Yarl’s Wood

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

Detention is an important part of a firm but fair immigration system. It is right that those with no right to remain in the UK are returned to their home country if they will not leave voluntarily, but a sense of fairness must always be at the heart of our immigration system, including for those we are removing from the UK. That is why the allegations made by Channel 4 about Serco staff at Yarl’s Wood are serious and deeply concerning, it is why they required an immediate response to address them, and it is why the Government have ensured that that is being done.

All immigration removal centres are subject to the detention centre rules approved by this House in 2001. Those rules, and further operational guidance, set out the standards that we all expect to ensure that the safety and dignity of detainees is upheld. No form of discrimination is tolerated. In addition to the rules, removal centres are subject to regular independent inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and by independent monitoring boards that publish their findings. The chairman of the independent monitoring board for Yarl’s Wood is Mary Coussey, the former independent race monitor. The most recent inspection by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons found Yarl’s Wood to be a safe and respectful centre that is continuing to improve. The last annual report of the independent monitoring board commented positively on the emphasis placed on purposeful activities within the centre and the expansion of welfare provision, and raised no concerns about safety. None the less, the Home Office expects the highest levels of integrity and professionalism from all its contractors and takes any allegations of misconduct extremely seriously. As soon as we were made aware of the recent allegations, Home Office officials visited Yarl’s Wood to secure assurances that all detainees were being treated in a safe and dignified manner.

The director general of immigration enforcement has written to Serco making our expectations about its response to these allegations very clear. We told Serco that it must act quickly and decisively to eradicate the kinds of attitudes that appear to have been displayed by its staff. Serco immediately suspended one member of staff who could be identified from information available before the broadcast, and has suspended another having seen the footage. The company has also commissioned an independent review of its culture and staffing at Yarl’s Wood. This will be conducted for Serco by Kate Lampard, who, as the House will be aware, recently produced the “lessons learned” review of the Jimmy Savile inquiries for the Department of Health. However, more needs to be done. The Home Office has made it clear that we expect to see the swift and comprehensive introduction of body-worn cameras for staff at Yarl’s Wood. In addition, we have discussed with Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons how he might provide further independent assurance.

This Government have a proud record of working to protect vulnerable people in detention. We have reviewed the Mental Health Act 1983 and set out proposals for legislative change as a result; held a summit on policing and mental health, highlighting in particular the concerns of black and ethnic minority people; and commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake a review of vulnerable people in police custody that will be published shortly. Before these allegations were made, the Home Secretary commissioned Stephen Shaw, the former prisons and probation ombudsman for England and Wales, to lead an independent review of welfare in the whole immigration detention estate. We will of course invite him to consider these allegations as part of that overarching review.

This country has a long tradition of tolerance and respect for human rights. Detaining those with no right to remain here and who refuse to leave voluntarily is key to maintaining an effective immigration system. But we are clear that all detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. We will accept nothing but the highest standards from those to whom we entrust the responsibility of their care.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question and the Minister for her answer and her explanation of why the Minister for Security and Immigration is not here today. I am very pleased to see the two local MPs, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller).

Channel 4’s film on Yarl’s Wood, shown last night, revealed shocking footage about the detention centre, which has been under heavy criticism for the treatment of its 400 detainees since 2001. What was uncovered was deeply disturbing. Serious questions were raised over standards of health care in Yarl’s Wood. What was detailed included examples of self-harm by detainees, including three women who jumped from the stairs and people slashing their wrists in an attempt not to be removed. It took a freedom of information request to reveal that there were 74 separate incidents of self-harm needing medical treatment at the centre in 2013. Guards who appeared in the footage merely dismissed information about people harming themselves as “attention seeking”. Will the Minister explain why her ministerial colleague, Lord Bates, told Parliament on 24 February that there had been no serious incidents of self-harm taking place in the past two years?

Arguably the most concerning element was the contempt that was shown for detainees through the use of racist, sexist and generally abusive and degrading language. We saw a guard advocating violence towards a person who was detained there. One guard said:

“Headbutt the bitch…I’d beat her up.”

Another was recorded as saying:

“They’re animals. They’re beasties. They’re all animals. Caged animals. Take a stick with you and beat them up.”

These are appalling statements that should never be tolerated by anybody, particularly from employees of a company in receipt of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Yarl’s Wood is not a prison but an immigration centre that has a duty to protect some of the most vulnerable, who are in most cases escaping violence and instability in their countries of origin in search of a better life. Frankly, some are there because the Home Office has taken such a long time to deal with their cases. Instead of being protected, detainees are verbally abused and poorly treated.

This is not the first time that Yarl’s Wood has been the subject of parliamentary criticism. The Home Affairs Committee has been highly critical of the centre’s performance following damning reports of sexual misconduct and excessively long detentions. Of course I welcome the suspension of one of the people involved, and the fact that an independent inquiry is to be established, but the Minister is absolutely right that more needs to be done. We need a timetable for that inquiry. Will she send in her inspectors not just to visit but to write a report having spoken to detainees?

Has the Minister spoken to Rupert Soames, the chief executive of Serco, to express the Government’s concern? Serco’s right to bid for other contracts should be suspended pending any review. Despite reports of catastrophic failings in November last year, Serco was awarded an eight-year, £70 million contract at Yarl’s Wood. Will the Minister look at her procurement processes? All of Serco’s contracts should be reviewed immediately. The Select Committee has recommended in the past that those who fail the taxpayer should be put on a register and should not be given any other contracts. Only a few months ago, the Lord Chancellor sent in the Serious Fraud Office in order to discover why Serco had overcharged the taxpayer by £70 million.

I agree with the Minister that this treatment is inhumane. The United Kingdom has a reputation as a world leader in human rights—that is clear from the number of people who risk their lives to come here—and we simply cannot allow this behaviour to continue in a centre that has a duty to protect them.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, for all that he and his Committee have done over many years to highlight problems in immigration detention centres. In 2009, his Committee reported specifically on UK Border Agency immigration detention centres, and this Government legislated to implement its recommendations.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are all shocked and appalled by the evidence we have seen, and action must be taken. Hon. Members should be under no illusions: this Government are breathing down the neck of Serco, and we want to see action swiftly.

The right hon. Gentleman said that one person has been suspended. In fact, one person was suspended before the broadcast. We were unable to see the programme before it was broadcast, but on the basis of evidence available before the broadcast, one person was suspended. Another has since been suspended, and I know that Serco will shortly look at whether to suspend others.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to a comment about self-harm by my colleague the noble Lord Bates in the other place. In fact, Lord Bates said that there were no cases of suicide or attempted suicide in Yarl’s Wood, and that is correct. There is evidence of self-harm, which we take extremely seriously, but there have been no suicides or attempted suicides.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the language and behaviour of the staff is completely and totally inappropriate. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that this Government and this House take that very seriously. The message to Serco is that this needs to be sorted out and needs to be sorted out quickly.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I spoke this morning to the chair of the independent monitoring board at Yarl’s Wood, and she is shocked and horrified about what was shown on television last night. There is no justification for what we saw, and the action taken by the Government and Serco is quite right. What bothers me is that we are here again: this is not new. I am also bothered by the disparity. The Minister was quite right to refer to a series of reports from the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, whom we all know, and to the report of Mary Coussey of the independent monitoring board, but those reports are at odds and at variance with such individual incidents. These incidents keep happening, and I do not know who is missing what.

As the review takes place, as it must, I urge the Minister to look at this point in particular. Over a period of time, I have pleaded with the Government to allow proper journalistic access to and transparency in Yarl’s Wood—if the press cannot get in one way, they will get in another. There is also the refusal to allow the UN rapporteur the opportunity to go in. The regime in Yarl’s Wood is completely different from the one originally set up by the previous Government. I have seen it change over many years, but there is no way to convince people of that unless they can get in. As well as dealing with this incident, will she look at the disparity between the reports and such incidents, because we should not have to meet in the Chamber and discuss this again in future?

[Karen Bradley]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all his work, as the local constituency MP for Yarl’s Wood, in highlighting problems in the past. I am sure he agrees that to have a fair immigration system, there comes a point at which some form of detention is needed for people who refuse to leave the country voluntarily, but they must be detained with dignity and fairness to ensure that they are treated with respect.

My right hon. Friend will know that Stephen Shaw is carrying out a review of the whole immigration detention estate, and I look forward to that report. He will also know that the independent monitoring board has the keys to Yarl’s Wood: it can access Yarl’s Wood at any time. Knowing that, and given the review that is taking place, we will look at everything to make sure we have certainty and can be confident that detainees are treated with dignity.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The revelations on Channel 4 were shocking, but they were not at all new or even surprising for many of us who have worked with people in Yarl’s Wood over the years. It is eight years since I worked with a 13-year-old girl who attempted suicide in Yarl’s Wood and was taken to Bedford hospital, where she was shackled to her bed by prison guards. Since then, we have had numerous reports from charities and independent monitors about sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, self-harm and mental health problems left untreated. This is not just about isolated individuals.

I would say to the Minister that a system run for profit and to targets leaves very little room for compassion or humanity. Although it is absolutely right that individuals are prosecuted and brought to justice for the shocking things that we saw on Channel 4 last night, it is about time that we got a grip on the system. Will she make sure that the review of detention includes the impacts of private sector, for-profit involvement in detention on some of the most vulnerable people in this country?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady talks about having worked in this area for many years, including things she saw eight years ago. I agree that things were wrong and that they need to improve. This Government are proud of the measures we have taken—for example, on stop-and-search and mental health in custody—and the review we have instigated from Stephen Shaw is the next step in a natural progression to ensuring we safeguard people while treating detainees with appropriate dignity. I do not think that the question is about whether that is done through the public sector or the private sector; the question is about how we make sure that people in detention are treated with the dignity that they should rightly have. We are all shocked by what we have seen, and we need to make sure that it is rectified.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

I have chaired a cross-party inquiry on the issue of immigration detention, and our report was published this morning. The panel’s concern is that if the response to the scandal at Yarl’s Wood focuses only on conditions, it is likely to tackle just symptoms, rather than the underlying causes. The Minister says that the question is about how people are treated in detention, but our question is why some of these people are in detention in the first place. Our evidence suggests that most of the problems arise because we detain too many people for far too long and inappropriately.

Will the Minister commit the Government to responding in full to our inquiry? In particular, will she look at the international evidence we have presented, which suggests that there is a cheaper, more humane and more effective way of operating by making better use of community alternatives?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and ceaselessly on this issue, and I pay tribute to her and her committee for the report. I have a copy of it, and I have to say that it is quite lengthy. I have not had a chance to get through all its points, but I assure her that I will look at it, and I will make sure that we respond to it.

My hon. Friend talks about the fact that more people are detained. It is important to make it clear that we have taken measures so that when people arrive clandestinely in the UK, we can be certain who they are—their nationality and identity—and ensure that they pose no risk to the British public. I do not apologise for putting the safety and security of the British public first and foremost when someone arrives clandestinely by making sure that they are who they say they are, while treating them appropriately.

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

Women in Yarl’s Wood are detained on the instruction of the Home Office, and the Home Secretary is therefore responsible for ensuring that they are treated humanely. There is a history of problems at Yarl’s Wood going back many years, but we were told that it had been dealt with.

Yet in September 2013 it was reported that women at Yarl’s Wood had been sexually assaulted by guards from Serco, which the Home Secretary had contracted to manage the centre. I called on her to set up an independent inquiry, but she did not. In March 2014, a woman died in Yarl’s Wood. I asked an urgent question in the House, and again called on the Home Secretary to set up an independent inquiry. She would not come to the House, and she did not set up an inquiry. In May, more allegations came out, including that another vulnerable woman was sexually assaulted, and that a woman who poured boiling water over herself was left for hours in a state of shock. I called on the Home Secretary to set up a proper independent inquiry, and I again called on her to do so at the end of last year.

The Home Secretary has repeatedly refused to establish an independent inquiry, refused to investigate allegations of rape and sexual abuse, refused to let even the UN rapporteur visit and refused to come to this House to answer for it.

Instead, in November, the Home Secretary renewed Serco’s contract. She gave the company whose guards stand accused of abuse a contract for another eight years. We called on her to have an inquiry before she renewed the contract and she refused. Last month, she said that she would review the policies and procedures in detention centres. Again, that should have been done before the contract was renewed.

Here we are again with even more serious allegations. A pregnant woman was left to have a miscarriage without getting all the medical support she needed. Guards are calling women “animals”, with one saying,

“Take a stick with you and beat them up.”

