intention of the original legislation. However, we will of course scrutinise the detail, as we agree that councils still need to be able to take action on issues such as the sale of alcohol or tobacco to those who are under-age. We also support sensible changes to stop-and-search powers to prevent their being misused, but it would be helpful if the Home Secretary could confirm that the legislative changes that she is proposing largely reflect the practical changes that the police have already introduced. I am still concerned about the implications for Northern Ireland, where, as she will know, stop-and-search powers have played an important role in preventing terrorist attacks. Is she confident, and is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confident, that the police will have all the powers that they need in Northern Ireland under the new arrangements?

Let me turn to pre-charge detention. In the last three years, no case has invoked pre-charge detention for more than 14 days, as the review makes clear. We have made it clear that if the best police and security evidence shows that we can reduce the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days with sufficient safeguards, then we should do so. However, the Home Secretary’s review concludes that there could be future circumstances in which detention for longer than 14 days will be required, saying that

“there may be rare cases where a longer period of detention may be required and those cases may have significant repercussions for national security.”

The review recommends an emergency option to return to 28 days if necessary. However, the emergency legislation to do that is still not available in the Library. Indeed, it is still not ready, despite the commitment made by the Immigration Minister last Thursday. On Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she could extend detention through an order under section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006, yet her own review concludes that

“it would be very difficult to extend 28 days”

in that way

“in response to or during a specific investigation,”

owing to the length of time that it would take to go through the House.

The Home Secretary is putting the House in a very difficult position. The old powers lapsed on Monday; her review says that she may need to restore them swiftly to deal with a difficult case; according to her review, the order-making power will take too long; and the emergency legislation is not ready. Why did she not make the emergency legislation available sooner, and why did she not wait until the emergency legislation was ready before she let the old powers lapse? As we have seen from the events in Moscow, we can never predict what is round the corner. What are the police and the Crown Prosecution Service supposed to do if a difficult and dangerous case emerges right now? And what on earth is the Home Office doing telling the House on Thursday that the legislation would be ready, on Monday that section 25 of the 2006 Act would be sufficient, and, in its review today, that neither of those things is right?

We know already that the Home Secretary’s policies in this area have been a complete shambles, but they are also irresponsible. She has identified that emergency provisions are needed, but she has left the police and the public in a difficult position by failing to put those provisions in place. Indeed, we also have concerns about another aspect of the Home Secretary’s approach. She is relying on being able to rush emergency legislation through in a hurry to deal with an individual and difficult case. Is that really a sensible way to proceed, with the possibility of Parliament being recalled in a recess in order to discuss the risks in an individual case, yet without prejudicing that case? I would urge her to think carefully about that approach, and about whether it would be better to develop more restricted bail conditions to apply beyond 14 days, so that emergency legislation is less likely to be needed.

Let me turn to control orders. We all know that this is a difficult area. I think that everybody recognises that no one wants to use control orders, but we accept the conclusion of the review, which is that there is a continuing need to control the activities of terrorists who can be neither successfully prosecuted nor deported. We have said that we are ready to look at alternatives to control orders if the evidence supports that. However, the proposals that the Home Secretary has set out today are not an alternative approach to control orders; they are simply amendments to control orders. Many of the same elements remain: restrictions on movement and communications; and a review by the court at the instigation of the Home Secretary, with special arrangements in place. I would ask her to explain to the House the difference between an eight-hour curfew and an overnight residence requirement. Is not the truth of it that what the Government are doing is a political fudge? The Deputy Prime Minister told the BBC that he had abolished control orders. Is not the truth that he has simply abolished the name?

We need to ask some detailed questions about the proposed amendments. We would like to be able to support sensible changes to control orders, but we need answers to some important questions. First, the Government are introducing a two-year limit, with a requirement for new evidence before a control order can be renewed. Lord Carlile’s last annual review of control orders said:

“There is significant and credible intelligence that”

three of the controlees

“continue to present actual or potential, and significant danger to national security and public safety. I agree with the assessment that the control order on each has substantially reduced the present danger that exceptionally they still present despite their having been subject to a control order for a significant period of time.”

