Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Hywel Francis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He is a valued member of my Joint Committee on Human Rights, as was the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I was delighted to hear him quoting the banner of the Tower lodge miners, a great bastion of trade union freedom. The quote has been attributed to Franklin—it may well be—and to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, but today it has been made famous by the Tower miners. The opening statement by the shadow Home Secretary, who is not in her place, really did sum up that sense of the need to protect our liberties and the security of all our citizens. That is very much in the spirit of “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”.

I am conscious that we have very little time, so I would like pose three questions to the Minister and then make reference to public confidence in Parliament. First, why was draft legislation not prepared during the two-year period in which the Government knew of the risk of the directive being ruled invalid, and why was Parliament not given a proper opportunity to scrutinise and debate the detail? Secondly, what exactly is the urgency that requires the complex issue of extraterritoriality to be dealt with by emergency rather than ordinary legislation? Thirdly, I will be writing to the Government, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to ask for a more detailed explanation of how our law meets each of the criticisms of the European Court, but there is one central question I would like the Minister to answer today. Why, in the light of the case law, do the Government consider that it is compatible with the right to respect for private life to continue to authorise blanket retention of communications data?

Let me turn to the vexed question of public confidence in Parliament. Emergency legislation such as this has the potential to undermine the public’s confidence in Parliament’s capacity to do its job of holding the Government to account. In the wake of the Snowden disclosures, there is widespread mistrust of the Government and the intelligence agencies when it comes to surveillance. Detailed scrutiny of the Government’s justifications for interfering with people’s privacy must involve civil society. To be democratically legitimate, that scrutiny must take place here in Parliament. The Government need to recognise that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom or expertise in these matters. They need to heed the views of parliamentarians and specialist parliamentary Committees, and the views of wider civil society.

Courts are also more likely to uphold laws that have been properly scrutinised by Parliament. Lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny makes it more likely that courts will find laws to be in breach of fundamental rights. This only feeds the public perception that Parliament is disempowered in relation not only to the Government, but to the courts.

Let me give a good example of that. Last year the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act was passed as emergency legislation only days after it was introduced. My Committee was unable to report before the Bill received its Royal Assent but we expressed grave reservations about the Bill’s compatibility with two particular human rights: the rights of access to court and to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. For that reason, we would have liked to scrutinise it in more detail. Last week, the legislation was declared incompatible by the High Court on the very grounds identified by my Committee. While, no doubt, the Government will be appealing against the judgment, it illustrates well the vulnerability of emergency legislation to successful legal challenge on human rights grounds.

The Government are now taking the same risk with this Bill. From my perspective as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I can see a clear pattern emerging: very widely drafted powers to counter terrorism and serious crime, with too few safeguards to guarantee that they are only used when necessary and proportionate, give rise to concerns about their indiscriminate overuse. We have seen it with powers to take and retain, for example, DNA—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

Extradition

Hywel Francis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

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

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s decision on Gary McKinnon. Will she look again at the JCHR’s report on extradition, particularly with regard to the evidence given to us on the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and thank him and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for the work that their two Committees did on extradition arrangements. The Government will respond, I hope later today, to his Committee’s report, and obviously will refer to the issue that he has raised.

European Convention on Human Rights

Hywel Francis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am tempted to give exactly the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as I gave to him earlier. What we are debating is Parliament’s saying, first, that the House supports the Government in recognising the qualified nature of article 8 and, secondly, that the basis on which article 8 can be qualified is set out in the immigration rules. It is open to hon. Members to pray against the immigration rules if they wish to debate them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asks whether we are agreeing to the immigration rules. What we are agreeing is that article 8 is qualified as set out in the immigration rules. There is then the separate issue—perhaps it would be helpful if I put it this way—of whether the immigration rules are prayed against and whether there is then a debate and a vote on those rules. I hope that I have helped him. There is a very important point at issue here: the courts have said that Parliament needs to give its views about the qualification of article 8 and that is what I am inviting hon. Members to do today.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am going to make some progress now. I apologise but I have taken several questions from one hon. Member and I want to make some progress.

I was talking about the cases we have had, and I note that there are issues at appeal stage. Last year, 1,888 appeals against deportation were lodged. Of the 409 successful appeals, 185—that is 45%—were allowed on article 8 grounds. Those are the consequences of having had immigration rules that do not properly set out the qualified nature of article 8. The new immigration rules state how the balance should be struck between the public interest and individual rights. They take into account relevant case law, evidence, independent advice and public consultation, and they provide clear instructions for UK Border Agency caseworkers about the approach they must normally take in deciding article 8 claims. They provide the basis for a consistent, fair and transparent decision-making process, and I ask the House to agree that they reflect how family migration should be controlled in the public interest. Once endorsed by the House, the new immigration rules will form a framework that Parliament considers is compatible with article 8, on which the courts can therefore place greater weight as a statement of the public interest.