Those are the Serco guards to whom the Home Secretary gave the contract just a few months ago. There is no point in Ministers pretending to be shocked at the news of abuse—it is not news. Even now, Ministers have not set up an independent inquiry; Serco has. We are leaving it to the company to set up the independent inquiry that should have been set up by the Home Office.

The Home Secretary should have come to the House today to answer this question. What has been happening is an utter disgrace, as is the continued failure to look into it. The Minister has been sent out to defend the indefensible. She should go back and tell the Home Secretary to take some responsibility for a change, to stop pregnant women and victims of sexual violence being held in Yarl’s Wood, and to hold a proper independent inquiry, because this is state-sanctioned abuse of women on the Home Secretary’s watch, and it needs to end now.

[Karen Bradley]

It is very disappointing that the right hon. Lady comes to this House, not having called for the urgent question, and makes comments about the Home Secretary not being here. She knows that the Home Secretary is at No. 10 at the moment dealing with child abuse—something that we all agree is an incredibly important, urgent matter that needs to be dealt with.

It is also disappointing that the right hon. Lady talks about abuses at Yarl’s Wood. Let us remember what the report on the announced inspection of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre in 2008 said. Let us remember who was in government at that time. The report stated:

“we were dismayed to find cases of disabled children being detained and some children spending large amounts of time incarcerated.”

It said:

“Escort vehicles with caged compartments were inappropriately used to transport children.”

It is this Government who have legislated to end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

In 2008, just 68% of detainees said that most staff treated them with respect. The figure is now 84%. The report said:

“Not enough was done to communicate with detainees who spoke little English”.

It said:

“Women complained about the food. Healthcare needed further improvement, particularly to address mental health and child health needs.”

That was the report in 2008 under the right hon. Lady’s Government. It is this Government who have looked to ensure that those things are dealt with.

We have set up the review. We have set up the review into the whole immigration detention estate that is being led by Stephen Shaw. I am confident that he will uncover the abuse.

The right hon. Lady asked about the renewal of Serco’s contract. Let us remember what the policy is. The rules that determine the renewal of contracts were drawn up by Parliament in 2001. That is a rigorous and robust process, and it was set up by her Government. We will take no lessons on this matter from the Labour party. We have a proud record and we will root out the abuse.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The individual employees at Yarl’s Wood let down their colleagues, their company and their country with their vile comments, which were exposed on Channel 4. However, the issue is not just individual people; it is the policy of the overuse of detention in managing immigration. That policy was introduced by the last Labour Government and has been continued by the coalition Government. When will the two Front Benches wake up and smell the coffee? Immigration detention is costly, ineffective and unjust. It costs millions of pounds a year. Some 70% of people who go into immigration detention go back into the community. These experiences in Yarl’s Wood are a stain on the conscience of this country.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the work that he has done as the constituency Member of Parliament for Yarl’s Wood. He is right that the individuals in question have let down many people. He is also right that it is not just about the individuals. We need to get to the bottom of what is going on there and to understand it exactly. The measures that we have insisted that Serco undertake urgently, including the use of body-worn cameras by all staff, will make a difference by exposing where there is abuse.

My hon. Friend talked about people being in detention for too long. I agree that people have been kept in detention for too long. That has happened because the previous Government’s immigration system allowed up to 17 appeals. The Immigration Act 2014, which we brought in, brings that number down to four. I hope that we will see a difference in the length of time people spend in detention. It is not something that any of us want to see, but it is a necessary evil if we are to have a fair, robust immigration system.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am disappointed that the Minister is reacting in the way that she is. This is a very important issue. It is a stain on our country’s reputation for human rights. Does she agree that we all have to learn from the tradition of using these big, monopolistic companies? G4S let us down at the Olympics, Serco is involved in this case, Capita was involved in the tagging of individuals and now the Government are putting our probation service out to one of these companies. When will we learn that these companies have poor management, the wrong ethic, the wrong culture and the wrong priorities? It is about time we changed all that.

[Karen Bradley]

I think it was the previous Government who used private contracts. Private companies are not necessarily bad; they just have to be properly managed.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Yarl’s Wood has been a disgrace for well over a decade. It was a disgrace under the last Government and it is a disgrace under this Government. When children were detained there, they were left at serious risk of harm. We now have adults being left at serious risk of harm. That is completely unacceptable. Yes, the individual employees were at fault; yes, the company is at fault, but changing that will not fix the system. Getting in a new company, a new organisation and new employees will not solve the problem. What we have to do, as is suggested in the report by the panel that was chaired so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), is completely rethink the system. No other country in Europe has indefinite detention and holds people for years on end. I hope that the Minister will look at that again. I hope that the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State will look at the report and change their policy.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend referred to children being treated badly in Yarl’s Wood. He will know that this Government have taken action and stopped that. I will look at the report, as I have said. I look forward to seeing what suggestions have been made. It is worth repeating that we have reduced from 17 to four the number of appeals a detainee can make against their removal. It is also worth saying that 63% of detainees are released within 28 days. We need to get that percentage up, but we also need to ensure that the system is fair for those who play by the rules.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I have been sickened by and ashamed at the reports about the treatment of detainees at Yarl’s Wood that we have seen this week and on so many previous occasions. I am also ashamed of some of the partisan comments that have been made in the discussion this afternoon. They are of absolutely no interest to the women I have met who have spent time in Yarl’s Wood and who have emerged incredibly distressed. I ask that we all think about the tone in which we conduct this discussion.

May I ask the Minister a specific question about the investigations and reviews that are taking place? In the past, there have been reports that women who have evidence to give or victims of abuse have been deported before their cases could be properly investigated. What assurances will she give that that will not happen, that all the evidence will be gathered in, and that those who have a story to tell will be heard and will remain in this country to tell it?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady is right to say that this is about the people—I absolutely agree with her about that. It is the victims of abuse that we really need to think about and put at the forefront of what we are doing. She will know that, through the Modern Slavery Bill, we are introducing new protections for victims of trafficking, including those who come to light in detention. I heard a horrific story recently about somebody who had been treated as a victim of domestic abuse, but it was only when her immigration status began to be questioned and she ended up in an immigration detention centre that she came forward and said that she was a victim of trafficking as well. It is absolutely paramount that front-line staff receive training to make sure that they can identify those victims so that we can get them into the national referral mechanism, give them the support they need and catch the evil perpetrators of those crimes. I totally agree with the hon. Lady that that must be at the forefront of what we are doing.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Detention is part of the immigration system, but we must ensure that all detainees are treated in a safe and dignified manner. On Sunday, I met a local family who are very concerned that a family member with mental health issues will shortly be detained before being deported. Although I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, will she say more about what is being done to ensure that those with mental health issues are safely detained if they need to be detained?

[Karen Bradley]

As my hon. Friend says, I cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but it clearly sounds like a heart-rending situation. We have taken action to make sure that those suffering from mental health conditions are not detained in police custody, and we are taking steps to ensure that they are not detained in immigration detention.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that about two thirds of the women in Yarl’s Wood are there for more than a month. Overwhelmingly, these are people who have not been convicted, or even accused, of any crime, but who are put in administrative detention for extended periods. What is the Minister doing to make sure that they have the high-quality legal advice and representation they require to make sure that their case is properly heard before she organises their removal?

[Karen Bradley]

To correct the hon. Lady, she said that two thirds are held for more than a month, but 63% are discharged within 28 days and either removed or released. The issue with the length of time for which people are detained is that the system that we inherited had too many layers, too many procedures and too many appeals, which meant that we could not get to the bottom of whether somebody was right to claim asylum or whether they should be returned to their home. By reducing the number of appeals to four, I hope we will see a shorter time period.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The managing director of Serco’s home affairs business has said that an independent review was required because the

“public will want to be confident that Yarl’s Wood is doing its difficult task with professionalism, care and humanity”.

Given the catalogue of shame and controversy over many years, is not the only way to regain public confidence to strip Serco of its responsibility for running Yarl’s Wood?

[Karen Bradley]

I do not think that the answer is to strip Serco of its responsibility; the answer is to make sure that we get to the bottom of what has happened. My hon. Friend is right to say that any form of abuse is an embarrassment. We need the public not just to see that there are no problems, but to believe that there are no problems. We need them to be happy that detainees are being treated in an appropriate and acceptable way. We are holding Serco’s feet to the fire: I want to see action, we are making sure that it takes action, and we will take action against it if we need to.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

In her opening remarks, the Minister said that a recent inspection had found Yarl’s Wood to be safe. Clearly, it is not. Could she explain the discrepancy between the reality and the inspection report, and what is she doing about it?

[Karen Bradley]

As I said in my opening comments, there have been a number of inspections of Yarl’s Wood by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons and the independent monitoring board, which, as I have said, has the keys to Yarl’s Wood and can go in any time it wants. We have found no evidence that anybody is at risk. However, the allegations made in last night’s programme are very serious and we need to get to the bottom of them and take action.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

The recent footage was disturbing, but, unfortunately, allegations of sexual abuse of vulnerable women and abuse at the centre are not new. Given the apparent gulf between official reports, what the Minister has said today and life at Yarl’s Wood, and given that we have seen so many repeated failures over such a long time and the reluctance of Ministers to act so far, can we be confident that change will really happen?

[Karen Bradley]

It is not fair to say that Ministers have been reluctant to take action—we have taken significant action. This urgent question follows an urgent question about Oxfordshire county council, and a summit on child sexual abuse is taking place at Downing street today. There needs to be a sea change in how all people in authority and all bodies treat allegations and victims. We all have a responsibility to take this seriously.

Home Department

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Ministerial Corrections

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of changes in the level of cyber and online crime in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We take cybercrime very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

[Official Report, 9 February 2015, Vol. 592, c. 542.]

Letter of correction from Karen Bradley:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) during Questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The correct response should have been:

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We take cyber security very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

This Government are determined to stamp out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. Research carried out by the Home Office estimates that in 2013, the number of potential victims in the UK was between 10,000 and 13,000. This was included in the Government’s modern slavery strategy published in November, which sets out the wide range of actions being taken across Government to tackle modern slavery.

[Margot James]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the West Midlands police on Operation Sentinel, which is leading a campaign this month to train 1,100 front-line officers to identify victims of modern slavery, safeguard them and raise public awareness of the signs of slavery and the need for people to report any suspicions they may have?

[Karen Bradley]

I absolutely will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the West Midlands police. It is exactly this type of initiative that will raise awareness and help us to tackle this dreadful crime. It is only by identifying the victims, and by people knowing how to identify the victims, that we will find them and give them the support they need.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is the Minister at all concerned at the failure to ensure that the monitoring of private fostering arrangements for children from abroad actually takes place, which means that we could be missing completely a potential level of modern slavery?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but through the work in the Modern Slavery Bill and through the strategy, we are absolutely determined that we will find all victims of slavery; and for children we are trialling child trafficking advocates so that we can ensure that children get exactly the support they need to give them the best opportunity in life.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

7. What further steps she is taking to protect the UK from terrorism in response to recent attacks in Paris.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We have developed a programme of activity to tackle the important issue of the manufacture and use of false identities, working closely with the national policing lead on identity crime.

[Sir David Amess]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill, which is being taken through its final stages in the House of Lords by Baroness Berridge, is vital to tackling the dire situation that is being caused by identity fraud?

[Karen Bradley]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his Bill, which the Government fully support. I know that, once it has completed its passage through the other place, it will make a significant difference to the tackling of identity crime.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

9. What recent representations she has received on the level of rural crime; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of changes in the level of cyber and online crime in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [Official Report, 23 February 2015, Vol. 593, c. 1-2MC.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We take cybercrime very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

[Julie Hilling]

Two of my constituents lost £250,000 due to identity theft and were simply referred to Action Fraud where they were given no information. What is the Minister doing to improve the performance of Action Fraud and to boost the resources of each local police force?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady and I have had several conversations about Action Fraud and I welcome her comments on real-life examples and what is going on. I am working with Action Fraud on an improvement plan. As she knows, the City of London police now have responsibility for both Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, and since moving to the City of London police, Action Fraud has disseminated over 40,000 crime packages to local police forces. However, we can and must do more to ensure that the victim knows about what happens and feels they have been taken seriously.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Cybercrime knows no national boundaries. Is this not a good example where working closely with others in Europe through the European Cybercrime Centre and Interpol will help us better develop systems to tackle cybercrime and keep us all safe?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Europol is doing very important work to tackle cybercrime—that high-level malware-type crime that can have a major impact on businesses and infrastructure. Through the Serious Crime Bill we are introducing additional offences to tackle the serious misuse of the internet to impact on national infrastructure.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that there are now delays of more than 12 months in processing and investigating some cases of online child abuse that have been reported to the National Crime Agency?

