Public Order Policing
Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness May of Maidenhead(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the appalling violence that took place during last week’s protests outside Parliament.
I want first to express my gratitude to those police officers and commanders who put themselves in harm’s way. They showed great bravery and professionalism in the face of violence and provocation. It was this bravery that enabled this House to engage unhindered in democratic debate, and I know that the whole House will want to send them our thanks. I also want to thank Sir Paul Stephenson, who led the Metropolitan Police Service through a difficult operation and who serves London as commissioner with distinction.
Hon. Members may find it useful if I recap last week’s events. On Thursday, 3,000 people assembled at the university of London union to march through central London. By the time the crowd reached Parliament square, police estimate that the number of demonstrators had grown to 15,000. The police maintained a barrier system outside the Palace of Westminster that allowed pedestrian access and the business of the House to continue at all times. Concerted attempts were made to breach the barrier lines. Protestors threw bottles, stones, paint, golf balls and flares, and attacked police with metal fencing.
A cordon was placed around Parliament square, but, throughout, those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so. A large number of protesters remained, many of whom committed acts of violent disorder, damaging historic statues in Parliament square, breaking windows and starting fires. Sporadic disorder also took place in the west end. It is quite clear that those acts were perpetrated not by a small minority, but by a significant number of trouble makers.
Some students behaved disgracefully. However, the police assess that the protests were infiltrated by organised groups of hardcore activists and street gangs bent on violence. Evidence from the other recent protests shows that many of those who caused violence were organised thugs, as well as students. It is highly likely that that was also the case last week.
I want to be absolutely clear that the blame for the violence lies squarely and solely with those who carried it out. The idea advanced by some that police tactics were to blame, when people came armed with sticks, flares, fireworks, stones and snooker balls, is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
We have a culture of policing in this country that is based on popular consent and trust between the police and the public. That must continue.
Thursday’s police operation involved 2,800 officers. More than 30 officers were injured, of whom six required hospital treatment. All six have been discharged from hospital. Forty-three protesters were injured.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has begun an independent investigation into the incident that left one protestor seriously injured. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment further on that incident while the IPCC investigation is ongoing.
The Metropolitan police have confirmed that 35 people have been arrested so far. I expect that number to rise significantly as the criminal investigation continues. I confirm that there has been a good public response to the police’s request for information on the 14 key perpetrators of violence, photographs of whom were published on Sunday. The Met will continue to publish pictures of key individuals in the week ahead.
I also want to inform the House about the attack on the royal car. The House will be aware that on their way to an engagement in central London, the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall was attacked by several protesters. There has been much speculation about the Duchess being struck through the window of the car. I understand that some contact was made.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has ordered an urgent review of the royalty protection arrangements that were in place on the night, which is due to report by Friday 17 December. Hon. Members will understand that, for security reasons, the public details of the report may be limited. I will await the findings of that review before deciding what, if any, further action is needed.
The Prince and the Duchess have already expressed their gratitude to the police. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning all the acts of violence that took place last week. I call on the organisers of the protests unequivocally to condemn violence as well.
The Government are determined to protect the right to peaceful protest, but violence is absolutely unacceptable and the perpetrators of that violence must be brought to justice.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
All Labour Members understand and share the dismay, anger and injustice that are felt by hundreds of thousands of students and young people at the deeply unfair hike in tuition fees and the abolition of education maintenance allowance. All Labour Members also share the Home Secretary’s anger and outrage at the way in which last Thursday’s legitimate day of action was hijacked by a small but significant minority bent on provocation, violence and criminal damage.
The whole country was shocked and appalled at the cowardly and despicable attack on the car carrying His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary have our full support in taking all the steps that are necessary to bring the perpetrators of that violence to justice.
Scenes of mass violence and protest on our streets are sights that all in this generation hoped we would not see again. We all have a responsibility—from student leaders and police chiefs, through to politicians and Prime Ministers—to do everything we can to avoid such confrontations in the future: we have to keep the peace. Here, there are lessons to be learned, and I have some detailed questions for the Home Secretary that I hope she can answer.
I start by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the Home Secretary that the right first step is to await the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and to resist jumping to any hasty conclusions. There is clearly a difficult balance for our police leaders to strike between containment to control violence and ensuring that the innocent are not caught up, harmed or held for lengthy periods. If there are individual cases in which police officers overstep the mark, the right first step is for the IPCC to investigate, as is happening in the case of Mr Meadows. The commissioner is right to demand that all police officers must display their identification at all times.
It is important, too, that we recognise the bravery and commitment that our police officers showed last Thursday in the face of extreme provocation and physical danger. Without their professionalism and restraint, there would have been many more casualties.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary about royal protection, prosecutions, resourcing and police tactics. On royal security, given that this was the fourth time in a few weeks that a protest descended into violence, did she personally ask for and see a thorough assessment of the security of the royal family and other key individuals and buildings in advance of last Thursday’s protests? At a time of rising security threats, and with the royal wedding coming next year, will she agree to shelve the cost-cutting review of royal security that is currently on her desk? When she sees the report from the commissioner on the particular lapse in royal security last Thursday, will she commission a new and wider review of the current level of threat to, and the security needs of, the royal family, including cars used for travelling around London?