I turn now to the criteria in the new immigration rules that will be used to judge claims under article 8 in practice. The particular aspects of the new family immigration rules that are relevant are those on criminality, the best interests of a child, the family or private life of non-criminals, and the income threshold.

Perhaps nothing has done more to damage public confidence in the immigration system than when serious foreign criminals have used flimsy article 8 claims to avoid removal from this country. The European convention on human rights is clear—those who commit crimes do not have an unqualified right to respect for private and family life. So we are changing the immigration rules to make clear Parliament’s view that if someone is a serious criminal, if they have not behaved according to the standards we expect in this country, a weak claim to family life is not going to get in the way of their deportation. There is no place in this country for foreign criminals who threaten our safety and security and who undermine our rights and freedoms.

If a foreign criminal has received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, deportation will normally be proportionate. Even if a criminal has received a shorter sentence, deportation will still normally be proportionate if their offending has caused serious harm or if they are a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law. So where a foreign criminal is sentenced to less than four years, where no children are involved, and where the criminal has been here lawfully for less than 15 years, discounting their time in prison, deportation will normally be proportionate, even if they have a genuine and ongoing relationship with a partner in the UK. Even if the criminal has been here lawfully for 15 years, unless there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing overseas, deportation will still normally be proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Under the convention, the question of whether someone will be subjected to torture relates not to article 8, but to article 3, I think—[Interruption.] I am getting nods from hon. Members. Of course, the European convention on human rights includes the statement that people should not be sent back to countries where they will be subject to torture, but the issue under discussion is one reason why, on a number of matters, we have negotiated with a number of countries throughout the world what is called “deportation with assurances”. This has been tested in the courts and enables us to deport individuals, with the assurance, which we have achieved through a memorandum of understanding, that they—individuals in those circumstances—will not be subject to torture when they are returned.

[Dr Francis]

Given the complexity of the changes and their number, instead of our having a debate today, would it not be more appropriate to refer the matter for scrutiny to some of the many Select Committees of this House, including my own? As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I raised the matter earlier this afternoon with its members, who agreed with me that this was a matter of considerable concern which should be referred to our Committee. To illustrate the issue’s complexities, I note that 75 years ago this month 6,000 Basque refugee children arrived in this country. Would they have been excluded under these new rules?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the work undertaken on the matter by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the hon. Gentleman chairs, and, if he wishes to see a debate about the immigration rules, it is of course entirely open to the Committee and, indeed, to the hon. Gentleman himself, as I indicated earlier, to pray against them, but today I am asking Parliament to say, “We recognise there is a qualified right, and that qualification is set out in the immigration rules agreed by the House.”

The new immigration rules will demand that, for non-criminals without children to remain in the UK on the basis of their family life, they will have to show that they are in a genuine relationship. If they can pay their way and meet the income threshold and other requirements, they can qualify for settlement after five years. If they cannot meet those requirements, but insurmountable obstacles to family life with their partner are continuing overseas, they can enter a 10-year route to settlement.

To remain in the UK on the basis of a private life, applicants must have resided continuously in the UK for at least 20 years, discounting any period of imprisonment; or they must be under 18 years old and have resided continuously in the UK for at least seven years; or they must be aged 18 or over but under 25 and have spent at least half their life residing continuously in the UK; or they must be aged 18 or over, have resided continuously in the UK for less than 20 years but have no social, cultural or family ties with their country of origin. If applicants qualify under those criteria, they will enter a 10-year route to settlement.

The European convention on human rights also makes it clear that article 8 may be interfered with to protect the economic well-being of the UK. Strasbourg case law has established that this includes controlling immigration. This Government believe that anyone who wishes to bring a foreign spouse, partner or dependant to the UK should be able to support them financially, and we sought advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on the minimum income level that would allow a British citizen or a person with settled status in the UK to support an immigrant partner or dependant.

Following that advice, we have set the income threshold at £18,600, a figure that was at the lower end of the range recommended by the Committee, but the level at which a sponsor can generally support themselves and a partner without accessing income-related benefits. Children, of course, involve additional costs to the state, particularly in schooling, so, again following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, the income threshold will rise to £22,400 for a partner and one child, with an additional £2,400 for each further child.