[Karen Bradley]

I do not recognise that statistic. The NCA is working very hard, and we have seen from the success of Operation Notarise just what it can achieve. I work closely with it, and I know it takes this issue extremely seriously and it will make sure all crimes are investigated appropriately.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

For many of my constituents who have experienced crime in respect of their commercial enterprises, Action Fraud’s response has been little more than a mapping exercise. Will the Minister urge the Metropolitan police and all police forces to put this sort of commercial crime right up on the agenda?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that we need all local police forces, including the Metropolitan police, to take that seriously. I would be keen to hear about the examples from his constituents in order to assist my work on the improvement plan we have put in place to make sure Action Fraud delivers what victims of crime need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

T2. May I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s Serious Crime Bill? Among other measures, it will improve the safety of my constituents on the Isle of Wight and in other coastal communities by giving police and others the powers they need to really go after the Mr Bigs and organised crime gangs, including those that import illegal drugs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Serious Crime Bill, which contains a number of important measures to tackle those Messrs Bigs about whom he talks, including the ability to seize their assets. If we can deprive criminals of their assets, they are much less likely to be able to carry on with their criminal lives.

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

The Home Secretary should have called an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse by Serco staff at Yarl’s Wood 18 months ago, before, and not after, renewing Serco’s contract. Yesterday, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, national lead on counter-terrorism, said that the police face serious increases in pressure as a result of Syria and that

“We certainly need more money”.

Peter Clarke, former national lead on counter-terror, has warned that fighting terrorism depends on a “golden thread” through national, regional and neighbourhood police, yet the scale of cuts means that the thread is being broken. The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that the Home Secretary’s plans mean that 34,000 police jobs and more than 16,000 further police officers will go over the next five years. Does she agree that the police need more resources to tackle terrorism, and if so, why does she want to cut 16,000 more police officers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

T7. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s announcement today of a review of visa arrangements for people coming from overseas to work in people’s homes. Can she provide the House with a few more details about the review, including timings?

[Karen Bradley]

I can give my hon. Friend some further information. The terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Library, so they are available to see. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced, James Ewins, whom those who served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee will recognise as an adviser to that Committee, is carrying out the review. It is important to say that the measures to protect victims of modern slavery apply to all victims of modern slavery, irrespective of their immigration status. There are some people who give the impression that overseas domestic workers do not qualify for support under the modern slavery strategy. That is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

We know that as internet trading grows, there is a massive growth in online crime and fraud, including by organised criminals. How can the Government say that crime is falling when these crimes are not recorded in the crime survey? When will Ministers start to include them?

[Karen Bradley]

As the hon. Lady knows, fraud has historically been an under-reported crime. Action Fraud is trying to get reporting levels up. I am working closely with Action Fraud, City of London police and others to improve investigation rates and make sure that the victims understand what is happening.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her strong stand against anti-Semitism, but can she tell the House what further action she can take to make sure that the perpetrators are brought to justice for anti-Semitic attacks and any other forms of hate crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that one in 20 cardholders in Britain have been victims of plastic fraud and that levels of fraud reported by Action Fraud have gone up by 10% over the past year. She says that she is trying hard to do something. When will she succeed?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady knows that we need to increase the reporting of fraud. The dedicated cheque and plastic crime unit, which is run by the City of London police and the Metropolitan police and works with Financial Fraud Action UK, is doing an enormous amount of work to improve that. Also, given that the UK has significantly higher levels of plastic payment than other parts of the world, we should be very proud of the great advances we have seen, including with chip and pin and contactless payment, which are incredibly safe here in Britain.

Commonwealth Immigration and Visas

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing a debate on this important matter, not least because it gives me a welcome opportunity to provide an update on the progress we have made.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) spoke about the links that we have with the Commonwealth, particularly through world war one. On Holocaust memorial day, we should remember the links we need to have across the world. If we understand each other’s way of life, we will see that we all want the same things and we will maintain peace. The Commonwealth and the EU both have an important role to play in that respect. I hate to do this to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I respect enormously, but I am sure that he meant to say “commemorate” rather than “celebrate” world war one. I am sure that the record will be corrected accordingly, because I know that he would not have wished to give a false impression.

I will endeavour to address all the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has raised. In answer to his first question, which was a request for a meeting, I am happy to agree and I hope that it can be organised shortly.

There is much to be gained from promoting the trade, educational and strategic capabilities of the Commonwealth, and we are doing a lot of work on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) talked about the work that the Government have done to forge links with Commonwealth countries, particularly, in his case, India. I pay tribute to him for his excellent work in, for example, leading trade delegations to ensure that we maximise those opportunities. Businesses in all our constituencies benefit from trade with Europe and with Commonwealth partners. That is incredibly important and should not be forgotten.

I believe that our offer to students to stay in the UK after their studies is an excellent example of the work that we are doing. I will talk later about some of the things we do with students to ensure that Commonwealth students benefit. The building of links with the Commonwealth should never be to the detriment of the security of our borders. As the Minister with responsibility for modern slavery, I am particularly concerned about that. I will talk about how the Commonwealth can assist us in the important work of tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. I know that you have spent many years working on that area, Mr Bone, and I bow to your considerable expertise.

The UK is committed to the Commonwealth and to our relationships with all member states. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who has responsibility for the Commonwealth, has championed the UK’s relationship with the organisation, which we value greatly as a symbol of democratic values and prosperity.

The Commonwealth is unique in having a young, vibrant population of more than 2 billion people, nearly half of whom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) pointed out, are in India. It spans every inhabited continent. It is far more than simply a grouping of Governments, and we see potential in its future. That is why we continue to invest so much in the Commonwealth and we want to welcome people from right across it to the UK. There is much that we can do together to further the development of our countries, whether in education, health or trade, and we should take advantage of our shared values to enable us to do so. It is difficult to think of another organisation that brings together the representatives of 53 diverse sovereign states from each and every continent, and that gives each one, large or small, an equal voice in global affairs.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the attractiveness of membership of the Commonwealth. He is absolutely right, and it is incumbent on us all to send out the clear message that membership is a wonderful privilege and that we want to encourage countries to come forward and join with that diverse and exciting group of sovereign states.

Business and trade are areas in which the Commonwealth has great potential. Intra-Commonwealth trade in goods is already worth some £300 billion, built on our inherent advantages of a common language, shared legal principles and a commitment to inherent values and rights. Those advantages provide solid foundations for doing business, and they create a platform for trade, investment, development and, in turn, prosperity. That leads to what we call the Commonwealth effect, which studies suggest is worth between 20% and 50% in trade advantage.

The United Kingdom has a growing economy and a proud history of tolerance and acceptance of those who genuinely need our protection. It is, therefore, no surprise that we are an attractive destination. With that, however, we face particular challenges on all forms of immigration. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford introduced the debate by saying that immigration is a sensitive issue. He is right, but, despite those challenges, we are making significant progress on ensuring that our immigration system works in the national interest. He talked about a broken immigration system, but I do not believe that we have a broken immigration system today. We inherited a broken system of open-door immigration, and the right hon. Member for Delyn was a member of a Government who had an open immigration policy, but this Government have taken significant steps—I will address some of the steps we have taken—to address the important issues of EU and non-EU immigration.

[Andrew Rosindell]

To clarify, I spoke about a broken immigration system, but I commend what the Government are doing to change the shambles that we inherited five years ago. The system is broken in the sense that we have no power to control immigration from the EU. Whoever is in power after the election, no one can decide who comes in from the EU because we have given away that power. In that sense, the system is broken. We have failed to reduce immigration overall, which we promised to do, because we cannot control immigration from Europe; we can control only immigration from outside Europe. That is why I said the system is broken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and he will forgive me if I indicated that I understood it differently. The Government have taken significant steps to address that matter, and if we form the next Government, as I fully intend—I apologise to the right hon. Member for Delyn, but I fully intend to be sitting in this seat in 12 weeks’ time—the excellent measures that the Prime Minister set out in his speech close to my constituency in Staffordshire just before Christmas will enable us to take even further steps to ensure that free movement within the EU comes with responsibilities and that we do not have free movement of criminals, which I particularly care about, or for welfare benefits. There is agreement on both sides of the House that access to welfare payments for non-UK nationals should not come without the responsibility of having contributed to the system.

The immigration system plays a strong part in supporting growth and meeting the needs of UK businesses. Migrant workers can fill skills gaps in our labour market and help to boost our economy. However, as the economic recovery continues, we are clear that employers should look first to recruit people who are already in the UK and are already UK nationals.

The Government are aware of the Commonwealth Exchange report “How to Solve a Problem like a Visa”—I commend the Commonwealth Exchange for its engaging title—and we are working with other Commonwealth countries to consider options to improve migration opportunities within the Commonwealth. Although the UK is happy to work with and consider ideas proposed by Commonwealth partners, the UK maintains that immigration and visa controls are a matter for the UK Government. It is important to remind the House—I know this has been mentioned already—that citizens of the majority of Commonwealth countries, 31 out of 53, do not require a visit visa to come to the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford made the point that visas are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. The visit visa regime is an important tool in reducing the national security threat to the UK, allowing us to intervene in a number of ways before someone arrives in the country. We can prevent someone from coming to the UK by refusing a visa or, where appropriate, we can allow travel while setting up an operational response when someone in whom we are interested arrives in the UK. The information provided in the application process also allows us to identify links about which we would not otherwise have known. The backflow of data can be vital to new investigations, and the security and intelligence agencies require a biometric visa regime for all visa nationals.

Visas have a role to play in reducing crime. We can use the application to check whether someone is known to international partners, and we can check a range of databases to see whether someone has a criminal background here in the UK.

Finally, the process helps to tackle illegal immigration. The visa process enables us to check whether the applicant has a genuine reason for coming to the UK and enough money to support themselves. The use of biometrics enables us to lock an individual securely to their identity so that we know who we are dealing with.

As the Minister with responsibility for serious and organised crime, I know it is incredibly important that we keep in mind the security of British nationals with regard to foreign offenders. Commonwealth countries feature in the top 10 nationalities of foreign national offenders and, sadly, the top two nationalities are Commonwealth countries: Jamaica and Nigeria. We are working closely with those countries to ensure that we have upstream work to deal with foreign national offending so that it does not hit our streets, but I want to ensure that people in Romford, Stafford, Staffordshire Moorlands, Delyn, Tamworth and Wellingborough can walk the streets knowing that foreign national offenders are not coming to the UK without our knowledge. We should all recognise that that is incredibly important.

Economic factors are a big part of the decision on whether to impose a visa on a country, as they can be a big pull factor on illegal migration. Nevertheless, because of the traditional ties that we have with the Commonwealth, the UK is arguably more generous in that regard. Eighteen of the 31 Commonwealth countries with visa-free access to the UK, which is more than half, are classed as developing nations by the World Bank, which shows that there is occasionally a different approach to Commonwealth countries. The EU economies, in contrast, are more on the same economic level as the UK, with the majority being in the world’s 50 richest countries based on gross national income per capita per year. Economic criteria are one area of assessment for countries that want EU membership under the accession criteria.

I always think of immigration as being like the movement of air: it moves from high pressure to low. Wind is created when high pressure moves to fill a low-pressure gap. If we consider that high pressure for immigration is poverty, lack of opportunity and lack of education and that countries such as the UK represent low-pressure areas where there are opportunities, jobs and the potential to achieve wealth, it is understandable why people want to move from one to the other. Our job is to ensure that, when we look at the movement of people, we do not get to the point where, continuing the analogy, the low pressure in the UK becomes the high pressure that means we are overburdened—that is a strange analogy, but I hope it makes sense. I like to perceive immigration as being like the movement of air around the world.

Even within the EU, as the Prime Minister has made clear, disparities in income per head, as well as disparities in labour markets and work opportunities, create incentives for migration—let us remember that in the past four and a half years the UK has created more jobs than the rest of the EU put together. That is why the Government have started a debate within Europe on future accessions, such as linking freedom of movement to relative wealth and, of course, limiting the access of EU nationals to welfare and other services.

Visa regimes for some Commonwealth countries are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. The visa process enables us to check whether an applicant has a genuine reason for coming to the UK and enough money to support themselves. We take our duty to protect the public extremely seriously and, where foreign national offenders commit serious crimes in the UK, it is right that they are brought to justice and removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity. Since April 2010, we have removed more than 22,000 foreign national offenders. Where a Commonwealth national commits an offence in the UK, we will pursue deportation, unless they were resident in the UK before the commencement of the Immigration Act 1971. Visa regimes are an important part of the UK’s immigration system, which is fair to British citizens and legitimate migrants, and tough on those who flout the rules.