On the protests more widely, people were appalled to see on their TV screens pictures of protestors urinating on the statue of Winston Churchill, swinging on flags on the Cenotaph or causing widespread criminal damage. It is important that those who commit violent acts are brought, and are seen to be brought, to justice, so will the Home Secretary tell the House not just how many protestors have been arrested but how many have actually been charged following these and earlier disturbances? It is important that we know that fact.
On resources, the Met deployed 3,000 officers last Thursday. On the day when the Home Secretary is announcing the biggest peacetime cuts to police funding in more than a century, can she confirm that next year and the year after, our police will still have the resources to police major events and keep our communities safe? Given that the biggest cuts in police budgets and numbers in London and across the country are scheduled to fall in the year of the Olympics, can she explain why, despite previously telling the House that the £600 million budget for Olympics policing and security would be protected, she is now seeking to cut it to £475 million—a 21% reduction that will put further pressure on police budgets—as she has announced this afternoon?
I turn to police tactics and the future use of water cannon and rubber bullets. Will the Home Secretary agree to set aside her own views and respect the operational judgment of the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, that the use of water cannon and rubber bullets in protests would be a blunt instrument and very difficult, and would risk escalating matters and doing more harm than good?
Finally, given that we have Second Reading of the police Bill this afternoon, and that for the first time we will have a single elected individual with the power to direct policing, can the Home Secretary tell the House what would happen if, in future, an elected police commissioner were to make a manifesto commitment to introduce water cannon and rubber bullets? Who would decide how best to keep our streets safe—the chief constable or the politician?
Mrs May
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the police who so bravely stood up to the demonstrators and ensured that Parliament was protected last week during the demonstrations, and indeed the police who took action and policed London during the demonstrations that occurred on two previous days.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, including about royal protection and whether there should be a wider review in future. We regularly examine the provision of the protection scheme for members of the royal family, and indeed the protection that, as he will be aware, the Metropolitan police provides to other individuals in the UK, including a number of politicians such as members of the Government. It is important that that is done. It is also important that we clearly identify what happened in this incident and whether any issues need to be addressed as a result, and factor that into any considerations in the review of royal protection.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the number of people who have been arrested is varying, and is a moving feast. If I may, I will update him on the number of people who have been charged, but he will recognise that it will be changing over time—
Mrs May
Information will be provided to the office of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) separately. We will do that to ensure that he knows the figure. He mentioned resources, but I have to say to him that, as someone who worked closely with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister under the previous Labour Government, and who has made something of a name for himself on the issue of figures, he really needs to pay a little more attention to the figures—[Interruption.] He says he is not asking about that, but he specifically asked me about Olympic security, and said that we would no longer be providing the £600 million we had set aside for that purpose.
Mrs May
I see that he is nodding. I refer him to the written ministerial statement on police funding that was tabled in Parliament this morning:
“Safety and security for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics is a priority for this Government”,
and a £600 million funding envelope will remain available for this purpose.
Mrs May
I am very happy to read the next bit. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand this, and it tells us quite a lot about his and his colleagues’ attitude to funding. That £600 million has been protected; he said that it had not been, but it has. It has been possible, through efficiencies, to look at the amount we currently consider it might be necessary to spend, and we go on to say that we are confident that we can deliver this for around £475 million, but we are protecting—[Interruption.] Oh, so the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in trying to save money! That tells us a lot about him.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the general issue of resources, and, yes, the funding allocations for individual police forces have been announced in the written ministerial statement today. I simply remind him that the Metropolitan police, in dealing with the incidents and demonstrations that took place last month and this month, are largely operating on the budget that was set by the Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman commented on tactics, and he mentioned rubber bullets. I do not think that, so far, either I or anybody on this side of the House has suggested the use of rubber bullets. I will clarify the position on water cannon. It is of course the responsibility of the Home Office to set the legal parameters for measures that can be used by the police, and, as I speak, water cannon have yet to be approved as a piece of equipment that can be used by the police. Then, senior police officers have the operational responsibility to decide what equipment they use, currently in agreement with police authorities and, in future, in agreement with police and crime commissioners. In relation to London, that decision would be agreed with the Mayor of London, who is the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. I think that that mixture of legal oversight, professional discretion and democratic consent has to be right. However, I do not think that anyone wants to see water cannon used on the streets of Britain. As I said in my statement, if the right hon. Gentleman heard me, we have a different attitude to the culture of policing here in the UK. We police by consent, and that depends on trust between the police and the public. A range of measures is available to the police, and I do not think that water cannon are needed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about police and crime commissioners, and said that, in future, they would have the power to direct policing. In advance of our debate later this afternoon, may I tell him that that is precisely what the police and crime commissioners will not have? Operational independence of the police chiefs will be maintained with police and crime commissioners, and if he does not understand that he obviously does not understand the Bill we shall debate later.