Those three individuals have been on control orders for more than two years, so will they now have their orders revoked, and what measures will be put in place to keep the public safe from the threat that Lord Carlile and the police clearly believe they pose?

Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us whether the changes will mean a reduction in the restriction that the Government are currently imposing on the remainder of the eight people who are currently on control orders? Thirdly, the Home Secretary has made it clear that she intends to rely more heavily on surveillance and less on the measures under control orders. We would support the greater use of surveillance, especially if it were to increase the chance of prosecution, but I am concerned about whether there will be sufficient resources for an increase in surveillance. The Home Secretary has talked about increases in surveillance, but we have not had clear figures about what exactly that will mean. The Daily Telegraph appears to have been told that there would be a £20 million increase for the police and security services, but we have not been told exactly what that means. Can she confirm that the £20 million for surveillance operations, or whatever the figure is, will not be ring-fenced, and that it follows a £150 million cut in the counter-terrorism budget and billions of pounds of cuts for the police? Can she assure the House that she is confident that the police and the security forces will have the resources that they need to keep Britain safe from terror?

This has been a chaotic review, delayed, confused, riven by leaks and political horse-trading, and culminating in a political fudge. It is a review with serious gaps, which raise serious questions about security and resources, and the public and the people who work to keep us safe deserve better. The rhetoric of opposition has now come up against the reality of government. The review has been muddled in its formation and chaotic in its announcement; the Home Secretary must ensure that it is neither of those when she implements it in practice.

[Mrs May]

May I start by welcoming the more measured approach that the shadow Home Secretary took in the early stages of her response to my statement, and her stated commitment to ensuring that we work together in the interests of national security? I sincerely hope that we shall have cross-party dialogue and agreement on matters that are indeed of national interest in ensuring our national security. Sadly, however, in the time that I have been Home Secretary, such a response has not been noticeable from the Opposition Benches up to now, but I live in hope that that prospect will change.

The right hon. Lady also supported our proposals on deportation with assurances, and our continuing work on that with other countries is important. On proscription, I can assure her that we are actively looking at the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we do not resile from our commitment to ensure that action can be taken on the sort of groups that we have described. She supported what we are doing on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and on local authorities in that regard. I am pleased to hear that, although it might have been nice to hear an apology from her for the use of RIPA by local authorities under her Government. I believe that that is one of the things that has damaged people’s confidence in counter-terrorism legislation.

The right hon. Lady also referred to section 44, and asked about the changes, which she said were introduced by the police last summer. Those changes were not introduced by the police; I changed the guidance to the police following the European Court of Human Rights judgment. It was entirely right that we did that, when a judgment had been made against us. The police have been operating under the new guidelines. Having looked at the judgment, we believe that it will be possible to introduce legislation, whose use will be very tightly circumscribed, to cover any potential gap in the powers available to the police as a result of the ECHR judgment.

The right hon. Lady referred to Northern Ireland. I specifically made reference to Northern Ireland in my statement, and I have been discussing these matters with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has been in touch with the Chief Constable and with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that the measures that we introduce will indeed provide the capabilities that the PSNI needs for the difficult work that it does. I should like to pay particular tribute to the PSNI, because we have seen a significant increase in the number of potential attacks, as well as in the number of terrorist-related arrests and charges, in Northern Ireland over the past year. The PSNI is doing valuable work in keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe.

The right hon. Lady talked about pre-charge detention, and that was when her more measured, conciliatory and consensual approach started to disappear. She made an awful lot of the issue about whether draft legislation had been laid before the House. The Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) did not promise that it would be laid before the House last Thursday. He said that we would be laying draft legislation before the House. It is my intention to discuss this draft legislation with the Opposition. As I said in my statement, we intend it to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, so that, if and when it is necessary to introduce the emergency legislation, the House will already have had an opportunity to scrutinise it.

The right hon. Lady also tried to make quite a lot of the gap in the emergency provision that would be available, and about the length of time that it would take to get emergency legislation through the House. It is perfectly possible to get emergency legislation through Parliament in a day; it has been done by previous Governments. I might also remind her that this is exactly the same procedure that was adopted by her Government in relation to their proposals for 42 days’ pre-charge detention.

