Hillsborough
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Hillsborough stadium tragedy.
It is over a year now since Parliament last debated Hillsborough and the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I hope the House will join me again in expressing my thanks and gratitude to the panel’s chairman, Bishop James Jones, and all his colleagues for their remarkable work. The contents of the panel’s report were truly shocking, and on the day it was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families of the 96 for what he described as a “double injustice”. The first injustice, he said, was the appalling events; the second was the treatment of victims by the press.
I would like to pay tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and all those who have campaigned on their behalf. As Home Secretary, I have met a number of the bereaved families, and I have always been impressed by the dignified way they and their supporters have continued their search for truth and justice. I would also like to pay tribute to those in the House who have campaigned on behalf of the families, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).
So significant were the conclusions of the panel’s report that its publication on 12 September 2012 set in train a number of important events. By the end of that year, this had resulted in the High Court’s quashing of the original inquest verdicts and the ordering of fresh inquests, and the establishment of two major investigations. In a debate in the House following publication of the panel’s report, I said that
“after the truth must come justice; and after the apology, accountability.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 721.]
As lead Minister, it is my responsibility to ensure that the various processes of Government and the criminal justice system are working effectively and are properly resourced to ensure that justice can be done, not only for those who died, but, just as importantly, for their families and all those who have campaigned on their behalf ever since.
Today, I would like to update the House on the progress made in respect of the new inquests and the new investigations. First, I shall deal with the inquests. Last year, and within two months of the decision by the High Court, Lord Justice Goldring was appointed as coroner to conduct the fresh inquests. A number of pre-inquest hearings have already been held. The police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigations are working in support of the coroner to a timetable determined by him, and the Government welcome the fact that Lord Justice Goldring has made it clear that the fresh inquests will start on 31 March.
I have always made it clear that the Government will support the families in their quest for justice and, as part of that commitment, we are funding a comprehensive legal representation scheme. Work began on this immediately after the original inquest verdicts were quashed, and the scheme that is now in place will ensure that the families are properly represented and supported at the inquests.
In addition to the inquests, there is the investigative process, to which there are two elements. The first is led by the IPCC. This is its biggest-ever investigation, and its principal focus is on police involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough. It is worth reminding the House that this includes not just the role and actions of the South Yorkshire police, the force responsible for policing the match, but the West Midlands police, who played a significant role in the aftermath, providing support to Lord Taylor’s inquiry, producing the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and assisting the then South Yorkshire West coroner, Dr Stefan Popper. I can therefore confirm that the experience of survivors, again brought to public attention in the last week, is part of the ongoing IPCC investigation.
The second element is a criminal investigation—Operation Resolve—led by Jon Stoddart, the former chief constable of Durham. He was appointed by me in December 2012 and his key role is to investigate the deaths at Hillsborough. Working alongside both investigations is a discrete Crown Prosecution Service team, through which lawyers from the CPS provide ongoing advice.
When he was the Bishop of Liverpool and sitting in another place, Bishop James Jones said that justice was about process as well as outcomes. The unique, complex and wide-ranging circumstances of Hillsborough meant that two major and large-scale investigations had to be created from scratch, and both had to have firm foundations. Suitable premises had to be found, acquired and fitted out. This has been done. Suitably skilled and appropriate staff had to be identified and recruited. This has also been done. It was inevitable that this would take time but the investigations are now located together on one site in Warrington—close to the source of the investigation—and are making good progress.
Like a number of the bereaved families and a number of those in this House, I have been to Warrington to see both investigations for myself. I have met some of the staff from the IPCC and Operation Resolve investigations and I was struck by their dedication and professionalism. I welcome the fact that the IPCC and Operation Resolve want their investigations to be open and transparent and both investigations have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate to families the work they are doing.
I would like now to set out to the House some of the progress being made; first, in respect of the IPCC. Over 1,600 people have now responded to the IPCC’s witness appeal. This includes over 250 people who have never given accounts before. The IPCC is conducting detailed analysis of every response and is following up the evidence provided. Separately around 400 witnesses have made requests to the IPCC to see their original statements and the IPCC is helping people to access those statements.
In addition, the IPCC has recovered around 2,500 police pocket notebooks. These pocket books had not been made available to previous investigations and are now being analysed by IPCC investigators.