The police did a good job last Thursday, as they have done at previous demonstrations. They did make some errors, as the commissioner admitted, in relation to the first day of student demonstrations. We should thank them for all that they do to ensure that Parliament can carry on its debates unhindered by protesters.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness May of Maidenhead(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am about to come on to exactly that point. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it is appropriate for such individuals to belong to a political party of which a police officer cannot be a member, but one could argue that the same position already exists: Home Secretaries are elected under political banners. I actually trust the people of this country on elections.
I shall return to that point, because police and crime commissioners will give the public a real voice in policing. They will ensure that what the public care about is taken seriously, and that local people’s priorities are the priorities of the police. I thank ACPO for its constructive engagement in the reform process, and the Association of Police Authorities will have an important role to play until police and crime commissioners are introduced. We will continue working with the APA until that point. We have consulted widely with the public and with key partners, such as the APA and ACPO, through the consultation document “Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting police and the people”, which was published earlier this year, and in other consultation with them. We have listened to their views and amended our proposals accordingly.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
On consultation with the Association of Police Authorities, there is a letter in The Guardian today—[Interruption.] It is signed by the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour leaders on the APA, and it says:
“There is no evidence that PCCs”—
police and crime commissioners—
“will improve the service the public receive, and every reason to reject this proposal.”
Why has the Home Secretary failed to persuade Conservatives on the APA that her proposals are good proposals?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] His hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd can even do the turkey noises for him.
Let me explain my earlier comment. It is very straightforward. We have had discussions with the APA about the future of police and crime commissioners, and it is no surprise that police authority members are not as convinced as we are about setting up PCCs, because when they are set up, police authorities will be abolished. That was my point, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of his views.
Ed Balls
Turkeys voting for Christmas? May I quote Sir Hugh Orde, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who said:
“Every professional bone in my body tells me it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability for no added value but plenty of confusion”?
Is the Home Secretary calling the head of ACPO a turkey as well?
Mrs May
No, I am not. Had the right hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say already how grateful we are for our constructive engagement with ACPO. We have listened to its comments on the introduction of police and crime commissioners and amended our proposals accordingly.
To return to the point about democracy, first, I see no reason not to trust the British public. We trust the public and we trust democracy, so I see no reason to constrain democracy by vetting or by excluding candidates we might think are extremist. The British public have shown over the years that they are perfectly capable of stopping extremists where they should be stopped—at the ballot box.
Secondly, although the whole point of our reforms is to improve the local accountability of the police, that in no way means that cross-boundary challenges such as organised crime, terrorism or other national policing issues will be neglected. Police and crime commissioners will be supported by a new strategic policing requirement to help them to hold their force to account for all its policing, and they will have a duty to collaborate with other police forces and other agencies, including the new national crime agency, on issues that cut across force boundaries. I am clear that the structures that we are putting in place must address national policing issues as well as local ones. Commissioners will also be required to work with other forces to simplify the arrangements for procurement and back-office functions in order to improve efficiency and achieve better value for money.
Thirdly, let me reassure the House that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will in no way affect the operational independence of the police. Commissioners will not manage police forces.
Mrs May
I am happy to confirm—this is at the heart of the matter, and I know that Opposition Front Benchers have been trying make something of the issue—that we are very clear that police and crime commissioners should not be able to appoint political advisers from public funds. I do not believe that that would be right. That is the intention behind what we are doing and this Bill.
Ed Balls
It is very important to be clear when we make statements in the House. It is not the case that Opposition Front Benchers have been trying to make something of the issue. At a meeting of the APA, the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister said that the first decision he would make if he were elected a police and crime commissioner would be to appoint a political adviser. Did he say that? Can the Home Secretary confirm that? If he did say it, can she tell him he was wrong to say it and that it is not in fact true?
Mrs May
I have just checked with my right hon. Friend and he is absolutely clear that he did not say that. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that the issue has suddenly arisen in the last minute, that the document that summarises the consultation responses to “Policing in the 21st century” states clearly on page 13, at paragraph 2.12:
“Whilst the PCC will be able to appoint staff to advise and assist them, all staff must be appointed on merit and will be politically restricted posts.”
[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait. It goes on to state:
“Party political office holders and active party members will not be able to be appointed to the PCC’s staff.”
Our intention is absolutely clear.
The running costs and day-to-day expenditure of police and crime commissioners will not be any greater than that of police authorities.
Ed Balls
I merely draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the excellent House of Commons research report on the Bill, which makes it absolutely clear, in terms, that the then Home Secretary rejected that proposal because it would lead to the politicisation of our police, which is exactly why we are opposing these measures.