Both partners’ earnings from employment in the UK can be counted towards the new requirement, together with their non-employment and pension income, and significant savings can also be used to offset any deficit in income, but third-party support in the form of subsidies or undertakings will not be allowed.

An applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of a specified disability-related benefit or carer’s allowance will be exempt from the new financial requirement. We believe that the new financial requirements are necessary, proportionate and firmly in the public interest, and I trust Parliament will endorse that view.

It may be helpful to the House if I set out some examples of how the new rules might operate in practice. In a non-criminal context, there might be the example of a former student who came to the UK with his partner and one-year-old child. His relationship with his partner has now broken down, and he has seen his child—now aged four—only once in the last year. He has no role in the child’s daily care. His partner, also a student, continues to study, and she and the child will remain here for another year. As the former student’s course has now ended, he has applied under the family rules on the basis of his child. In this case, the child is not British and has not lived in the UK for the past seven years. The father is not a primary carer and does not appear to have a genuine and subsisting relationship with his child. His former partner is also here only on a temporary basis for one more year. The application would therefore be refused.

Another example might be that of a young married couple who met overseas. The woman subsequently came to the UK to study and they married here. The man is a British citizen who earns just less than the minimum income threshold, and the woman is no longer a student and is not working. The couple are genuine and their relationship is ongoing, and they may still be able to meet the income requirement, but if not, and if there is no evidence of any insurmountable obstacles to their continuing their family life together overseas, we would expect them to do so.

In criminal cases, there might be an example of a serious foreign criminal sentenced to four years imprisonment for class A drugs supply. He has no family in the UK but claims that over his previous 15 years in this country he has built up a substantial private life. This man’s crimes represent such a serious level of offending that they outweigh any article 8 issues. There is no evidence that his case is exceptional, and this criminal could expect to be deported.

Another foreign criminal is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for actual bodily harm. He has been in the UK lawfully for seven years before being sent to prison and has a partner who is settled in the UK. Again, there do not appear to be any exceptional circumstances in this case. The criminal has been lawfully resident in the UK for less than 15 years. It is therefore proportionate and in the public interest for this criminal to be deported.

For too long, the rights of foreign criminals have been placed above the rights of the British public, and for too long Parliament has not given its view on when it is proportionate to remove those criminals in the public interest. We are putting that right. We are making it clear that the British public’s right to protection from crime trumps a foreign criminal’s weak claim to family life, and we are allowing the views of those in Parliament, as the democratically elected representatives of the British people, to be heard on this issue loud and clear. We trust that the courts will give due weight to a statement from this House.

Today I have outlined common-sense proposals with which I hope all right hon. and hon. Members can agree. I ask the House to approve this motion and to let its views be heard. I commend the motion to the House.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Hywel Francis Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). It is striking that they both spoke, in essence, about what I will concentrate on this evening, which is the way in which the debate in Westminster Hall and the debate this evening have arrived at a consensus for reform on this major issue.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate, just as I congratulated him two weeks ago when he secured the debate in Westminster Hall. He is a stalwart member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and he is beginning to call me comrade. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate, following the recent and successful Westminster Hall debate, which showed such impressive, unanimous support for extradition reform and for strengthening the human rights of UK citizens, as recommended in my Committee’s report earlier this year.

I remind Members that this debate is about human rights. My purpose is simple: it is to give the motion my full support as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do so officially on behalf of the Joint Committee. I confirm that the motion embraces all the key recommendations of the Committee’s report, which was adopted unanimously. I got the sense that the two previous contributions endorsed the recommendations of my Committee. We await the Government’s response to our report and to the Baker review. Perhaps we will get a response this evening.

I respectfully suggest that there is a way forward for the Government. I believe that it will emerge in this debate, if it has not done so already. The debate will draw out the positives of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Baker review. Notwithstanding the criticisms of the Baker review, I think it is fair to say that there is a degree of consensus between the two. Without going into the details, I believe that there is consensus on legal representation, proportionality, a road map for suspects’ rights, the removal of European arrest warrant alerts, excessive pre-trial detention, time limits, people serving sentences in the UK, which many speakers have mentioned, and the Secretary of State’s discretion. The Government should see the merit of proceeding with that consensus as a starting point.

Beyond that, the Government should look carefully at the big fairness and human rights issues on which my Committee is more unequivocal and forthright, such as rebalancing the US-UK treaty, mistaken identity and the use—or, as I would say, the misuse—of the European arrest warrant as an aid to investigation, which is sometimes a travesty of justice.