The IPCC has also conducted further analysis of the 242 police accounts now believed to have been amended. In this context, it has completed more than 160 interviews and these interviews continue. Alongside the IPCC investigation, the police investigation—Operation Resolve—has, first, worked to the coroner’s priorities and timetable, meeting all the deadlines set by him; secondly, has worked in parallel on other aspects of the criminal investigation that are complementary to the work being done for the coroner; thirdly, has obtained access to the best quality audio-visual material and carried out extensive analysis and, in doing so, has drawn on advances in digital imagery and forensic technology not available to previous investigative teams; and fourthly, has now completed more than 1,000 interviews of witnesses.
The work being done by Operation Resolve is aimed at providing the fullest possible picture of what happened at Hillsborough, both to ensure that the inquest is able to answer the questions that the bereaved families still have and in support of the criminal investigation.
As Jon Stoddart has said,
“If we find there were health and safety breaches or evidence of wilful neglect, we will seek to ensure the appropriate action is taken against those responsible. If we find that, with the benefit of hindsight, there are lessons to be learned, we will endeavour to ensure that they are addressed. And if we find evidence of criminal behaviour, including manslaughter through neglect, we will seek to lay charges and put people and organisations before the courts.”
As I have said, this new phase of work on Hillsborough began with the publication of the independent panel’s report. One particularly important aspect of the way in which the panel approached its work was its consultation with the bereaved families and I was keen to learn from and build on that dialogue. So I was pleased when Bishop James Jones agreed to act as my adviser on Hillsborough, bringing with him his knowledge and experience from his time as chair of the independent panel.
Operation Resolve and the IPCC have invested significant effort engaging with families, including by offering the opportunity for families to visit their offices in Warrington. “Family forums”, proposed by Bishop James Jones and building on work done by the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service and Operation Resolve, are now taking place regularly. The forums provide a regular and structured opportunity for bereaved families to have face-to-face discussions with those conducting and advising the investigations, and they provide an important opportunity for the families to probe and ask questions.
Bishop James Jones, in recent conversations with me, has described the families’ position as being “encouraged” but not “persuaded.” Mr Speaker, this is a sentiment I can understand. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the tragedy, it is the sentiment that underlies my continuing commitment to do everything I can to ensure that the process of disclosing the truth, started by the panel, is followed by the process of justice.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the shadow Home Secretary and then other colleagues, it might be helpful if I emphasised to the House that the special inquest has not yet formally opened. I think there have been pre-hearings, but the hearing itself has not opened. Therefore, the matter is not sub judice. However, colleagues might think it wise to exercise a degree of restraint and to weigh their words carefully if they seek to express opinions on matters that plainly fall to be determined by the inquest. That is not in any sense intended to chill; it is simply to make the point to colleagues, who will exercise their own judgment as to how to proceed in this matter.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome the points she has made updating the House on the progress made in getting justice for the families of the 96 people who lost their lives at Hillsborough.
This year we approach 25 years since that dreadful day. I pay tribute, alongside the Home Secretary, to the Hillsborough Family Support Group, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope for Hillsborough, which have shown such determination in their campaign for their loved ones. None of us should underestimate the strength they have shown and what they have endured over the last quarter of a century, or how difficult it is still for them as the inquest approaches—something that no family would ever want to go through. We should show them our respect and our support in their pursuit of justice.
In October 2012, when the Home Secretary last addressed the House on the disaster, we all welcomed the independent panel report and paid tribute to the panel, led by Bishop James Jones. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the work he did to establish it, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know spoke to her about giving today’s statement, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), and colleagues in all parts of the House who continue to support their constituents in the pursuit of justice.
The list of failures exposed by the panel at that time was extensive, shocking and deeply distressing—the failure to improve the safety of the ground in the years before Hillsborough; the holding of the game at a ground without a safety certificate just four years after the Bradford fire; the failure to organise crowd safety; the failure to close the tunnel; the failure to help fans speedily; and also the failure to be honest about what happened and to investigate, and the falsehoods that were perpetuated afterwards. This House came together to make clear our view that it was a betrayal of victims and their families.