Look at the storm that is now gathering around the Home Secretary. Over the past few days, we have seen the events in Sweden—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen mock the events that are happening. We are seeing a rising terrorist threat. We saw the events of last Thursday and the statement that we had to have this afternoon about disorder on our streets. We have the Olympics coming up the year after next, with the Home Secretary now proposing to force through a 20% cut in the Olympic policing budget.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman raised the Olympic security budget in his response to my statement earlier. I refer him, yet again, to today’s written ministerial statement on police funding allocations, which says that we have protected the £600 million expenditure on Olympic security. In fact, we think that what is needed can be done more cheaply than that, but we are protecting the £600 million. Will he now withdraw his accusations?
Ed Balls
I will do no such thing, and I will tell the House exactly why. We are consistently told by the Home Secretary that she has protected the counter-terrorism budget. What she means by “protected” is that it is cut by only 10%, unlike the police budget, which is cut by 20%. That is what the protection is all about.
Controlling Migration
Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness May of Maidenhead(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on immigration.
Controlled migration has benefited the UK economically, socially and culturally, but when immigration gets out of control, it places great pressure on our society, economy and public services. In the 1990s, net migration to Britain was consistently in the tens of thousands each year, but under Labour, net migration to Britain was close to 200,000 per year for most years since 2000. As a result, over Labour’s time in office net migration totalled more than 2.2 million people—more than double the population of Birmingham.
We cannot go on like this. We must tighten up our immigration system, focusing on tackling abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants. To achieve that, we will have to take action across all routes to entry—work visas, student visas and family visas—and break the link between temporary routes and permanent settlement. That will bring significant reductions in non-European Union migration to the UK and restore it to more sustainable levels. We aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands.
On the work routes to entry, all the evidence shows that it is possible to reduce numbers while promoting growth and underlining the message that Britain is open for business. After consulting widely with business and with the Migration Advisory Committee, I have decided to reduce economic migration through tier 1 and tier 2 from 28,000 to 21,700. That will mean a fall of more than a fifth compared with last year in the number of economic migrants coming in through tiers 1 and 2, excluding intra-company transfers.
Business groups have told us that skilled migrants with job offers—tier 2—should have priority over those admitted without a job offer, who are in tier 1. I have therefore set the tier 1 limit at 1,000, a reduction of more than 13,000 on last year’s number. Such a sharp reduction has enabled me to set the tier 2 limit at 20,700, an increase of nearly 7,000 on last year’s number.
The old tier 1, supposedly the route for the best and the brightest, has not attracted highly skilled workers. At least 30% of tier 1 migrants work in low-skilled occupations such as stacking shelves, driving taxis or working as security guards, and some do not have a job at all, so we will close the tier 1 general route. Instead, I want to use tier 1 to attract more investors, entrepreneurs and people of exceptional talent. Last year, investors and entrepreneurs accounted for fewer than 300 people, and that is not enough, so I will make the application process quicker and more user-friendly, and I will not limit the numbers of those wealth creators who can come to Britain.
There are also some truly exceptional people who should not need sponsorship from an employer but whom we would wish to welcome to Britain. I will therefore introduce a new route within tier 1 for people of exceptional talent—the scientists, academics and artists who have achieved international recognition, or are likely to do so. The number will be limited to 1,000 a year.
Tier 2 has also been abused and misused. Last year more than 1,600 certificates were issued for care assistants to come to the UK. At the same time, more than 33,000 care assistants who were already here were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, so I will restrict tier 2 to graduate-level jobs.
We have listened to business and will keep intra-company transfers outside the limit. However, we will place a new salary threshold of £40,000 on any intra-company transfers of longer than 12 months. Recent figures show that 50% of intra-company transfers meet those criteria. That will ensure that those coming are only the senior managers and key specialists who international companies need to move within their organisations.
I should like to thank the Migration Advisory Committee for its advice and recommendations. Next year, I will ask it to review the limit in order to set new arrangements for 2012-13.
However, the majority of non-EU migrants are, in fact, students. They represent almost two thirds of the non-EU migrants entering the UK each year, and we cannot reduce net migration significantly without reforming student visas. Hon. Members and others might imagine that by students, we mean people who come here for a few years to study at university and then go home. However, nearly half of all students coming here from abroad are actually coming to study a course below degree level, and abuse is particularly common at those lower levels. A recent check of students studying at private institutions below degree level showed that a quarter could not be accounted for. Too many students at lower levels have been coming here with a view to living and working rather than studying, and we need to stop that abuse.
As with economic migration, we will therefore refocus student visas on the areas that add the greatest value, and in which evidence of abuse is limited. I will shortly launch a public consultation on student visas. I will consult on restricting entry to only those studying at degree level, but with some flexibility for highly trusted sponsors to offer courses at a lower level. I will also consult on closing the post-study route, which last year allowed some 38,000 foreign graduates to enter the UK labour market at a time when one in 10 UK graduates were unemployed.