On control orders, the measures that we are going to introduce will be significantly different from the control order regime that the right hon. Lady’s Government introduced. She talked about a curfew, but under the current regime, a curfew of 16 hours is possible, with little or no flexibility. Our proposals for the requirement for an overnight residency or stay represent a significant reduction on that, and offer increased flexibility for the individuals involved. We are changing the regime so that there will be a two-year limit on the operation of a control order on any one individual. The right hon. Lady asked about people who are currently on control orders. As I made clear in my statement, the current control order regime will be extended until the end of the year.

The right hon. Lady said that she supported the greater use of surveillance, which is part of the package that I have announced. I welcome her support. I am sure that we are all of one mind in wanting to ensure that we can prosecute people and bring them to justice. Obviously, we will make every effort to ensure that people on the new measures are constantly looked at in regard to bringing prosecutions. She also asked about resources. There will be new money available to the Security Service and the police over the comprehensive spending review period, but it is a well-known practice that we do not identify individual sums of money allocated for Security Service purposes.

Finally, the right hon. Lady made quite a lot of the fact that she thought there was a problem with the process that had been undertaken. I have to say to her that she was a member of a Government who tried to introduce first 90 days’ pre-charge detention, then 60 days, then 42 days before finally settling on 28 days, so I will take no lessons from her on process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We are making a number of moves. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at the student visa route and ensuring that we can stop abuses pertaining to it. We are also looking at stopping people here on a temporary basis moving on to a permanent settlement basis. Last year, 62,000 people who came here to fill temporary skills gaps then moved into permanent settlement. That is not right.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I shall ask the Home Secretary about the counter-terrorism review. On Thursday, the Minister for Immigration had to be dragged to the House to tell us Government policy on pre-trial detention. He told us that emergency legislation would be kept on hand in the Library of the House. The old powers lapse at midnight, yet as of half an hour ago, there was still no draft emergency legislation in the Library. On Sunday, the Deputy Prime Minister told the media that control orders were being abolished and at lunch time today, the BBC—not this House—was briefed that the new measures would include tagging and overnight residence requirements and would look a lot like control orders. This is a chaotic, shambolic and cavalier process. Where is the draft legislation? Will the Home Secretary now tell us what is happening with the legislation and with control orders, and will she take the opportunity to apologise for this shambolic process on such an important issue?

[Mrs May]

First, may I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new post as shadow Home Secretary? I am sure that she will enjoy the post. She is the third shadow Home Secretary I have faced in my nine months as Home Secretary. For her sake, I hope that she stays longer in the role than her predecessors have.

The right hon. Lady makes a point about process and refers to the 28-day pre-charge detention issue. May I say to her that the previous shadow Home Secretary clearly supported the Government on taking pre-charge detention down from 28 days to 14 days? Earlier today, the shadow Home Secretary was unfortunately unable to answer the question whether she supported 14 days’ pre-charge detention. If she is interested in chaos, she should look at sorting out her own policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the very good model at the family justice centre in Croydon, which is based on an experience that was developed in New York. I was pleased to visit a centre in New York a couple of months ago and see the benefits there. The Croydon model is a very good one, but it will not necessarily fit all areas. In more rural communities, for example, a single point might not be the answer. Some very good work has been done by Cherwell district council on how to ensure that there is inter-agency working in rural areas where a single physical centre is not always the answer.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister on her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), as there is considerable concern about this issue? The Supporting People budget is being cut by 11% and the ring-fencing is being removed so that refuges and supported housing will have to take their chances among competing areas while local council budgets are being cut by more than 25%. The Minister has not explained what will happen to housing benefit support for those women who are going into refuges and who are badly in need of support and protection. I do not think her answer was sufficient, and I ask her to consider this further and provide the House with some reassurance. She will know that there is great concern that the spending review is already hitting women twice as hard as men. Will she stand up for women who may be affected by domestic violence and will she guarantee that there will be no reduction in help and support for women who badly need it?