Since the panel’s report, I welcome the overturning of the original coroner’s verdict, at the instigation of the Attorney-General, and the plans to reopen the inquest next month. I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to our proposal for more powers for the IPCC and her decision to provide more resources for such a substantial investigation. I welcome the work by the Stoddart and IPCC inquiries and the substantial investigations that are under way. She is right to highlight the importance of support, including information and legal support for the families, but let me ask her some further questions about developments.
The Home Secretary will obviously know the importance of the inquest to everyone and the concern at how long everything takes. Can she assure the House, first, that the inquest will start on 31 March and that every effort is being made to ensure that all evidence and papers are in place, and that there are no further delays? Secondly, will she tell the House what more she is doing to ensure that every police force organisation and agency provides full disclosure to the Stoddart investigation and the IPCC, and does not simply wait to be asked for information? She will know the distress it has already caused to find that important and shocking information was never revealed to the independent panel—the pocket books she referred to—but also that far more police and witness statements were altered.
We have heard, for example, the disturbing testimony of one witness, who was a teenage student at the time. He told the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme that he was threatened with prosecution for complaining about failings by South Yorkshire police, saying:
“I’m a 19-year-old boy, three weeks out of Hillsborough, traumatised, and he’s threatening me that he’s going to put together a case for wasting police time because he didn’t like my evidence”.
I know that the Home Secretary would agree with me that it is a matter of deep concern that full information was not given to the panel at the time and would welcome the work done by the investigations to get more evidence since, but will she give a direction to all forces to provide all information related to the Hillsborough disaster to the two investigations?
The Home Secretary will also be aware of concern among the families about surveillance operations against families in the aftermath of the tragedy. I understand that the IPCC is not currently investigating those claims or concerns. Will the Home Secretary commit today to ordering the release of any material on surveillance, including intercept surveillance, of Hillsborough families in the aftermath of the disaster to the IPCC?
Thirdly, will she update us on the progress that has been made on the wider investigations that go beyond the inquest and on decisions on prosecutions? Clearly, the main focus of the investigations has been preparing information for the inquest, but what progress has been made in investigating criminal wrongdoing? According to what timetable does she believe files will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service from the IPCC and the Stoddart investigation?
Finally, will the Home Secretary reassure us that the IPCC will have the resources it needs and that she will ensure that the inquiries work effectively alongside each other? She will know that concerns have previously been raised about co-ordination between the inquiries. Will she keep that under review to ensure that the investigations are fully co-ordinated?
The last quarter century has been immensely difficult for the families of the 96, and they know that the coming months will be very hard, too. The House should pay tribute to them and to their faith and determination over a quarter of a century, as well as to those who have stood by them, particularly the people of Liverpool. We should strain every sinew to ensure that they get justice now.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and echo her point about how difficult it will be for the families when the inquest starts to have to relive the tragedy yet again. None of us can fully appreciate how difficult and traumatic that will be for the families and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.
As for the date of the inquest, as I said in my statement, Lord Justice Goldring has said that the fresh inquest will start on 31 March. That is obviously a matter for him and not for me as Home Secretary, but I am sure from the way he has conducted matters so far that he will recognise the significance of the inquest over which he will preside and the importance of ensuring that it goes ahead according to an appropriate timetable.
The right hon. Lady asked about disclosure, what information is available to the two investigations and what information was not made available to the panel. The panel saw some 450,000 documents from more than 80 organisations, so it did an extremely good job and, having seen all that evidence, it was able to come up with its shocking results about what had happened at Hillsborough. However, everybody has been perhaps not surprised but disappointed that further documents have emerged as a result of the two investigations, particularly the police pocket notebooks and other such documents. I have written to both Dame Anne Owers, as chairman of the IPCC, and Jon Stoddart—they are in charge of the investigations and it is up to them to amass the information they need—to ask whether they were having any problems getting material and whether it would be helpful for me to write to the chief constables of all police forces to ask them to look for any material that they might have.
The right hon. Lady asked about possible undercover operations and although no formal complaint or allegation has been made to the IPCC, it is aware of the concerns and is considering how best to address them. It is reviewing the material on Hillsborough so if it discovers any evidence in its investigation that suggests that surveillance such as that which has been suggested took place it will pursue that evidence.