Last year, the family route accounted for nearly 20% of non-EU immigration. Clearly, British nationals must be able to marry the person of their choice, but those who come to the UK must be able to participate in society. From next week, we will require all those applying for marriage visas to demonstrate a minimum standard of English. We are also cracking down on sham marriages, and will consult on extending the probationary period of settlement for spouses beyond the current two years.
Finally, we need to restrict settlement. It cannot be right that people coming to fill temporary skills gaps have open access to permanent settlement. Last year, 62,000 people settled in the UK on that basis. Settling in Britain should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in, so we will end the link between temporary and permanent migration.
I intend to introduce these changes to the work route and some of the settlement changes from April 2011. I will bring forward other changes soon after. This is a comprehensive package that will help us to meet our goal of reducing net migration, at the same time as attracting the brightest and the best, and those with the skills our country needs. This package will serve the needs of British business, it will respond to the wishes of the British public, and it will give us the sustainable immigration system that we so badly need.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by thanking the Home Secretary for the—rather late—advance sight of her statement, for coming to the House this afternoon in person, and for clarifying the confusion caused by the misleading leak of the contents of her statement to the BBC this morning. The Home Secretary is right to say that migration has made, and continues to make, a vital contribution to the economic vibrancy, business strength and vitality of our country. She is also right to say that it is essential for migration to be properly controlled, for reasons of economic well-being and social cohesion. But the question is: how? The Labour Government put in place transitional controls on EU migration, a suspension of unskilled work permits, a tough but flexible points system to manage skilled migration, and tighter regulation of overseas students. They closed 140 bogus colleges, and imposed new citizenship requirements on those seeking settlement.
At the general election, the leader of the Conservative party proposed to go further in two key respects. First, he proposed a new target to reduce net migration to the
“tens of thousands by 2015.”
To meet that target, he pledged a cap on immigration, which he said would be tougher than the points system. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party said:
“We can’t come up with promises like caps which don’t work”.
He then agreed to the cap in the coalition agreement. Since then, the Government have been in wholesale retreat, and today they are in wholesale confusion over this policy. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, universities, Nobel prize winners, and UK and foreign companies—large and small—have all highlighted the huge damage that the Government’s proposals would do to investment and jobs.
The Home Affairs Committee and the Migration Advisory Committee have said that the proposed cap applies to only 20% of non-EU migration. As a result, we have had the unedifying sight of the Prime Minister hinting at concession after concession—in the face, we read, of opposition from the Home Secretary, thanks to the excellent public lobbying and guerrilla tactics of the Business Secretary, who, sadly, is not in his place this afternoon. In his use of such tactics, he is less Stalin and more Trotsky—and certainly not Mr Bean.
Today the Home Secretary has come to the House to confirm the details of the retreat. We will keep a close eye on her proposals to see how they affect business and science. None the less, we join business representatives in welcoming her decision to exempt intra-company transfers of workers. What has caused confusion is this morning’s briefing to the BBC that the total cap would be 42,700 work permits. Her officials then had to clarify the fact that there is no such cap on that scale. She has now said that she will allow 21,700 tier 1 and tier 2 work permits, but with no cap on migration caused by intra-company transfers. If the number of intra-company transfers goes up, will she put in place an offsetting cut in tier 1 and tier 2 work permits? If not, and I very much hope that she will not, will she confirm that her supposed cap is a con, a guess and a fig leaf—in fact, no cap at all?
The permanent secretary revealed today that 9,000 jobs will be lost from the Home Office, the bulk of which will be from the UK Border Agency. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she can implement the policy that she has outlined today, and keep our borders secure, with those cuts? On family reunification she had nothing new to say—no target—and on overseas students she announced no action, just another consultation.
I have learned in the past few weeks that it is a mistake to ask the right hon. Lady a long list of questions, but there is one question to which it is vital that she should give an answer this afternoon: is it still the objective of the Prime Minister and the Government to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015? In her statement she repeated the goal, but she omitted to put a date on it. Will she reaffirm the 2015 promise? In recent months—on VAT and tuition fees—the Deputy Prime Minister has got into a habit of breaking pre-election promises. Can the Home Secretary reassure us that the Prime Minister has not caught the same disease? This is a simple question. Is the “tens of thousands” pledge still binding by 2015—yes or no?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response. During the Labour leadership campaign, he said:
“as many of us found in the election, our arguments on immigration were not good enough.”
Listening to him today, I realised that Labour’s arguments on immigration are still not good enough. He made a number of claims about what the Labour Government did on immigration, including the claim that they introduced transitional controls when new member states entered the EU. I seem to remember that when the first tranche of new member states entered the EU, that is precisely what they did not do, despite every blandishment from the Conservatives to encourage them.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the previous Government took action on the points-based system limits. I accept that, but what happened? They closed tier 3 of the points-based system of entry into the UK, but nothing else, so when tier 3 shut down, the number of student visas went up by tens of thousands. That is why this Government know that when we deal with one part of the immigration system, we must act across the whole of it.