The UK has a flexible policy for visitors that enables people to come for a range of purposes. Work is under way to streamline the policy further and consolidate the routes that will make the system even more accessible and provide greater flexibility. I acknowledge, however, that obtaining a visit visa for the UK is an inconvenience for some, which is why the UK has invested heavily in ensuring that applying for a UK visa is as easy as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spoke about a specific visa case, although I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of that case. It is important that Members of Parliament always raise such cases because, no matter how good the system, there will always be the odd occasion when something does not quite work as it should. I am glad that the lady in question was able to visit the UK, and that my hon. Friend could help her in that regard.

We have upgraded our entire network of visa application centres to increase capacity. We have made our processes less bureaucratic, and we ensure fast turn-around times and offer appointments out of working hours. We have extended our three-to-five-day priority service, which is now available in more than 100 countries, and we have introduced a passport pass-back service in a number of countries so that customers can retain their passport while their UK visa application is being processed. A new super-priority 24-hour visa service, building on the popularity of the three-to-five-day service, has been introduced in India and China and will be extended to New York, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Manila, Istanbul, Bangkok and Pretoria by April 2015.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) mentioned the hub-and-spoke model for visa applications. We have more than 300 visa application points around the world, connected to a network of decision-making hubs. They are in similar places to the ones I just mentioned: Beijing, Manila, Abu Dhabi, Shanghai, New Delhi, Riyadh, New York, Istanbul, Chennai, Bangkok, Mumbai and Pretoria.

The next generation of the outsourced visa project has delivered the next set of outsourcing contracts for the visa application process, including biometric enrolment, courier services and interviewing facilitation. The new contracts have allowed us to increase the number of application points globally, offer improved customer services including increased access to premium priority services and deliver efficiencies in the visa application process. To increase access to our visa services overseas, we have considered how best to support our operation and our customers, including by extending opening hours in some locations and trialling new “user pays” services in developing markets.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

As for all such important new projects, will the Minister undertake to get a bit of customer feedback, particularly from Members of Parliament, to whom constituents often come as a matter of last resort when, for instance, a business partner, relative or non-governmental organisation worker whom they are supporting has spent weeks or even months trying unsuccessfully to get a visa? Will she consider collecting information from colleagues and seeing how the system can be improved? Clearly, if this is a new system, we will want to ensure that it works as efficiently as possible.

[Karen Bradley]

I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Home Office take seriously all comments and feedback from fellow Members of Parliament on all aspects of our work. He makes an important point about ensuring that we take seriously our colleagues’ feedback when their constituents experience new systems, because that feedback gives us on-the-ground evidence about what is happening and how it is working. I welcome comments from all Members about how the system affects their constituents and those constituents’ families. I have said that all the changes are working, and I hope that we have proved that they are. They provide greater flexibility and choice, and we know that they have been welcomed by many travellers and tour operators.

On longer stays, the UK views the Commonwealth as an important partner in helping the UK to grow. A number of routes are open to Commonwealth citizens who want to work in the UK. There are further provisions specifically for Commonwealth citizens, such as the UK ancestry route. My hon. Friend said that the Commonwealth was a family, and he is right. When I visited Pakistan last year, it was extraordinary how familiar it looked, given how Pakistani culture has become so commonplace within UK culture. The furnishings, the look and the things that we talked about—cricket, for instance—are common across the Commonwealth. In fact, during my visit to Islamabad, I do not think I met anybody who did not have family in Britain.

The UK ancestry route is for Commonwealth citizens with a UK-born grandparent who intend to work in the UK. Applicants do not need to come for a specific job and are not restricted to graduate-level occupations. They may be accompanied by dependants and can apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years’ residence. In 2013, a total of 4,100 UK ancestry visas were issued, including 1,600 to Australians, 500 to Canadians, 1,000 to New Zealanders and 870 to South Africans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford mentioned the UK’s youth mobility scheme which, as he rightly said, operates in eight countries, three of which are Commonwealth countries: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It enables young people to come to the UK for up to two years to experience UK culture. The UK is happy to engage in discussions with any country meeting the YMS eligibility criteria, which include presenting a low immigration risk to the UK, having satisfactory returns arrangements and offering a reciprocal arrangement for young UK nationals. My message to those countries is, “Please come forward and talk to us.” We are open to talking to countries that want to be part of the arrangement to see whether the eligibility requirements and reciprocal arrangements can be put in place to enable young people from the UK and Commonwealth countries to enjoy each other’s culture by living in each other’s countries.

The right hon. Member for Delyn wanted to remove students from the immigration target. That might seem like a quick fix for reducing immigration levels, but it is important that we understand how many students are here in Britain and ensure that they are leaving, as we will be able to do much more effectively when exit checks are introduced this spring, because we know that the student visa route was being exploited. This Government have clamped down on nearly 800 bogus colleges, slashed 45,000 visas from the further education route and cut family visas by nearly one third since we came to power. Our reforms have reduced net migration from outside the EU and, importantly, ensured that our higher and further education systems are not being abused. I caution the right hon. Gentleman against removing student numbers from the net migration figures. Although that might give a short-term boost to the figures, it would not enable the Government to manage the situation, thus leaving the potential for that important route to be abused, as has been the case in the past.

We have an excellent offer for students to stay in the UK after their studies. In April 2012 we closed the old tier 1 post-study work route, which gave two years’ unconditional access to the UK labour market, allowing many students to stay on in low-skilled work. We have replaced it with a more selective system. Graduates who get a graduate job that pays a graduate-level salary can stay in the UK, and there is no limit on their numbers. Also, we have created a scheme for graduate entrepreneurs and doubled the number of places on it to 2,000, as well as creating a new visa for graduates wishing to undertake a corporate internship or professional training related to their degree.

We are continuing to ensure that the scheme for the exceptionally talented attracts those who are already internationally recognised at the highest level as world leaders in their particular field, or who have already demonstrated exceptional promise. We wish to encourage more take-up of that route, and we are working with the endorsing bodies to do so, but the number of places available—1,000—is a limit, not a target. We wish to attract exceptional talent, wherever it comes from.

On 1 December 2014, the UK introduced new “transit without a visa” provisions that make it easier and clearer to transit through the UK. Commonwealth citizens who hold valid exemption documents, including visas for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, which is a close partner, although it is not in the Commonwealth, can transit through the UK without a visa, regardless of where they are travelling. The UK has also reduced the cost of the direct airside transit visa to £30, making it cheaper than the Schengen alternative for the citizens of the 21 Commonwealth countries who need to apply for one.

Also, after a successful pilot, on 17 November last year we launched our new registered traveller scheme. The scheme permits approved members who undergo advanced security checks access to our e-passport gates at Heathrow and Gatwick, or the option to use the EEA queue at Heathrow or a special RT lane at Gatwick, expediting their clearance through the border. The scheme is open only to a select number of countries but, crucially, travellers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand who are aged 18 or over, meet the criteria for the scheme and travel to the UK at least four times a year are eligible to apply. Applicants pay an average membership fee of £50, and since the scheme’s formal launch in November, more than 5,000 regular travellers, almost a quarter of whom come from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have been approved to join it. Keeping the UK’s borders secure is our priority but, at the same time, we want to welcome legitimate visitors and trade that contribute to the UK economy and to show that we value our links with other countries. Using the latest technology helps us to do both, and the scheme is proving popular with regular travellers.

My hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk and for Romford talked about separate entry as a possibility for Commonwealth citizens, or for citizens of those Commonwealth realm countries for which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State. Any policy or operational decision to create an additional line for Commonwealth nationals at ports must be taken with due regard to the wider operational impact—the likelihood of placing an additional burden on port operators—and the impact on other passengers. That is key to ensuring that any benefits to a limited number of individuals are not outweighed by a negative impact on border security operations more generally by constraining UK Border Force’s flexibility to respond dynamically to fluctuations in passenger flow.

Having visited UK Border Force and seen its work, I can say that there is very careful management of the lines at the borders. We have a registered traveller scheme that enables people who have gone through pre-clearance to go through e-gates, which is the quickest and easiest way to access the UK, and such people include those from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, having a separate route for those travellers from Commonwealth countries who do not have registered traveller status would, in many cases, hamper UK Border Force’s ability to deal with fluctuations in arrival flows.

Let me give an example of that. If a flight arrives from Jamaica, it would be highly likely that many of its passengers will be UK nationals who have visited Jamaica, but many other passengers would be Jamaican nationals. Due to the prevalence of foreign national offenders from Jamaica, we need to check those people and ensure that they go through the proper immigration and border gates, as would be the case for people coming from places such as Albania, or perhaps south-east Asia. We want to ensure that those travellers have the right security checks at the border. It would create a problem if we had a separate Commonwealth gate when all the passengers being dealt with had arrived from Commonwealth countries, meaning that there was only a limited number of gates through which those passengers could pass although there were many other gates available for passengers whose flights had not yet arrived.

To give UK Border Force the flexibility it needs, if it felt that it would be appropriate to have specific gates in operation to help its staff, that would be entirely down to the Border Force itself. However, we should not try to restrict it, given how its staff have to manage flows of arriving passengers. It does not want to keep people waiting for longer than the 40-minute target that we have set.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister seems to be saying that people from countries in which the Queen is Head of State—the realms—must go through security checks that are perhaps more stringent than those for an EU citizen. I find that strange, because Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, which she mentioned, are countries that have fought for King, Queen and country and stood behind us. They have the Queen as their Head of State, yet we treat people from those countries differently from individuals from European countries with which we have had this new partnership for only a few years—since they joined the EU. I understand why people in the Commonwealth countries feel that we have let them down badly over this issue. Surely this should be about not just operational convenience, but our cousins throughout the world with whom we have so much in common and to whom we owe so much.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but perhaps I can clarify the situation. This is about having information and knowledge about people who come into the UK to ensure that they will not hurt our citizens. Within the EU, there are information exchanges for criminal records, such as the European criminal records information system, and data are available about criminals’ past activities. As the Minister with responsibility for serious and organised crime, I am determined that we have that same level of information exchange with other countries. Actually, I would like that same level of information exchange across the world.

I have attended meetings with Caribbean Community countries in which I have encouraged them to adopt the kind of criminal information exchange that we have in the EU. If they had that, we could start to have some certainty about how we deal with people travelling to the UK from those countries because we would then have any relevant information about criminals’ past activities.

This process is about the practicalities of how we ensure that people coming into this country are not coming here to do us harm, but so long as we do not have such information about travellers from certain countries—I do not wish to single out Jamaica, but it is the largest source country for foreign national offenders—we must put the security of the British people before anything else. However, if countries meet the eligibility criteria for the registered traveller scheme, travellers from those countries are welcome to join that scheme, as travellers from Australia, New Zealand and Canada have already done, which means that they can access the e-gates that are available to people from members of the European economic area.

Having seen the e-gates in action, I know that they are a good tool for finding any EEA national who is marked as being wanted, a criminal and so on, meaning that UK Border Force can stop them at the border and go through the necessary checks. We are stopping many EEA nationals who try to come through the border via e-gates because those e-gates have great technology that allows digital information to be used to find criminals.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister is absolutely right that the security of the British people has to come first and that we need to know who is coming into our country. If people have a propensity to commit crimes, of course we need to take action to prevent them from coming in. However, does she understand that if someone is a New Zealander, a Jamaican, or from another one of these countries with such close links with the UK, the system might come across as slightly offensive because it suggests that we are worried about criminals coming from in Canada, and that while we can have arrangements with Slovakia and Portugal, we cannot have those same arrangements with New Zealand, Canada and the Bahamas, for example? Surely we can find a way to deal with this situation. She seems to be saying that she is not against the idea in principle, but that it is just a question of getting the practicalities right. Is that the case?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do not want to dwell on this issue for too long, because we are running out of time and I would like to cover modern slavery, but I reiterate that an enhanced criminal information exchange is available to us with regard to EU nationals, and that provides information over and above that which we have about non-EU nationals. I want to reach a point at which we have such exchange of criminal information across the board, because that would be a very good thing to keep all of us safe. While we do not have that, however, I am not prepared to put the security of the British people at risk by opening our borders in a way that might create a problem. I hope that he understands that point.

Let me conclude by saying something about the work that we are doing on modern slavery, which we all agree is an international problem. We are committed to working with other countries to prevent individuals from being exploited. Commonwealth countries are often source countries for modern slavery, so we are committed to working with them to tackle the problem. The modern slavery strategy, which was published on 29 November, commits us to raising the profile of modern slavery through the institutions of the Commonwealth and the EU, and to working with partner Governments to implement positive changes in law and practices. It also commits us to identify annually between 20 and 25 priority countries, which will include a number of Commonwealth countries.