I recognise, particularly given what has happened over the past 25 years, that everybody is keen to ensure that there should be no sense that the timetable is not be followed appropriately. I discussed the matter with Operation Resolve and the IPCC when I was in Warrington. They are keen to ensure that at every stage they do everything properly so that there can be no opportunity to challenge their results. We would all agree that that is appropriate, but it takes time to do that. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I am making resources available to the IPCC and we talk to it and Operation Resolve regularly about what is necessary.
I was pleased to see—I am going to use the term appropriate again—the appropriate level of co-ordination between the two investigations. They are considering separate issues, although of course the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation, and they are working together in a manner that is fit and proper, ensuring that everything that is being done is being done in a way that will ensure that people have confidence in the results when they come out, whether they result in criminal charges or other findings.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary assure us that any questions that the relatives have can be asked and answered? What level of co-operation is she receiving from retired police officers?
Mrs May
There is indeed a level of co-operation from retired police officers. Not everybody whom the IPCC has wished to interview has been willing to come forward for interview, but we are talking about people who are being interviewed as witnesses. The fact that an officer is retired would have no relevance if somebody were to be found to be suspected of criminal activity. The investigation would of course proceed as appropriate.
As for the families and their access to information, there are two ways in which families can ask questions. First, they can go to Warrington and meet members of the investigation teams and talk to them. When I was in Warrington, I was taken through the sort of information that the investigators could provide to the family of a particular individual. Families rightly have questions. One benefit for those involved in the investigations when families go in to talk to them is that they can identify any questions that the families might ask that might not be the first to come to mind for the investigators. The forums are also important, as they provide families with the opportunity to raise questions face to face. As I have said, they are ably chaired and managed by Bishop James Jones.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and express my continued admiration for how she is leading this process. People might think of the families’ battle as being won, but in truth only now are they entering the most difficult period of all. Parents such as my constituent, Delia Brown, are only now finding out basic details about what happened to their sons and daughters between 3.15 and 4 o’clock. With that in mind, does the Home Secretary share my disgust and disbelief that South Yorkshire police have today, using public money, rerun slurs about alcohol that were dismissed by Lord Justice Taylor in 1989 and by the Hillsborough Independent Panel in 2012?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the families are well made. This is a very difficult time and, as he says, it is only now that some families are in any sense able to fill in the picture of what happened to their loved ones. I am concerned by his reference to South Yorkshire police and would be grateful if he and I could have a further discussion about that matter. I am certainly prepared to look into it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I join the tributes to the Opposition MPs who have led the persistent campaigns for the families. Sadly, in the 1980s I was involved in two sets of crushings. The first was at an archbishop’s funeral, when 14 people died around me. The other was at the Heysel stadium, where, within 200 feet of me, 39 people died. As well as finding out what went wrong at Hillsborough and after Hillsborough, which I hope the inquest will achieve, we ought to pay tribute to the Police Federation for being the first to call for the safety of grounds from the 1930s through to the 1970s. May I say to my right hon. Friend that perimeter safety and crowd safety could be another tribute to those who sadly lost their lives?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should all be constantly aware of the need to ensure safety at stadiums when large numbers of people are at football matches and other events. It is extremely important that we learn the lessons from the tragedies from the past to ensure the safety of those who attend such events in the future.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to update the House today. In her statement, she said that in 2012 the Prime Minister apologised for a double injustice, yet now we learn that Hillsborough may have been a treble injustice. Ever since the disaster, the families of the 96 have expressed concerns that their phones may have been hacked and electronic communications monitored. First, families lost loved ones, then they were criminalised, and now it seems that they may even have been shadowed by terrorists. I have one simple question, so that the right hon. Lady can put the families’ minds at rest. Will she confirm unequivocally that at no stage since the disaster were the families subjected to surveillance by the police or security services of this country?
Mrs May
I fully appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the families’ concerns, but he will recognise, as I am sure his right hon. and hon. Friends will too, that we do not identify those who may or may not have been subject to interception in any form. I know that this is difficult and I know that some would prefer a somewhat different answer, but it has always been the case that the police do not confirm or deny whether an individual has been subject to interception. There are two avenues that I would refer to in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The first is that, as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the IPCC is aware of these concerns and is considering how best to address them. If it does find any evidence during its investigation that suggests that surveillance has taken place, it will pursue it. It is also available to those who feel that they have been subject to unlawful interception by the authorities, to refer that to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which provides an independent forum for investigating complaints.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
As a special constable, I can vouch for the fact that most police officers are hard-working and honest, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there is evidence of any wrongdoing by any individual police officers, they will face the full force of the law?