I made the figures for the tier 1 and tier 2 caps that we are introducing absolutely clear in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the UK Border Agency could manage the cuts and keep our borders secure with the changes in personnel that will be made, and the answer to that, unequivocally, is: yes, it can.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm what I said in my statement, which is that we aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands back down to the tens of thousands—[Hon. Members: “When? By 2015?”] If he is to criticise the Government’s plans on immigration, the right hon. Gentleman must have a plan. So far he does not even have an immigration spokesman, let alone an immigration policy. The British people, who according to his own words felt that Labour was no longer on their side and no longer stood up for them on immigration, will not listen to him until he has an immigration plan.
Points of Order
Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness May of Maidenhead(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I sometimes wonder whether these generous initial remarks are a ruse by Members to get me on their side, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was not contacted by the Home Secretary about the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but he makes his point with force and clarity. I am always concerned that the House should hear key announcements first. However, I would say that when different numbers are being bandied around that is sometimes a sign of a matter for debate rather than a point of order. However, I shall keep my eyes and ears focused firmly on these matters because the House must hear first.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have more or less indicated, I think that the Home Secretary—
Mrs May
After 13 years in opposition, as the right hon. Gentleman will discover, one sometimes makes these mistakes. The information that the BBC had was wrong and I am happy to say to the House that any information on the BBC first thing this morning was nothing to do with the Home Office.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness May of Maidenhead(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
We will hear more from the Home Secretary later this afternoon about the security threat to our country, but I am sure the whole House will want to join me in commending her on the very calm way in which she has handled events over the past few days. I also want to thank her for welcoming me to my shadow role and offering me a detailed security briefing.
On the spending review and its impact on police numbers in the west midlands, at the weekend the Home Secretary said that in the spending review it is important that the Home Office takes its share, and policing is taking its share in that, but given that the NHS budget is rising by 0.4% in real terms over four years and the Defence and Education budgets are falling by 7.5% and 11%, does the Home Secretary really think a real-terms cut in the Home Office budget of 25% and a 20% real-terms cut in the central resource budget for policing constitutes a fair share?
Mrs May
May I first welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post as shadow Home Secretary? I was pleased to be able to welcome him to his new position with a telephone call and, indeed, to be able to update him over the weekend on the recent events that have taken place—they will be discussed in more detail later this afternoon, of course.
I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that, yes, it is important for the Home Office to be willing to look at playing its part in dealing with the biggest deficit of any G20 nation, a deficit that was left as a legacy to this country by his Labour Government.
Ed Balls
Police leaders in the west midlands and across the country will have to decide for themselves whether that was an adequate answer. In the last week, the accountancy firm KPMG has estimated that 18,000 police officers will lose their jobs, and the Police Federation says 20,000, which would mean that 1,200 officers would be lost in the west midlands alone in the next four years. Given the impact these cuts will have in the west midlands and across the country, does the Home Secretary agree with these estimates of deep cuts to front-line policing, or does she think that KPMG and the Police Federation have got their sums wrong?
Mrs May
I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth): the issue of policing and the effectiveness of policing is not just about numbers, which is what he and his colleagues seem to think; it is about how we deploy police staff and the job they are doing out on the streets. I have more confidence in the ability of our chief constables up and down the country, chief constables like Jon Stoddart in Durham, who says that
“our commitment to neighbourhood policing is undiminished”
and the deputy chief constable in Essex who said:
“We are…working on a…new Blueprint for policing…taking the opportunity fundamentally to re-design all aspects of how we deliver our services.”
We are clear that savings can be made without affecting front-line policing. We are doing our bit as a Government in reducing the heavy load of bureaucracy introduced by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, which will result in police being out on the streets.
Aviation Security Incident
Debate between Ed Balls and Baroness May of Maidenhead(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the recent airline bomb plot. The House will know that in the early hours of Friday morning, following information from intelligence sources, the police identified a suspect package on board a UPS courier aircraft that had landed at East Midlands Airport en route from Cologne to Chicago. Later during the morning, police explosives experts identified that the device contained explosive material. A similar device was located and identified in Dubai. It was being transported by FedEx to Chicago.
Since then, an intensive investigation has been taking place in this country and overseas. Cobra met on Friday to assess progress, I chaired a Cobra meeting on Saturday and the Prime Minister chaired a further Cobra meeting this morning. I am sure the House will appreciate that much of the investigation is sensitive, and the information I can give is necessarily limited. Disclosure of some details could prejudice the investigation, the prospects of bringing the perpetrators to justice, our national security and the security of our allies, but I want to give the House as full a picture as possible.