Through our links with the Commonwealth and civic organisations such as Rotary, we are trying to ensure that we have on-the-ground information so that we can tackle this issue upstream, so that people are not trafficked and do not become victims of slavery in the UK, and so that we can deal with slavery on the ground. The UK Government are committed to stamping out that abhorrent crime by building on our strong track record in supporting victims and fighting perpetrators. Promoting links with the Commonwealth should not be to the detriment of maintaining the security of our borders, which is what allows us to tackle problems such as modern slavery.

Let me reiterate our commitment to the Commonwealth. We want to welcome citizens from across the Commonwealth to the UK. Britain is open for business. We welcome legitimate students, tourists, business people and others who want to come to this country to contribute. The changes that we have put in place ensure that Britain remains an attractive destination while maintaining the security of our borders. Britain is a place that people want to visit so that they can work hard, study, and enjoy our historic buildings and beautiful countryside.

UK Borders Control Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on the Bill and on the debate he has started today.

The Bill raises important issues on the control of immigration to the UK. That is a key priority for the Government, and we have taken significant steps to strengthen the border and immigration system, including in respect of who is allowed to enter the UK and who is allowed to remain. I therefore strongly commend the intention behind my hon. Friend’s Bill, but I do not believe that the measures it contains are necessary. There are also aspects of the Bill that would be unlawful.

The measures contained in the Bill do not reflect the extent to which the new powers and other reforms to control immigration, which the Government have put in place already, provide an effective basis for controlling our borders. For example, the Immigration Act 2014 put in place a series of fundamental reforms that will ensure our immigration system is fairer to British citizens and legitimate migrants, and tougher on those with no right to be here. The 2014 Act limits the factors which draw illegal migrants to the UK and introduces tough domestic reforms to ensure that our controls on access to benefits and services, including the NHS and social housing, are among the tightest in Europe.

A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned net migration numbers. Our reforms have cut net migration from outside the EU by nearly a quarter since 2010, close to levels not seen since the late 1990s. Under the previous Labour Government, more than 1 million EU nationals came to the UK from 2004 to 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, managed migration works. Like him, I am positive about both this country today and the future. We have a diverse population, which makes the UK a great place to be. It is also worth saying that there are pockets of the country where there has been significant amounts of migration, but there are areas that have not seen great changes in population. According to the Office for National Statistics, my own constituency saw an increase in population of 200 between 2004 and 2013, and some of them will, of course, be UK nationals returning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised the issue of our economy. We have a booming economy in this country compared with the rest of Europe. The job is not finished, but our long-term economic plan means that the prospects for this country and this economy are better than they are anywhere else. He is right about the number of jobs created here in the UK. I understand that over the last four and a half years, we have created more jobs here in the UK than have been created in the whole of the rest of the European Union combined. That is why there is a pull factor for people. I can well understand that. I can understand why somebody sees an opportunity to get a job in Britain and thinks that it offers a better chance. We can all sympathise with that and understand it, but we have to be clear that migration policy must be fair to UK nationals living here today.

The Government have fundamentally changed the system we inherited, under which an EU national could arrive in the UK and claim benefits shortly after their arrival and for a significant period, with few checks on whether they had a real chance of finding work here. Now, EU national jobseekers cannot claim benefits until they have been resident here for three months, and then only for three months before we test whether or not they have a genuine prospect of finding work in the UK. Now, they have no access to housing benefit, and we have introduced new powers to remove EU nationals who are not fulfilling the requirements for residence and to prevent their re-entry for 12 months. We have new powers, too, to deport EU national criminals more quickly.

The Immigration Act 2014 will strongly reinforce our work to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and continue to attract the brightest and best to the UK. Implementation is well advanced: many of the measures have gone live and are already having a positive impact on the ground. For example, we have revoked more than 4,500 driving licences held by illegal migrants, and since July 2014 we have deported more than 150 criminals, using new powers provided by the Act. New measures in it, including the immigration health surcharge and measures to tackle sham marriages and civil partnerships, will be introduced on a phased basis between now and April 2015. The Immigration Act also makes it easier to remove those with no right to be here and ensures that the courts must have regard to Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

[Mr Chope]

I sympathise with the Minister, given the responsibilities she has. I have just been looking at the immigration statistics issued on 27 November, covering the period July to September 2014. It says there that there were 9% fewer enforced removals from the United Kingdom compared with the previous 12 months. If the Government are getting so tough on deporting these people—quite rightly—why were there fewer removals in that period?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I shall come on to his comments. We must be clear, however, that the Immigration Act gives us new powers. We have powers to remove people without regard to the number of appeals that they could previously have used. We should look at the powers that we have today and the criminals we can deport today.

Foreign criminals and immigration offenders are no longer able to hide behind weak human rights claims to prevent their removal from the UK—something that they could do before. We do not need the Bill’s provisions to enable us to deport foreign criminals or remove immigration offenders. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that the consideration of a family or private life claim must be conducted in the light of Parliament’s view of the public interest, as set out in the Immigration Act.

The measures taken by the Government have significantly strengthened the legal framework for our border and immigration system provided by the Immigration Act 1971 and other legislation, which regulates non-UK citizens’ entry to, and stay in, the UK. The legal framework and operational measures we have put in place provide and implement the powers needed to examine non-UK citizens before or on arrival in the UK to determine whether they should be admitted or granted or refused leave to enter, in accordance with the immigration rules and regulations laid before Parliament.

[Mr Steve Reed]

According to a recent survey of border staff, 98% of them have warned that they do not have enough resources to protect the border effectively. Why is that?

[Karen Bradley]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is this Government who dealt with the failing UK Border Agency and introduced Border Force and UK Visas and Immigration. My meetings with Border Force officials and guards on the front line are always positive. It is clear to me that those dedicated professionals are doing all that they can to protect our borders, because they understand just how important it is for them to do so. I shall deal shortly with the issue of criminal movement within the European Union and across our borders.

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 provide for the admission of EEA nationals and their family members and the removal of those who are not entitled to reside, in accordance with European Union law.

While I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s thinking, I believe that parts of the Bill would be unlawful. Its aim is to ensure that the United Kingdom has absolute control over the right to prevent non-UK citizens from entering the UK, and to determine the circumstances in which they may be required to leave. It asserts the absolute sovereignty of the UK in controlling its own borders, notwithstanding our existing international treaty obligations and the domestic legislation that gives effect to them.

The Bill would repeal section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988, which provides the basis on which those exercising European Union rights are not required to obtain leave to enter or remain in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971 and subsequent legislation. Essentially, it seeks to curtail the free movement of EU citizens to the UK under existing treaty rights. The provisions curtailing rights of entry are not compatible with EU free movement rights, and we cannot pass national legislation that does not comply with EU law.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Does the Minister accept, therefore, that the Government’s settled position is to acknowledge that there can be no change in the treaties, and that EU nationals must have unrestricted access to this country?

[Karen Bradley]

I shall come to the restrictions that the Government place on EU nationals, particularly those with criminal histories.

The Bill would not achieve its intended objectives owing to the principle of direct effect, which means that EU nationals can derive rights directly from the free movement directive and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, whether or not those provisions have been given effect in UK law.

Let me now deal with the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Free movement is not without conditions, and I am keen to ensure that any free movement includes the free movement of criminal information. I want to ensure that a police officer in Leek, in my constituency, has as much information about an individual residing in Leek as a police officer in any other town in any other country in the European Union has about someone with a criminal past. The 35 measures that the UK chose to opt back into in December last year are vital to ensuring that criminal information moves freely between EU countries. If we are to keep UK citizens safe, we shall need to know about the criminal past of people who are trying to enter the UK.

EU nationals arriving at the UK border can be stopped and questioned by Border Force officers to establish their right of admission to the UK when that is appropriate. Border Force officers can refuse admission to EU nationals when such action is necessary and proportionate—for example, owing to their criminal convictions or conditions arising from a previous removal or deportation, or when officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that admitting them would give rise to an abuse of free movement rights. In the first three quarters of 2014, 1,205 EU nationals were initially refused admission at the UK border. Opting into the 35 measures means that we shall have more and more information about criminals, and we will—and do—exercise the right to refuse their admission to the UK.

Effective renegotiation is the way to bring about a real change in the basis for EU migration. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out his agenda for that in November. It includes the introduction of a four-year residency requirement before an EU national can have access to in-work benefits or social housing in the UK, the removal of child benefit for non-resident children of EU nationals, and further powers to deport EU criminals and tackle abuse.

I do not believe that the measures proposed by my hon. Friend are necessary for the proper control of our borders. For all the reasons that I have given, the Government cannot support his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

Well, what a disappointment it is that the Government are not going to accept this Bill. I thought it was going to go through, but instead I am going to have to explain my disappointment to my constituents and to a wider audience. The debate has been useful, however, because it shows the extent of the constraints that this Parliament has chosen to impose on itself. [Interruption.] The Minister is agreeing with that. We have chosen to fetter our ability to control our borders, and this Bill would enable us to take the fetters off.

[Karen Bradley]

I just want to clarify what I was agreeing with. I thought my hon. Friend was going to talk about the great steps this Government have taken to ensure that we have managed migration. I apologise if I misunderstood what he was about to say.

[Mr Chope]

Nothing I have said, or that I intend to say, is designed to detract from the achievements of the Government. All I am saying is that despite the Government’s best efforts—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, this Government have been working a lot harder and more effectively on this than the previous Government did—faced with the evidence I have educed today, I do not see how under the current legal regime we are going to be able to reduce net migration into this country to the tens of thousands, rather than the hundreds of thousands as is the case at present.

The Prime Minister reasserted in his speech of 29 November his desire to get net migration down below 100,000. I agree with that. All I am saying is that I do not see how it is going to be done. We have got to have an open and honest debate about this, and it may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that the only solution—unless we can get our EU colleagues to change the treaties, which seems to be a rather uphill struggle—is to put this issue to the British people in a referendum. They have not had the chance to have their say on this before because when we last had a referendum we had no concept of European citizenship and free movement of people, as imposed on us now. We could say to the people, “Do you wish to retake control of your own borders and re-establish ourselves as a sovereign nation with control over our own destiny, or do you wish to remain in perpetuity subservient to a supranational power, the European Union?” That is a clear proposition and I think it is implicit in what I have been saying that when presented with that choice I would choose freedom, sovereignty and democracy—and the rule of law.

I am therefore sorry that this Bill is not going to make any more progress. I could test the will of the House on it, but if I was to do that, I would jeopardise the chance of having even a very short canter round the next Bill on the Order Paper, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Forced Labour Convention

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

The Forced Labour Convention (the convention) is one of eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In June the ILO agreed a protocol and set of recommendations to supplement the convention, with support from the UK Government.

On 12 September, the European Commission proposed that Council decisions should be adopted to authorise member states to ratify the ILO protocol, in the interest of the European Union, with regard to matters related to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and with regard to matters related to social policy.

The Government do not agree that the EU has any exclusive competence in the area covered by the protocol. The Government have therefore decided not to opt in to the Council decision covering matters related to judicial co-operation.

The UK is determined to tackle the horrific crime of modern slavery, and intends to ratify the protocol to the Forced Labour Convention.

[HCWS173]

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we all have a responsibility in this area. My concern, however, is about the specific responsibilities being placed on local authorities and other public bodies under the Channel programme. We must make sure that we get this right, which is why I am focusing on why the first stage of the programme is not being placed on a statutory basis but the second stage is so being placed. I wonder whether that is the best way of doing it. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however.

Only when a person has been identified as at risk will the provisions in clause 28(3) kick in. That subsection allows a chief officer of police to make a referral to the local support panel that has been set up by the local authority. My first concern is with the level of expertise that those panels must have, and that is where amendment 21 comes in. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels will have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support panel to address the risks. The issues involved are complex and varied.

The current guidance cites 22 vulnerability indicators that could lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up those factors and tailor a support package, which could have any number of elements. In some areas, however, the panel will be addressing issues that it has never faced before, such as sectarian hatred, which can be exacerbated by poorly provided support. That is why we feel that the Home Office needs to support local panels by providing an approved list of support providers who are able to give the specialist interventions needed to address the specific issues facing the individual.

This is a crucial stage of the Channel process and it should be recognised in the Bill. My understanding is that the Home Office is already doing this work to some extent, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment on Second Reading to continue to do it, but as we are putting the obligations of local authorities into the Bill, I think we should also be placing the responsibilities of central Government in the legislation. That could be particularly important for local authorities that are making referrals for the first time. I have repeatedly asked for the number of occasions on which each local authority has made a Channel assessment and referral, but unfortunately my requests for that information have been repeatedly refused. However, there must be many parts of the country that have never had to deal with issues such as these before.