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that the purpose of the work that is being undertaken is to ensure that we can provide justice for the families. Jon Stoddart has made it absolutely clear that at whatever level they find that errors have been made, be they in relation to health and safety or criminal activity, appropriate action will be taken. If it is criminal activity, people will be charged and prosecutions will be brought.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The tenacity of the bereaved families has led to the exposure of organised deceit following the Hillsborough disaster and to where we are today with a new inquest and a major inquiry. How will the Home Secretary ensure that she maintains the trust of those bereaved families, and will she denounce the outrageous slur that Bishop Jones’ independent panel might have had its own agenda?
Mrs May
I am very happy to reject completely the suggestion that Bishop James Jones’ panel had its own agenda. It did an extremely good job. It identified a significant number of documents, and some are still coming forward. It did the first important task, which was to reveal to all of us the validity of the comments and claims made by the families over the years, who had not been believed and had not been listened to. The panel showed that the families were right and that errors and potential criminal activity needed to be investigated. The work of the independent panel was crucial. It was essential in enabling what is now happening in terms of trying to ensure that we get justice for the families. Had it not been for the independent panel’s inquiry and the results that it had, we would not be in the position that we are in today with two investigations.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update to the House today. Many people will be surprised to learn about the number of police notebooks that have suddenly become available. I am sure that the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012 has facilitated some of the investigation, but does she agree that there is a moral imperative for the Police Federation to ensure that all serving and former police officers co-operate fully with the investigation?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Most people will be surprised to know that police officers retain their police notebooks in the first place, and secondly that in this instance they kept them and did not reveal them to the panel. It is good that around 2,500 notebooks have now been made available to the investigators. I encourage anybody who has any information relating to Hillsborough—any documents, any files, anything—to come forward with that. I also support my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the Police Federation encourages all police officers and former police officers, who may have information relevant to these investigations, to make that information available.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I think that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues from Sheffield and the people of Sheffield when I commend the Home Secretary for both her statement and its delivery, and the work that she has been doing. I endorse the tribute paid by the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to the families and the concern that they expressed for them as we approach the 25th anniversary.
Finding the information in the form of the handbooks that have just been discovered will have shocked all of us once again, as will the information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned. Those of us who are concerned to ensure that successor bodies are both open and transparent, and to ensure that we get to the truth and hold to account those who were responsible 25 years ago, should co-operate in any way possible. I would be prepared to join my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary in dealing with any allegations that are made about South Yorkshire police or any other local body that may at this point in time be acting inappropriately.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his offer. As he says, it is extremely important that all those who can encourage others to act appropriately, do so, and are willing to challenge those who are not acting appropriately.
If I may, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) asked another question, which I did not answer, about how I could maintain the trust of the families. I see the families from time to time, and as I have explained, Bishop James Jones is my adviser on the matter and he is seeing the families through the forums. I have made it clear both to Bishop Jones and to the families that if they have any concerns at all they should feel free to raise them directly with me and I will look into them.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her update today and the work that she is doing on this issue. I pay tribute to the strength of the families who have been pursuing justice through this dreadful almost 25 years. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether she believes that criminal prosecutions will take place and whether she believes that criminal prosecutions must take place to provide justice for those families?
Mrs May
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern around this issue. It is not my place to say whether a criminal prosecution will take place. The investigation takes place and the Crown Prosecution Service will independently determine whether prosecutions are appropriate. What I can say is that all those involved in the investigation are absolutely clear that where they find criminal activity, they will do their best to ensure that that is pursued, because everybody wants justice for the families.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and thank her for updating the House in the way that she has. May I take her back to the questions of the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)? The right hon. Lady is right that we should encourage people to co-operate, but I understand that 13 police officers have refused to be interviewed by the IPCC and two have declined to respond to its letters. She may have better figures. We do not just need encouragement; we need compulsion. They need to be made to co-operate so that we get to the truth.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is right: for the purposes of the IPCC investigation, 13 of the 242 officers whose statements have been amended have declined to be interviewed. Those who are being regarded as witnesses are not required to be interviewed at this stage, and there are those who have said that they do not believe that they have anything to add to the information that has been available in the past. I would therefore suggest a degree of caution in respect of how those who are not taking up the request for an interview are portrayed. As I have said, if the IPCC identifies someone who is potentially suspected of a criminal offence, that will not be an impediment, and the IPCC will act accordingly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I was on the Lepping lane terraces at the FA cup semi-final of 1981. Around me, several spectators were crushed, and had to be treated by the medics. That was eight years before the Hillsborough tragedy. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on what lessons were learnt from previous FA cup semi-finals at Hillsborough, and will she arrange for that information to be published so that we can see what planning took place before the tragedy?