We know that both explosive devices originated in Yemen. We believe that they were made and dispatched by the organisation known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This group, which is based in Yemen, was responsible for the attempted downing of an aircraft bound for Detroit on 25 December last year. The devices were probably intended to detonate mid-air and to destroy the cargo aircraft on which they were being transported. Our own analysis of the device here—analysis that has to proceed with great care to preserve the evidential value of the recovered material—established by Saturday morning that the device was viable. That means not only that it contained explosive material but that it could have detonated. Had the device detonated, we assess that it could have succeeded in bringing down the aircraft. Our forensic examination of the device continues. We are receiving valuable assistance from a wide range of partners, and the analysis has some way to go.
At this stage we have no information to suggest that another attack of a similar nature by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is imminent, but the organisation is very active. During this year it has repeatedly attacked targets in Yemen. On 26 April and 6 October it attacked and attempted to kill British diplomats based in Sana’a. It continues to plan other attacks in the region, notably against Saudi Arabia. We therefore work on the assumption that the organisation will wish to continue to find ways of attacking targets further afield.
We will continue to work with international partners to deal with this threat. We have for some years provided assistance to the Yemeni Government and will continue to do so. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Saleh to make clear our desire for a closer security relationship. Following the Detroit incident, Ministers in the last Government took the decision to stop all direct passenger and cargo aircraft flying from Yemen to and through the UK. Over the weekend, we took the further step of stopping all unaccompanied air freight to this country from Yemen. That will include air freight from Yemen both carried on courier flights and hold-loaded in passenger aircraft. The small number of items in transit prior to that direction have been subject to rigorous investigation on arrival in the UK, and no further suspicious items have been discovered.
We are now taking further steps to maintain our security. I can confirm to the House that we will review all aspects of air freight security and work with international partners to make sure that our defences are as robust as possible. We will update the guidance given to airport security personnel based on what we have learned, to enable them to identify similar packages in future.
From midnight tonight, we will extend the suspension of unaccompanied air freight to this country from not just Yemen but Somalia. This decision has been made as a precautionary measure and it will be reviewed in the coming weeks. It is based on possible contact between al-Qaeda in Yemen and terrorist groups in Somalia, as well as on concern about airport security in Mogadishu.
From midnight tonight, we will suspend the carriage of toner cartridges larger than 500 grams in passengers’ hand baggage on flights departing from UK airports. Also from midnight tonight, we will prohibit the carriage of these items by air cargo into, via or from the UK unless they originate from a known consignor—a regular shipper with security arrangements approved by the Department for Transport.
We intend that these final two measures will be in place initially for one month. During that time, we will work closely with the aviation industry, screening equipment manufacturers and others, to devise a sustainable, proportionate, long-term security regime to address the threat. Department for Transport officials are already in technical discussions with the industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will chair a high-level industry meeting later this week to discuss next steps. These initiatives are in addition to those that we have set out in the strategic defence and security review.
We are already committed to widening checks on visa applicants to this country. Following the Detroit incident, we are also committed to making changes to pre-departure checks to identify better the people who pose a terrorist threat and to prevent them from flying to the UK.
We are committed to enhancing our e-borders programme, which provides data on who is travelling to this country and which is therefore an essential foundation for our counter-terrorist and wider security work. We have an increasingly active and important border co-operation programme with counterparts in the USA. The Detroit incident led to the introduction of further passenger scanning devices at key airports in the UK.
Cobra will continue to meet through this week. The National Security Council will also consider this issue. We will continue to work closely with our partners overseas.
Finally, the House will wish to join me in expressing gratitude to the police and the security and intelligence agencies in this country for the work they are doing to understand the threat we face and to deal with it so effectively.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The whole country has been shocked by the events of the last four days—by the discovery of two concealed and hard-to-detect explosive devices on aircraft, one of which was at East Midlands airport, by the risk that further devices may be at large and by the serious and challenging threat that such terrorist activity constitutes to public safety and our country’s security.
At Home Office questions earlier, I commended the Home Secretary for the calm way in which she has led the response to these threats and chaired and reported on Cobra meetings. I thank her for the Privy Council briefings that she gave me on Friday night and again on Saturday afternoon. I join her in commending our police, intelligence and security services for the brave and vital work they have done over the past few days in close co-operation with allies around the world to save lives, as they do every other day of the year.
It is the job of Her Majesty’s Opposition to ask questions, probe statements and hold the Government to account. That we will do, but we will be mindful at all times of our wider responsibility to support necessary actions to keep our citizens safe and protect our vital national interests. In that spirit, I have questions for the Home Secretary on three issues: the detailed events of the last few days, and the implications for airline security and wider national security.
First, we all appreciate the way in which intelligence and international co-operation are involved. Events move fast, and things are always clearer with hindsight, but at what precise point were the police, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister first told about the potential threat? Were there delays in getting precise information to our security and police officers on the ground? Why was the device not discovered by police officers during the first search? Could earlier information have made a material difference to the search? What operational lessons, if any, will be learned when dealing with such events in the future?