This Government have repeatedly claimed to be stepping up efforts to stop Prevent funding going to organisations that are radicalising people, but that cannot be done unless the Home Office takes a lead in vetting those bodies. Under clause 32, the Home Secretary may indemnify Channel providers, so it is accepted that the Home Office has a role in that regard. It therefore seems reasonable for it also to have a role in assessing and vetting providers and ensuring that they are fit for purpose. These are really important issues. I know the Minister shares the commitment to making sure this Bill is as good as it can be and to getting Prevent and Channel right. I therefore hope she will realise that the support the Home Office is providing on Prevent and Channel needs to be reviewed again and improved, and that the guidance that has been issued as a consultation document can be improved in many areas. I hope she will feel able to accept the amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

Today’s events in Paris are yet another shocking reminder of the threat we all face, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in condemning that barbaric attack, and I am sure the whole House stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism.

Part 5 of the Bill and schedules 3 and 4 deal with an important area of our counter-terrorism work: preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. That was subject to a long and insightful debate in Committee, and I recognise and welcome the deep interest many right hon. and hon. Members have in the area. The shadow Minister made a number of points about the Prevent programme in general, and I wish to address those before dealing with the specifics of the amendments.

The hon. Lady made a point about funding for Prevent, so let me make it clear that this Government are committed to the Prevent programme: £40 million has been allocated for Prevent spending in 2014-15, and the spending has been £36 million in 2011-12, £35 million in 2012-13 and £39 million in 2013-14. She knows as well as anybody that the spending is not just done by the Home Office and that that is spending across government, including by local authorities, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. It is worth saying that the Prime Minister announced on 25 November that an additional £130 million was being made available for increased counter-terrorism work, which includes Prevent activity. With that funding, we will introduce a clear legal obligation on our universities, prisons, councils and schools to play their part in tackling extremism. The new funding being made available will also include additional resources for programmes to prevent radicalisation.

The hon. Lady asked about the Prevent projects. We have delivered more than 180 community-based Prevent projects since 2011, and we are currently supporting more than 70. Prevent local projects have reached more than 45,000 people since early 2012. All our current Prevent projects are focused on the current threat, including Syria and Iraq. In the 2013-14 financial year, Prevent local co-ordinators in our 30 Prevent priority areas worked with more than 250 mosques, 50 faith groups and 70 community groups. In addition, since the revised Prevent strategy was issued in June 2011, we have trained more than 120,000 front-line public sector workers to identify and support those at risk. We are currently rolling out new updated training, through the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent—the WRAP training programme—now in its third iteration. We have seen a significant rise in the number of referrals to the Channel programme, which provides tailored support to people identified as being at risk of radicalisation; the Association of Chief Police Officers reported a 58% increase in the past year. Since April 2012, there have been more than 2,000 referrals to Channel, and hundreds of people have been offered support.

Let me now deal with the amendments. Amendment 7 is a repeat of an amendment first tabled in Committee, which was taken to a vote. It concerns the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to specified authorities that are subject to the new duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Under clause 24, the specified authorities subject to the duty must have due regard to such guidance in carrying out that duty. Amendment 7 would require that the guidance may be issued only subject to parliamentary approval. In Committee, hon. Members were clear that an amendment of this type was not required, at least not at that stage. Clause 24 already provides that the Secretary of State must consult before issuing guidance and, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration announced to the House by written ministerial statement on 18 December, that consultation has already begun.

The shadow Minister asked about the draft guidance on which we are consulting. It is draft guidance, and we will be holding regional consultation events to explore further examples of best practice with those who will be subject to the duty. The consultation exercise also includes an opportunity for people to comment via the gov.uk website, or by e-mail or post. It is aimed at all those who will be subject to the duty, as well as the public at large.

This public consultation provides sufficient opportunity for interested parties, particularly those who will be subject to the Prevent duty, to scrutinise and influence the guidance. The guidance will benefit from extensive consultation and expert input, and I trust that the final guidance that is published will be all the better for having had this period of formal public consultation. The draft guidance, which we are currently consulting on, sets out, over 40 pages, the type of activity we expect specified activities to consider when complying with the duty.

The starting point for all specified authorities will be an assessment of the risk in their area, institution or body. Where a risk has been identified, they will need to develop an action plan to address it. Staff training and working together with other partners will be key themes.

Let me give some examples of what we expect a specified authority to consider when complying with the duty. Local authorities should ensure that publicly owned premises are not used to disseminate extremist views. Higher education institutions should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and for the use of all university premises that apply to all staff, students and visitors. Further education providers should have policies in place relating to the use of IT on their premises. Schools and their governors should make sure that they have training to give them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism, and know where and how to refer children and young people for further help.

The health sector should ensure that training is provided to front-line staff to ensure that where there are signs that someone has been or is being drawn into terrorism, the health care worker can interpret those signs correctly and is aware of and can locate support for them. Prisons should offer support to an individual who is vulnerable to radicalisation or move them away from an individual of concern, and those at risk of radicalising others should face the removal of privileges and segregation from others. The police should support individuals vulnerable to radicalisation, for example, through the Channel programme and support partner organisations to deliver Prevent work.

Those are just a few examples, and the shadow Minister asked about childminders. Carers in early years have a duty of care to the children in their care similar to existing safeguarding responsibilities. We are not expecting childminders or nursery workers to carry out unnecessary intrusion into family life, but we expect them to take action where they observe behaviour of concern. It is important that children are taught fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way. For children in early years, that is about learning right from wrong and challenging negative attitudes and stereotypes—for example, if a child makes anti-Semitic remarks.

[Bob Stewart]

If someone, perhaps a childminder, has a worry about a threat and reports it, are they guaranteed anonymity? Is a system in place to guarantee that people are not found out, including when reports are fallacious?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments. I understand that anonymity would be provided to people coming forward in that circumstance.

The shadow Minister asked about areas with low risk. The guidance sets out very clearly that we are looking for a risk-based approach, but areas need to understand the local risk. This is the starting point, and we are clear that the type and scale of the response will vary. She also asked about the number of Prevent priority areas. The Government have changed our method for prioritisation of local authority areas since 2011 and it is now based on assessment of the risk of exposure to radicalisation in specific areas rather than on simple demographics. The prioritisation also takes into account activity that we have seen by terrorist organisations and terrorist sympathisers. The process is regularly reviewed and activity is currently focused on 30 local authority priority areas where the risk of radicalisation is identified as being higher. Those priority areas received funding for a dedicated Prevent co-ordinator and are able to bid for funding for targeted local projects to work with communities and partners. There are also a further 14 supported areas where we support projects only.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the Minister for going through the answers to my questions in such detail. The impact assessment says that 90 local authority areas are at high risk, the consultation document identifies 50 priority areas and the Minister is now talking about 30 areas and an additional 14 areas. These numbers all seem a bit confused to me. Will she say the exact number of Prevent priority areas the Government are concerned about?

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Lady will give me a few moments, I will come on to that point.

We do not believe that it is crucial for the guidance to be subject to additional parliamentary approval because we are conducting a wide-ranging consultation and, although the specified authorities must have regard to the guidance, they are not required to follow it in all cases. That is not an uncommon approach for statutory guidance of this nature and we set that out in detail in the delegated powers memorandum published with the Bill. However, I recognise the need for these issues to be properly considered, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration made clear in Committee our intention to await the conclusions of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform before giving further consideration to whether we should make any changes of this sort. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that is a sensible approach and will be content to await the report of that Committee. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment, so that we can return to the issue in the other place.

Let me now turn to amendment 6, which would amend clause 29 to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. The amendment would also require that the panel had sight of the list of approved providers for deradicalisation programmes and that the providers were subject to monitoring. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and Security explained in Committee, Channel is a multi-agency programme that provides support to people identified as vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. It has been in operation in all areas of England and Wales since 2012. In Scotland, the relevant programme is known as Prevent Professional Concerns. It is the Government’s hope and intention that these provisions should also apply to Scotland and discussions with the Scottish Government are ongoing.

As the hon. Lady asked about the devolved Administrations, I want to confirm that we are speaking to the Scottish and Welsh Governments about how the duty should be implemented in those Administrations and consulting on how we should make the guidance appropriate to bodies in Scotland and Wales, particularly because the different legal system in Scotland might mean that we need to implement things differently there. As part of the process, we are consulting them on how the duty should be monitored and enforced.

[Diana Johnson]

It is very helpful to hear the Minister set that out, but once agreement has been reached with the devolved Administrations, will there be a further period of consultation on the guidance, so that local authorities and other bodies can comment on what has been agreed between the Governments?

[Karen Bradley]

I am not sure that that is how we envisage it happening, but we are consulting and working very closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we take into account their views and get this right for them.

The hon. Lady asked about the number of priority areas under Prevent, so let me clarify. There are currently 30 Prevent priority areas, and we anticipate that that will rise to up to 50 in the next financial year. The impact assessment allows for up to 90 priority areas, should the need arise.

The hon. Lady asked about referrals to Channel relating to the far right and whether the Channel programme targeted only Muslim radicalisation. Like Prevent as a whole, Channel covers all forms of terrorism and extremism related to terrorism. It does not target Muslims and anyone can refer a person of any age, ethnicity or faith background to Channel. A significant number of people who have started receiving support through Channel were referred for far-right concerns. ACPO has reported that around a quarter of Channel referrals relate to the far right.

The hon. Lady has expressed concern about the expertise that panels must have and has retabled the amendment that we considered in Committee. Clause 28 includes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. I can assure the hon. Lady that existing guidance is being updated in consultation with relevant persons, including those who deliver on the ground such as panel chairs. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, will issue this guidance before the provisions are commenced.

Local panels assess the individual’s risk and, if appropriate, develop a support package. It is the job of the panel members to provide advice in respect of their areas of expertise, and to arrange, where agreed, support interventions from their services. Interventions that are delivered by such statutory partners are subject to existing monitoring arrangements.

In respect of theological or ideological support, the police representative will recommend to the panel the provider most suited to the case. The list of approved providers for such support is already made available to key members of the panel.

Safeguards and measures are in place to monitor the support providers—I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady—and they are all bound by a service level agreement with the Home Office that sets out the terms and conditions of their appointment, including conduct. In addition, the police, as part of their co-ordination role, regularly review progress made against any interventions commissioned. Any misconduct or quality concerns will be treated seriously by the Home Office, with the option of terminating an agreement with a provider.

On this basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that amendment 6 is unnecessary. I invite her to withdraw amendment 7, so that we can return to the parliamentary scrutiny of the Prevent guidance in the other place.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for going through my questions in such detail. On amendment 7, I am surprised that the Government are not willing to agree that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the final version of the guidance, which we have not yet seen. I note what she said about keeping the matter under consideration. I am sure that the matter will be returned to when the Bill goes to the other place. On that basis, I will not seek to divide the House on amendment 7. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

Specified authorities

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 47, line 10, at end insert—

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21 and would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 to 17.

[Karen Bradley]

In respect of the duty to have due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism in clause 21, the Government have tabled a number of corrective amendments to the list in schedule 3, which specifies the authorities subject to the duty. The amendments will ensure that the intended specified authorities are subject to the duty.

Amendment 13 would add:

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This appears in schedule 4, as regards Channel, and should also appear in schedule 3. The effect will be to ensure that where local authority functions are transferred, for example to commissioners if an authority is failing, the duty will apply to them too.

Amendment 14 will add the principal of a secure college to the criminal justice section of schedule 3. That will ensure consistency with schedule 4. Amendment 15 will remove an unnecessary entry. An institution

“within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992”

will also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004, which has its own entry.

Amendment 16 ensures that the privately funded higher education providers are listed in schedule 3 as intended. They are covered in schedule 4, as regards Channel, but are at present missing from schedule 3. The draft guidance published for consultation has been drafted as though they are included in schedule 3. Amendment 17 corrects an inadvertent error by removing reference in schedule 3 to police authorities.

[Diana Johnson]

Very briefly, I was surprised that there was reference to police authorities when they were abolished by the Government some time ago. I guess that that is what comes when Bills are hastily drafted. I have one question for the Minister, which relates back to the issue of Scottish bodies that will be covered by the Bill. Currently, they are not listed anywhere. When will we have a list of the Scottish bodies that are covered?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the shadow Minister for her question. If she will forgive me, I will have to get back to her on that point at a later date.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendments made: 14,  page 47, line 16, at end insert—

“The principal of a secure college.”.

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21.

Amendment 15, page 47, leave out lines 20 to 22.

This amendment would remove an unnecessary entry. An institution within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 would also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (which has its own entry).