I cannot recall a time in the decade since I entered the House when there has been such unanimity across the Back Benches. For that unanimity to be achieved on such a major policy area as the human rights of our citizens is gratifying to me as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, particularly given that extradition engages so many fundamental human rights, such as the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to liberty and security, the prohibition of discrimination, the right to respect for private and family life and, most fundamentally of all, the right to a fair trial. I believe that all Members are united in striving to achieve those fundamental human rights and long may that continue, throughout the length of this Parliament and beyond. I will end, Madam Deputy Speaker, by paraphrasing one of your great heroes and a fellow feminist, Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a great champion of human rights. She asked: if we do not defend human rights in our own back yard, how on earth can we fight for human rights universally?

Extradition

Hywel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). We both appeared before the Backbench Business Committee in support of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), with the full support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton on securing this important debate on extradition. I speak as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and am very pleased to fully support the hon. Gentleman. He is a member of my Committee, and I am delighted that he has strongly supported its unanimous and wise recommendations.

It is almost a year since the Committee announced our inquiry into extradition. The Baker review began a couple of months before our inquiry. My Committee’s intention was not so much directly to influence that separate process, but to set out for Parliament the human rights implications of current extradition policy, so that a more informed discussion could take place when the findings of the Baker review emerged. That has now happened and this debate is, I hope, just one part of that informed discussion. As many hon. Members have said, we hope that discussion will continue and take place somewhere more appropriate. I will say something about that in a moment.

It is disappointing that this debate is taking place in Westminster Hall. It seems to suggest that human rights issues are, somehow or other, not mainstream or important but peripheral, or that extradition is a small matter affecting very few people, most of whom appear to be deserving of whatever treatment they suffer in the countries to which they are extradited. That is not the case. We all know the cases that have attracted, quite rightly, a great deal of public attention: Gary McKinnon in terms of the UK-US extradition treaty, and Julian Assange in terms of the European arrest warrant. I should place on record my gratitude, as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for the way in which so many hon. Members today have spoken up in support of their own constituents.

There are many less well-known cases that deserve attention. There are cases that include flagrant injustice, unfair treatment and even mistaken identity, as we have already heard. My Committee was privileged to hear the moving evidence given by many of the people involved, such as Andrew Symeou, Deborah Dark and Edmond Arapi. Nor are we dealing with only a handful of cases. In 2009-10, 699 UK citizens were surrendered to other European Union countries under the European arrest warrant alone.

I must emphasise that human rights are massively important. This is a human rights debate, and debates on human rights should attract the attention of as many hon. Members as possible, and should be a matter for the main Chamber. It is very gratifying, as a number of Members have already said, to see so many Members here today supporting human rights. Extradition engages a number of different human rights: article 3, prohibition of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment; article 5, right to liberty and security; article 6, right to a fair trial; article 8, right to respect for private and family life; and article 14, prohibition of discrimination. We have heard many examples of what we would consider breaches of those human rights this afternoon.

Extradition agreements are vital, and this country has benefited from agreements that enable us to bring foreign citizens or absconders to justice here in the UK. Citizens of one state must not be immune from the laws of another. If you are accused of a crime, you must face justice, and it may be right to do so in the state where the crime was committed. However, does our shared common legal framework and belief in human rights mean that we can rely on the operation of justice equally across Europe or, indeed, across the world?

We cannot take comparable standards of justice for granted. Our inquiry showed that although the European arrest warrant has brought benefits in terms of a quicker, more streamlined system of justice in Europe, it does not have the right safeguards to guarantee human rights protection; nor does the US-UK bilateral extradition treaty, as we have already heard. It is an important feature of our system that some rights may be qualified, and that there is a just and proportionate balance between the interests of the state and the interests of the individual; for example, in freedom from discrimination, and the right to privacy and family life.

Some rights engaged by extradition are the most fundamental: liberty and security, and the right to a fair trial—both of which are only qualified in times of war or public emergency—and freedom from torture, or inhuman and degrading treatment. That is, of course, an absolute non-derogable right. Our Committee’s report highlighted areas where human rights are at risk, and set out the changes that would provide the robust protection needed. First, we said that Parliament should be asked to commence the “most appropriate forum” safeguard in the Police and Justice Act 2006. That would require the judge to consider whether it is in the interest of justice for the individual to be tried in the requesting country, and to refuse the extradition request if it is not. There should be a requirement to show a prima facie case, or a similarly robust evidential threshold, which would mean that a court could refuse extradition if it was not satisfied that a country had shown that there was a case to answer. A proportionality principle should be added to the EAW, to ensure that the human rights implications of extradition are not disproportionate to the alleged crime.