Secondly, the fact that the two live explosive devices were intercepted by an intelligence tip-off only after they had been carried on at least five different planes, three of which were passenger aircraft, raises serious questions about the security of our airspace. Some security experts have referred to cargo security as a potential blind spot. I understand that Lord Carlile drew attention to the potential risks of cargo transit in his annual reports in 2007 and 2008, and that significant actions were taken to improve intelligence and international security co-operation at that time. I also understand that a tougher search method, called explosive trace detection, was introduced for passenger flights last year following the Detroit attempted attack.
I appreciate that this is a complex problem to solve, that a review has been set up and that the Home Secretary has already acted to ban unaccompanied cargo packages from Yemen and Somalia and put in place temporary restrictions on carrying toner cartridges, but what conclusions does she draw about the reliability of current checks from the fact that the device was not spotted on the first check by police experts at East Midlands airport? Will the review consider extending explosive trace detection from passenger to cargo flights, which I believe has happened in the United States? Will the scope of her review cover cargo carried in passenger as well as cargo aircraft? Should we take any other action now to improve the security of cargo coming into, going out of or transiting the UK while the review is undertaken?
The events of the last few days also raise wider issues for national security and our counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear that terrorists operating out of Yemen constitute an increasing threat, as the Home Secretary said. Can she assure the House that the Government are in urgent discussions with the Yemeni Government and our allies around the world with a view to doing more to interrupt terrorist activities at source? Given the wider evidence of a mounting threat, the judgments that will underpin the Government’s current review of counter-terrorism powers are especially important. Although we will reserve judgment until we see the outcome of the review, I have said that the Opposition will seek to support her where we can and that consensus should be our shared goal.
Finally, I must raise the issue of resources. Given that the explosive devices were intercepted through vital intelligence work, is the Home Secretary confident that a 6% real-terms cut in the single intelligence account over the next four years can be managed without compromising such work? Given that the device was discovered by specially trained police working closely with our security and border services, is she confident that a 10% real-terms cut in counter-terrorism policing over the next four years and a 50% cut in capital available to the UK Border Agency will not undermine operational capability?
The Olympics are now just two years away and the eyes of the world will be on our country. Given that the planned 20% real-terms cuts in police budgets is front-end loaded, and that there will be a 6% cut in the year before the games and an 8% cut in the year of the Olympics itself, can the Home Secretary assure the House that the extra strain that police resources will face will not pose an unacceptable risk to fighting crime and our national security? Does she agree with me that in the light of the events of the past few days, the issue of resources should now be looked at again, alongside the counter-terrorism review?
Mrs May
May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded on this issue? He is absolutely right that this is a not a matter of party political divide, but one of concern to all of us across the House. It is important that we get our response right, and I am grateful to him for indicating that he will support the Government in the measures that we take and the response that we give. He asked a number of detailed questions, some of which were quite operational in type. I will attempt to answer as many of his questions as possible, but if I do not answer his operational ones now, I will be happy to do so in writing afterwards.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact, which I mentioned in my statement, that the initial indication of the device came from intelligence. We do not speak about intelligence sources or say how it came about, but, on timing, I can tell him that the police attended the airport and looked to see what they could find in relation to the device. It took a while before the device was identified as something that contained explosive material. I and the Prime Minister were informed that there was a device containing explosive material at about 2 o’clock on Friday.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to comments from security experts about this being the “soft underbelly”, which is a term that some have used. In relation to cargo and other aspects, I would say that, as I am sure he is aware, we are in a constant battle with the terrorists, who are always looking for another innovative way to get around our defences. Our job, and the job of our security and intelligence agencies and the police, is to ensure that we do all we can to ensure that there are no gaps in our defences. In that context, the work that the Government have already done in introducing the national security strategy and, crucially, in bringing Departments together in our work on security is an important part of that task.
The right hon. Gentleman asked various questions about cargo. The review will cover a number of issues. Obviously, when such an incident takes place, it is right not only that we take stock and that we take action immediately—as we have done—but that we do more work with the industry. As I indicated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be taking that forward, and I can confirm that the review will consider the extension of explosive trace detection, although there are some significant technical issues there. Certainly, however, the review will look at that.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the counter-terrorism review. As he will have heard me say at Home Office questions earlier, final decisions have not been taken on the review. I am absolutely apprised of the fact that the Government, like every Government, need to ensure that the safety and security of the public are a prime concern. We need to rebalance our national security with our civil liberties, but I am well aware that it is our national security that enables us to enjoy our civil liberties. We remain conscious of that.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked a number of questions about cuts to budgets. He asked whether I was confident in the ability of the security and intelligence agencies to maintain their level of work, and to do their vital job in keeping us safe, and I can say that yes, I am confident. On cuts in policing, as he knows, police forces will be able to take money out of non-front-line policing. On border services, crucially, the coalition Government are committed to enhancing our ability to keep our borders secure, through the introduction of the border police command under the new national crime agency we will be setting up.
Finally, of course the Olympics budget is protected, and a significant part of the Olympics security budget, which is protected within the Home Office, relates to Olympics policing.