Amendment 16, page 48, line 25, at end insert—

(b) courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”.

This amendment would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

Amendment 17, page 49, leave out lines 5 and 6.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment removes references to police authorities which no longer exist.

Clause 36

Privacy and Civil Liberties Board

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 3,  page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—

(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—

(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;

(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing &c. Act 2010; and

(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

in the discharge of their statutory functions.

(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, [this Act] and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;

(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;

(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board;

(e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;

(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;

(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism;

(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”.

This expands the remit of the body to match that which is described in the Government’s Terms of Reference for this body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps the matter can be discussed further in another place. “Counter terrorism oversight panel”, the name that we have suggested, best describes the role that we envisage for the body.

As I have stressed, these amendments do not seek to do anything radical. They aim to ensure that the legislation matches what the Government have previously committed to do, and they ensure that what is in the Bill goes some way to addressing the concerns raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The amendments are not overly prescriptive; they leave plenty room for the detail to be spelled out in secondary legislation, but they would ensure that that secondary legislation was meaningful as it related to the provisions of the Bill. I hope the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendments.

[Karen Bradley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendments.

Our debate has built on the one held in Committee where there was broad support for the principle of creating the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. The Bill introduces a comprehensive package of measures to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight, reduce the risks they pose on their return, and combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, these powers are essential to keep up with the very serious and rapidly changing threats we face. Of course, as that threat evolves, we need to consider and update our legislation accordingly. However, it is also right that at this time, in the light of the increased threat level, and as the legislative landscape changes, we consider the oversight arrangements that we have in place for UK counter-terrorism laws to ensure that we are getting the balance right between responding to these threats and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.

The United Kingdom already has a very effective and transparent system of independent oversight and scrutiny. Few, if any, other countries in the world manage as well as the UK the balance between the need for powers that must necessarily be exercised in secret and the need to provide reassurance to the public about what is being done in their name. However, we should not rest on our laurels. During the passage of the Bill that became the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which received Royal Assent in July, the Government committed to establishing a board that would provide additional assurance to the public.

Clause 36 provides the Secretary of State with a power to create a privacy and civil liberties board, which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson. The increased demand for a review of particular aspects of counter-terrorism legislation means that this is a substantial task for one individual to undertake. David Anderson himself has been clear that there is a need for reform of the independent reviewer role. The board will be chaired by the independent reviewer. It will assist, advise and undertake particular duties in support of the independent reviewer’s statutory functions, and expand the capacity and breadth of experience available in our oversight arrangements.

[Diana Johnson]

What is the reason for the name of the board, because it does not seem to fit with the role that the Minister has described? “Privacy and civil liberties board” goes much wider than that.

[Karen Bradley]

I assure the hon. Lady that I will come to that point.

Clause 36 provides for the making of regulations that would set out the detail of the board, including provisions about composition, functions and appointment. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We can debate, as we are, the precise details of the board’s composition and functions, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration noted when the Bill was in Committee, no one took issue with the principle that establishing such a board would build on the already strong oversight arrangements that exist in this country. I am pleased to say that since that debate took place, the Government have published a consultation paper on the composition, functions and remit of the board. It can be found on the gov.uk website, and copies have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members, as well as those from outside Parliament with an interest in these matters, to participate in the consultation exercise. We hope that it will elicit a large number of replies covering a wide range of views. The results of the consultation exercise will certainly influence the terms of the regulations. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will cover all the key questions about the board’s composition, remit, powers and functions. Those responding to the consultation will be free to express an opinion on all relevant questions relating to the board. That is why I do not believe that amendment 5 is necessary.

Amendment 3 deals with the board’s functions. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration explained in Committee, the board will fully support the independent reviewer. In doing so, it will provide much needed capacity to allow the reviewer to consider a wider range of areas than it is perhaps currently possible for one individual to undertake. It is therefore right that we ensure that the board’s statutory functions and objectives are in line with those of the role it is designed to support. Should the statutory role of the independent reviewer change in future, we would need to ensure that the board’s role fully reflected that change.

On amendment 4, one of the issues that the consultation covers is the appointment of board members, including those to whom that task should fall and whether there are any prior qualifications that board members should have. It might emerge, for example, that there is strong support for the notion that each board member should represent a particular interest group or category and that that interest group should have a say in the appointment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether members will be vetted. It will clearly be important that any individuals appointed to the board are provided with an appropriate level of security clearance. The independent reviewer is cleared to see classified information, and if necessary the same will apply to the board members.

[Diana Johnson]

Has the Minister given any thought to whether it would be appropriate for Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords to serve on this body?

[Karen Bradley]

I will return to that point in a moment.

I am sure that we will want to ensure that all appointments are made in accordance with best practice, but it seems to me that it would be premature unduly to prescribe the process until we have decided exactly how appointments are made. I think that that applies in this case.

Amendment 2 would change the board’s name. We have been clear that the primary objective of the board is to offer further assurance to the public that careful, independent scrutiny is being given to the UK’s counter-terrorism powers to ensure that, in the face of the threat to the UK, we are getting the balance right and that our legislation and policies have due regard for civil liberty and privacy concerns. The board’s name properly reflects that purpose, and I see no reason to change it.

I am pleased to say that there is no great disagreement within the House on what we are seeking to do. Given the threats that the UK faces, it is a sad necessity that we need a suite of counter-terrorism powers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in Committee:

“I have always taken the view that without our security we cannot enjoy our civil liberties”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1229.]

To return to the point about Members of Parliament, we have no firm views on that question. We are currently consulting on the board’s composition, and we will take all views expressed into consideration.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Burns]

Presumably the members of the board will be paid, so would that position be considered an office of profit under the Crown? Members of Parliament are disbarred from such offices if they are to remain Members.

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend has clearly given considerable thought to that matter. We will of course consider all points of view when we look at the responses to the consultation, and the point will be considered at that stage. Does the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) wish to intervene? [Interruption.] He was going to make the same point.

Given the exceptional nature of counter-terrorism powers, it is right that they should be subject to proper oversight and scrutiny. This country has been very well served by the very distinguished individuals who have been independent reviewers, not least the present incumbent, but it is right for us to keep our oversight arrangements under review and be prepared to change them when required. It is worthwhile creating a new board to support the work of the independent reviewer, providing greater capacity in this area and giving the public greater assurance that in framing our legislation we are striking the right balance between privacy and civil liberties.

As I have said, the Government have published a full public consultation inviting comments on the proposals. We will seek to act on the points made in response to the consultation, which covers the composition and functions of the board. I believe that will address most of the issues covered by the amendments. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 3.

[Diana Johnson]

There is a question about the board’s name, and I hope that that will be considered in the other place. I am interested to hear about the consultation on its membership. On the basis of what the Minister has said about this group of amendments, I will not press them, but we will want to return to them in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 38

Power to make consequential provision

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if included in an Act of that Parliament, consult the Scottish Ministers;

(b) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Welsh Ministers;

(c) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any of that provision would fall within devolved competence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 23, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult with Welsh Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Measure or Act of the National Assembly of Wales.

(4B) The Secretary of State must consult with Scottish Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating any Act or instrument of the Scottish Parliament.

(4C) The Secretary of State must consult with the Northern Ireland Executive before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Act or instrument of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This would ensure that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation from the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly without first consulting with the Scottish or Welsh Governments or the Northern Ireland Executive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

Amendment 12 involves an important point of principle. It concerns the power to make a consequential amendment to existing legislation, including legislation made by the devolved legislatures. Such consequential amendments would themselves be reserved, as the Bill clearly legislates on the reserved matter of counter-terrorism. It is possible that a consequential amendment made under this provision might alter a piece of legislation enacted by a devolved legislature. In cases where that is done for a reserved purpose, proceeding without consultation is clearly permissible under, and properly respectful of, the devolution settlement, although in practice the Government would of course raise the issue as a courtesy with the relevant devolved Administration.

The issue would be different were any consequential amendments made under the Bill to fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved Administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any part of that provision fell within the competence of the legislature in question.

I should reiterate that we do not expect there to be any requirement to make such consequential provisions, and in practice, the Government would always consult the devolved Administrations should such a circumstance arise. I trust that amendment 12 will provide reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members, and to the devolved Administrations themselves, that the proper consultation will take place if required. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) not to press amendment 1, and I ask the House to agree to amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need consent, rather than consultation, because things are so different in Scotland, and we have responsibility for those bodies. Such issues must surely be up to the Scottish Parliament, and not just through consultation. Consultation is great and there is nothing wrong with it, but this is about ensuring that we have consent. We will not oppose the measure today—it is great that we will get that consultation. We enjoy debating with the Home Secretary. She is always welcome in Scotland, and we enjoy making sure that her views are known. Consent is fine, but we need to ensure that such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that we make those decision: not consultation, consent.

[Karen Bradley]

I will not detain the House for long, but I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her comments and for agreeing not to press her amendment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was not in the Chamber earlier when we had a relatively lengthy discussion about the devolved Administrations, and the consultation and work to ensure that the Prevent programme works appropriately in Scotland. I like to think that we have more in common than we have differences.

Issues relating to policing and counter-terrorism are clearly reserved matters. Consultation, not consent, is the appropriate requirement in relation to these issues, and that is respectful at all times of the agreed devolution settlement. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting the Government amendment, and I am glad he agrees that we must ensure that the Bill becomes an Act.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee. In it, I will focus on issues relating to child protection, and I would like to raise the key issues in this debate.

A number of Members have spoken about the cross-party inquiry I chaired with Barnardo’s. It started this time last year and looked specifically at whether there were gaps in the law on child sexual exploitation that we could challenge, and indeed there were. There were two key recommendations. I am very pleased that the Government have taken on board the recommendation on grooming children, and I hope that the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will finally complete its ping-ponging and come into law.

The second matter I would like to raise relates to putting breaches of child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing, for which I have argued strongly. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) has already mentioned this, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). Rather than going into the legal arguments, I should like to describe the reality of what happens when a child is being groomed, and to explain how, although child abduction warning notices could help, they are not at present doing the job they were designed to do.

Let us imagine that the parent of a 14-year-old girl becomes aware that she is seeing a much older man. They speak to the child and try to dissuade her from seeing him, but she is adamant that he is her boyfriend and that she is going to continue to do so. They try locking her in her bedroom, but she climbs out of the window. At that point, the parent speaks to social services or the police, but the only tool that the police have is a child abduction warning notice. They give the notice to the alleged perpetrator, but this effectively means nothing. If the perpetrator comes back the next day and takes the child away, all the police can do is issue another warning notice. If he comes back the following day, they can issue another notice. By the end of the week, the perpetrator might have seven such warning notices. He has no faith in the police, the child has no faith that anyone is there to protect her, and the parents are completely helpless. The only point at which the police can intervene is when the child has already been groomed and has agreed to meet the perpetrator for sex, or when the abuse has actually happened.

If we were to put the breach of abduction warning notices on a statutory footing, the police could prosecute the perpetrator or take the matter to the next level as soon as the first notice had been breached, before the grooming and abuse of the child had happened. This view was backed up by the witnesses who appeared before our inquiry. The witnesses ranged from children through to police officers, social workers, educationists and representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service, and they all said that if we could make just one change it should be to put the breach of abduction warning notices on a statutory footing. This matter is quite current, because Birmingham city council has recently had to go through the civil courts to prevent a group of men from meeting a young girl. When I spoke to representatives of the council, they said that if the breach of abduction warning notices had been on a statutory footing, it would have provided a much more effective tool for them to use.

When the Bill had its Second Reading in the other place, Baroness Smith took up this recommendation and suggested that the question of child abduction warning notices should be explored in Committee. In Committee in the other place, Baroness Butler-Sloss tabled an amendment, supported by Baroness Walmsley, Baroness Howarth and Lord Rosser. Lord Taylor, speaking for the Government, committed to looking into child abduction warning notices. On Report in the other place, Baroness Butler-Sloss re-tabled the amendment to continue the debate. Lord Rosser again put his name to it, and Baroness Walmsley again spoke in support of it. The amendment was withdrawn following a Government commitment to hold a meeting between officials and interested peers. Baroness Butler-Sloss concluded by requesting that the Minister consider a two-stage process with an initial non-statutory notice, which in case of subsequent breach could be followed by application to a magistrates court for a statutory notice. I have spoken directly to the Home Secretary about the importance of putting the breach of a child abduction warning notice on a statutory footing, and I really hope that the Government will use this Bill to do the right thing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I look forward to working with the hon. Lady in Committee, just as I worked with her on the Modern Slavery Bill Committee. She is making a specific point about child abduction warning notices, and I want to tell her that we are looking very carefully at the matter. As she knows, the key question is whether the police have the necessary powers to place restrictions or prohibitions on persons who pose a risk to vulnerable children. We will continue to examine that point, and I expect to make an announcement shortly. We will also deal with the matter during the later stages of the Bill, on which I look forward to working with her.