The Government should ensure that the human rights bar is effective in practice as well as in law. Although the bar requires the judge to consider whether extradition is compatible with the human rights of the individual concerned, the threshold set by case law here is very high indeed, allowing material such as reports of the UN Committee against Torture to be regarded as evidence of possible human rights abuses. That would strengthen protection.

Access to legal representation needs to be reviewed. Present provision is patchy and often woefully inadequate. We need to ensure that other EU member states do not use the EAW for purposes of investigation—or, as some hon. Members have already said, fishing expeditions—rather than trial. Finally, in relation to the notoriously asymmetrical UK-US extradition treaty, the Government should level the playing field. The proof required when extraditing a person to the US must be raised to the same standard as that required when extraditing from the US to the UK.

The Baker review has now reported. It might seem churlish to take issue with a review that seems to be so comprehensive, but many members of my Committee, and I am one of them, are disappointed to note that in many areas the review has not drawn the same conclusions as the Committee’s report. However, we are encouraged that the review supports my Committee’s conclusion about the need for better legal representation for those subject to extradition proceedings. Likewise, the review finds that any future amendment to the framework decision underpinning the EAW should include a proportionality test to be applied in the issuing state. That broadly echoes a recommendation from our report.

The Baker review also came to similar conclusions to my Committee on the issues of excessive pre-trial detention, maintaining current limits at the discretion of the Secretary of State, with sentences served in the UK for those whose custodial sentences are 12 months or less. That gives the Committee some hope that there might be areas where the Government can move more quickly when consensus suggests a clear and simple path. I do not intend to analyse or criticise the review on areas where its conclusions differ from those of my Committee. We may decide to revisit the whole area in the light of the review’s findings.

Unfortunately, the Baker review and my Committee’s report diverge on some of the most important aspects of extradition, such as forum, the requirement for a prima facie case, and the fairness of what seemed clearly to the Committee to be an unbalanced US-UK treaty. It is gratifying to hear so many hon. Members supporting my Committee’s position, rather than the Baker review.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

On the point about the forum bar and the other test that the hon. Gentleman has described, one of the criticisms of that in the panel was that, in addition to adding extra cost, it would delay the process. Does his Committee have a view, where extradition is justified, about whether having those safeguards would in any way impede that process?

[Dr Francis]

I am sure my Committee has a view. I am a bit anxious not to get involved in individual cases, but as I have already indicated, my Committee is strongly in support of the principle of extradition. What we are debating today are the flaws and weaknesses in the processes. The Government have a unique opportunity to address the issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the points that she has made.

I wish to probe the Government on their intentions, as do many hon. Members here today, and on the timeline for decisions to be made in this area. I have no doubt that the Government may well hurry a little more if we have the opportunity to debate the matter in the Chamber.

When the Baker review reported, my Committee agreed that I should write to the Home Secretary to seek information about when the Government would respond to the review and to my Committee’s report. This week, we received a reply that was broadly unhelpful: a response will be made “as soon as practicable”. Can the Minister give some sense of what that expression means?

The Attorney-General was asked about the review and its findings in the main Chamber last week. When he referred to them as “guidelines”, there was some speculation that he was implying that the Government were distancing themselves a little. That may or may not be the case, but can the Minister spell out whether, when the Government consider the review’s findings, they will also be considering not only my Committee’s report, which comes to different conclusions in some areas, but other important reports, which have been mentioned this afternoon, by such bodies as Justice and Fair Trials International?

It would be good to hear from the Minister that the Government consider the matter urgent, and as far as we are concerned, judging by the strength of unanimous feeling this afternoon, it is urgent. Some changes can be made quickly, even if others might take longer to decide upon and resolve. The rights of our citizens must be protected against the sorts of injustice that have traumatised so many people and their families, many of whom gave evidence to our inquiry.

[Mr Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Public Order Policing

Hywel Francis Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There have been a number of suggestions that further demonstrations will take place, and I expect the police to continue to deal with such demonstrations robustly.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has excellent guidelines on kettling or containment. Does she agree that in the future—never mind what has happened in the past—it would be good to focus specifically on communication between the organisers of demonstrations and the police?

[Mrs May]

Yes, there are guidelines on the use of kettling, when it is appropriate and how it should be undertaken. As for communications between the police and organisers, one of the features of the demonstrations that have taken place so far is that although the police have taken great pains to communicate with the organisers, sadly the organisers have then not appeared to be able to maintain the demonstration as originally suggested. We have seen a number of violent people doing what they want to do, which is to create criminal damage and violence at the heart of those demonstrations, and that is something that we must all condemn. Peaceful protest is appropriate, and we want to enable it to happen, but violent protest is not.