[Sarah Champion]

I am not sure whether a “Whoopee” is appropriate, but—“Whoopee!” I look forward to working with the Minister.

I would like to move on to other elements that I will be arguing for in the Bill, all of which have been successfully debated in the Lords. The first relates to the lack of protection for 16 and 17-year-olds under the law. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has already mentioned this point. While most English law treats anyone under 18 as a child, the criminal law on child cruelty, which dates back 80 years, protects children from neglect or ill treatment only until their 16th birthday. This makes it much harder to protect 16 and 17-year-olds from cruelty and sends a message that they are less at risk of abuse or neglect than younger children. In 2013-2014, local authorities issued 40 serious incident notifications to Ofsted relating to 16 and 17-year-olds. Some of them resulted in serious case reviews that highlighted the vulnerability of 16 and 17-year-olds. They showed the seriousness of the neglect and the cruelty to those children, which often had tragic consequences for the child but resulted in no punishment for those responsible.

As the Home Secretary has stated, the current law is outdated and reflects what life was like when the legislation was passed in 1933. The school leaving age at that time was 14, and in 1931, 88.5% of males and 75.6% of females aged 16 and 17 were in work. In 2014, 85% of 16 and 17-year-olds were in full-time education or training and in 2012, 90% of all 16 and 17-year-olds lived with their families. These children are much more dependent on their parents now then when the law was introduced, making them much more vulnerable to abuse or neglect.

I have already mentioned child abduction warning notices, but a gap in the law means that such notices cannot be used to protect 16 and 17-year-olds unless they are in local authority care. I am grateful for the research that the Government carried out in this area when I first raised this anomaly in the Criminal Courts and Justice Bill earlier this year, but I would like them to revisit it as it is a matter of considerable concern. Unfortunately, I am finding a considerable amount of exploitation in this area.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of female genital mutilation and part 5 of the Serious Crime Bill. I acknowledge that awareness of this horrendous and debilitating crime has been greatly heightened in recent years, but eliminating FGM requires a change in culture. Work to achieve this change is being disrupted by those who promote the religious or cultural justifications for carrying out FGM and, in doing so, place parents under huge social pressure to conform. Legislation is, unfortunately, needed to prevent people from encouraging FGM, thereby preventing its perpetuation at source. The Bill presents an excellent opportunity publicly to condemn this act and prevent it from occurring, rather than having to wait until the abuse has been committed before prosecuting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

This has been a useful, constructive and detailed debate, and for that reason I am afraid that I will not be able to cover every point that was raised. I will, however, endeavour to do as much as I can.

I welcome the cross-party support for the Bill, and I hope that serious and organised criminals—those who wilfully damage innocent lives—will hear the resounding message from this House: “If you take part in or support serious and organised crime, if you exploit the innocent and seek to harm vulnerable victims, hear this: we will pursue you relentlessly and disrupt your activities so that innocent people are protected.”

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary emphasised when opening today’s debate, and as I am sure we all agree, the National Crime Agency, the police, prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies must have the powers they need to counter the threat posed by serious and organised crime. It is clear to me that those who help maintain the security of this country and protect our communities must have the powers to bring to justice those who openly disregard the laws of this land. This Bill will be a strong step in that direction. When it comes to protecting our children, whether from exploitation or genital mutilation, and from paedophiles and perpetrators, I am sure that the whole House would agree that this Bill will and must help bring our children the protection they need and deserve.

It is right that right hon. and hon. Members will want to test the strength of this Bill as we move on to clause-by-clause examination of the provisions in Committee. Today, we have heard a number of Members set out some important issues. Let me turn first to the contributions that related to the serious and organised crime measures in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested that the Bill did not go far enough to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but I disagree. The Bill includes a substantial package of measures to strengthen POCA, including enabling assets to be frozen more quickly and earlier in investigations; significantly reducing the time the courts can give offenders to pay; ensuring that criminal assets cannot be hidden with third parties; and substantially lengthening the prison sentences for failing to pay confiscation orders. We remain open to examining any practical suggestions for further strengthening the asset recovery regime, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has many suggestions to make in that area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) was right to say that these measures are important for all our constituencies because these issues affect all of us. We need to take measures that get money from criminals and stop them using that money to pursue criminal activities.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), asked whether we could stop people leaving the country. I just want to confirm that the proposed compliance orders, which include travel bans, can be maintained until a confiscation order has been paid. It will therefore be possible to maintain a travel ban once a defendant has completed his full sentence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asked about the review of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. One key objective of the criminal finances improvement plan is to ensure that ARIS works effectively. The review has sought the views of all operational agencies that use the powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. A final report was presented to the Criminal Finances Board, which I chair, at its last meeting in December. The board’s recommendations are now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other relevant Ministers and I hope to be in a position to announce the outcome of the review soon.

The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked about the test for making a restraint order. I agree that we need to make it easier for prosecutors to secure a restraint order so that assets can be frozen more quickly and earlier in an investigation. That is why the Bill replaces the existing “reasonable cause to believe” test with a lower threshold of reasonable suspicion, and I welcome her support for that change.

Moving on to cyber matters, my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) welcomed the provisions on computer misuse in part 2 of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about the work that needs to be done to tackle internet fraud. An example of the non-legislative work that we are doing to tackle such crime is investing in the Cyber Streetwise campaign, which encourages people and businesses to protect themselves by adopting sensible online behaviours. The second phase of this campaign, which was launched in October, has refreshed material and advice including on secure passwords. That matter was also addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), both of whom have ministerial experience in this area. It is worth noting that GCHQ estimates that 80% of all cyber-attacks can be dealt with using what it describes as simple disinfectant—secure passwords and ensuring that malware and anti-virus software are updated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke talked about business attitudes to cyber-crimes. She is absolutely right that business needs to take the problem seriously. I want to see more board-level input on cyber, as it is an important matter for all of us.

Just quickly, the last time my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North answered my question when she was at the Dispatch Box, I was talking about strawberries. She managed to get in pizza today. It is quite nice that we managed to have food on both occasions—very much food for thought.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton, who has, through the dreadful case of Alice Gross, an understanding of the need for full criminal information, made an incredibly important point about how we must ensure that we are tackling serious crime. Free movement is one thing, but we need free movement of criminal information to tackle the scourge of organised crime, using the resources of Europol, which is led so well by Rob Wainwright. She also mentioned the point about Action Fraud. I have visited Action Fraud, and I am very impressed with the work that it does. It has enormous resources and the ability to tackle crime. I should like to see more information being passed to people about the way that their crimes are investigated. Action Fraud is on the right track to ensuring that we can tackle cyber-crime and deal with these important points.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) mentioned the food industry, illegal immigration and whether the participation offence would apply. He also raised those points earlier in Question Time, and I know that he was offered a meeting. I want to ensure that we take up that point, because it is important that we challenge how we use such measures.

Let me turn next to a number of the points raised about the provisions in the Bill tackling cruelty to children, female genital mutilation and the amendment we intend to table on domestic abuse. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), welcomed the Government’s forthcoming amendment to provide for a new offence of sexual communication with a child, as announced at last month’s international “We Protect” summit. I also pay tribute to him for his work on paedophile manuals and I am pleased that there are measures in the Bill to deal with them. We are all utterly appalled to discover not only that such things exist but that they have existed for so long, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.

I also want to pay tribute to the many right hon. and hon. Members who have campaigned on the subject of non-physical cruelty and the neglect of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) asked about the scope of our change to the child cruelty offence. He has been a great campaigner on the subject, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I also pay tribute to Paul Goggins, who was an incredible campaigner on the issue. The Bill is testament to his work.

The changes we are making clarify that the ill-treatment limb of the offence can be committed in a non-physical way. We do not seek to overturn existing case law, which holds that the neglect limb of the offence relates only to the physical needs of the child, but the ill-treatment limb of the offence is broad enough to capture a sustained course of non-physical conduct, including, for instance, isolation, humiliation or bullying that is likely to cause a child unnecessary suffering or injury to health. Of course, it will always be for the courts or jury to determine whether an offence has been committed through a particular type of conduct in the specific circumstances of the case. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Ceredigion also talked about the meaning of “wilful”. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was sitting next to me listening to the debate and is reflecting on the points that have been raised about the discussions in the other place on this matter.

A number of Members commented on the question of cruelty committed against 16 or 17-year-olds and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke showed the difficulties we have in this regard. Some types of cruelty committed against 16 or 17-year-olds will, depending on the circumstances, already amount to other criminal offences, such as assault. Other laws already protect 16 and 17-year-olds from, for instance, sexual exploitation by those who hold a position of trust in their lives or from exploitation through prostitution or pornography, but those over 16 are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents and can, of course, consent to sex. We have a contradiction between the ever-lowering age of sexual maturity and the fact that emotional and mental maturity are not going down in age and we must therefore ensure that the law reflects that and that we have appropriate measures in place. I take note of the points that have been raised and will reflect on them.

In the time I have left, I want to mention the campaign of the hon. Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on references to child prostitution in legislation. I want to be absolutely clear that children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They should be recognised as victims and we will certainly consider references in older legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.

A number of points were raised about female genital mutilation, but unfortunately time does not permit me to go into them in detail. I will endeavour to ensure that we cover them in Committee.

It is clear that although there are some slight differences in approach, our aims are the same: to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to tackle the serious and organised crime that shamelessly harms innocent people; to unite in condemnation of the vicious practice of FGM; and to protect children and the most vulnerable from abuse. I hope that those who commit such serious crimes will think again. If they do not, they must be pursued and brought to justice. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Serious Crime Bill [Lords]:

Committal

The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22 January 2015.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Question agreed to.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Serious Crime Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State;

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T3. A recent study by the university of Bedfordshire and Victim Support found that one third of 11 to 17-year-olds have suffered physical violence in the past year. Will the Minister make it a priority to ensure that young people are taught how to report crimes and are fully supported throughout the process?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Abuse is not acceptable and victims of abuse need to know where to get the support they need. The Government are committed to ensuring that that is the case.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

T4. I welcome the Government’s extra funds to support victims of sexual abuse, but will my right hon. Friend outline exactly how we will do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend will know that, in her force constabulary area, there has been a 16% cut in crime, thanks in large part to her excellent PCC, Julia Mulligan. As an MP for a rural constituency, I too take rural crime very seriously. My hon. Friend is right that much of rural crime, particularly that involving large agricultural vehicles, is undertaken by organised crime groups. I am pleased that the regional organised crime units are working with local forces to ensure that we tackle rural crime and make it a No. 1 issue.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T6. Considering the warning that Tony Robinson has been given about his obligations under the Official Secrets Act, what guarantee can the Home Secretary give that other special branch officers, former special branch officers and others with knowledge of prominent people and historical child abuse will be able to speak out without such obstructions again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

A growing number of my constituents are victims of cyber-crime, but they complain that they hear nothing once the crime has been reported to Action Fraud. As the Minister could not tell me how many successful prosecutions there were for cyber-crime or what proportion of cases reported to Action Fraud were investigated, how can we have any confidence in the crime figures and what will she do to ensure that cyber-crimes are properly investigated and prosecuted?

[Karen Bradley]

Cyber-crime is a crime that we are getting to grips with, and we are learning about the parameters of cyber-crime. Action Fraud is doing excellent work, but I agree that it needs to do more to make sure that people who report fraud get full information. I am working closely with Action Fraud to make sure that they do.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Will Ministers make it a priority to introduce mandatory reporting of female genital mutilation and to strengthen policies and procedures to provide victims of FGM with much needed appropriate support?

Annual Reports (Home Office)

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I am pleased to announce that today I am publishing the annual reports of the Biometrics Commissioner, National DNA Database Strategy Board and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner.

Mr Alastair MacGregor, the Biometrics Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 4 March 2013 has presented his first annual report to the Home Secretary. The report of the Biometrics Commissioner is a statutory requirement of section 21 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Chief Constable Chris Simms, current chair of the National DNA Strategy Board has presented the annual report of the National DNA Strategy Board to the Home Secretary. This report has been made a statutory requirement of section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Mr Tony Porter, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner appointed under Section 34 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 10 March 2014 has presented his first annual report to the Home Secretary. The report of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner is a statutory requirement of section 35 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Together, these reports provide evidence of progress made in the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We are grateful to the Commissioners and to the National DNA Strategy Board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions and are considering their reports.

Copies of the reports will be available from the Vote Office.