Mrs May
One of the things that emerged from the independent panel’s inquiry was that, sadly, there were apparently indications of problems relating to the ground, but not all the necessary lessons had been learnt from previous experience. That is why it is so important—as one of my hon. Friends said earlier—that in the event of an incident of any scale, but particularly an incident of the scale of the Hillsborough tragedy, lessons are learnt and people look at what went wrong. Part of the current process involves consideration of whether there was any neglect in relation to the ground and the operations that took place there. Sadly, as I have said, it appears that there were indications of problems, but lessons were not learnt before this particular football game.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Let me first record my appreciation of the work that the Home Secretary has been doing, and also my admiration for the families’ continuing and amazing drive to seek justice.
I understand that up to nine police forces are currently being contacted, but I want to concentrate on the Cheshire force and its former chief constable, Mervyn Jones. In a letter that I received from the IPCC, I was told:
“Records were found that indicated that 22 boxes of documents were recovered by South Yorkshire police on the 22nd of January 1998. These records indicated they were copy documents taken by Mervyn Jones.”
The documents had been kept in the armoury of Cheshire constabulary.
As the Home Secretary is aware, a number of those documents were policy files, and were rather important, because Mervyn Jones led the west midlands inquiry. He took them away with him after leaving the force. I found out today that they contain references to files that have since been deleted from the HOLMES computer system, which stores information about major incidents. May I ask the Home Secretary what lessons can be learnt from that? How can it can be ensured that in the event of any future major incident—or, God forbid, any future disaster—it will not be possible for a chief constable, or an assistant chief constable, to take files away rather than storing them at a central point?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point. As he presumably knows—because it has been in touch with him about this particular individual—the IPCC is aware of the issue, has identified Mervyn Jones as a person who is of interest to it, and is planning to interview him.
This issue has raised questions in my mind about the ability of police officers to retain documents that have been relevant to them in a particular role, and to take those documents away with them as if they were personal possessions. That has been highlighted not just in relation to the question of the pocket notebooks, but, on a slightly larger scale, in relation to the case of one person, Mervyn Jones, and I think that we need to look into it further.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I genuinely congratulate the Home Secretary on the thoroughness of her approach, but may I ask how many police notebooks that may prove relevant later were not recovered?
Mrs May
About 2,500 police notebooks have now been supplied to those conducting the investigations. I would encourage any officer out there who may have a notebook that is relevant and who has still not provided it to do so, because I think it important for all the notebooks to be made available.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the courage and bravery shown by all those affected by the Hillsborough disaster over the past 25 years, and especially in recent months.
May I ask the Home Secretary again about the police pocket notebooks? She has said that about 2,500 of them were not made available to those conducting earlier investigations. Does she know, or has she asked, why they were not made available?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and for her work on this most sensitive and troubling of issues. I also pay tribute to the Hillsborough families for their steadfast campaigning. They are about to enter a very difficult phase in the process.
I make no apology for returning to the issue—the shocking issue—of the disclosure of 2,500 police notebooks. May I ask two questions? First, the IPCC now has those notebooks, but will those involved in Operation Resolve have copies of them? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a thorough review of the storage of police notebooks, given that the issue has implications for all historical investigations, criminal and civil?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the point of concern about the police pocket notebooks. Although the two investigations are concerned with slightly different aspects of the Hillsborough tragedy, it has been made clear that information that is relevant to both should be available to both.
As for my hon. Friend’s wider question, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), it is important for us to look at the issue of documents that are acquired by police officers in relation to investigations or to incidents that they attend and are required in the course of their duty, but which, in the cases that we are discussing, were treated as if they were personal possessions that officers could take home and deal with as they wished. That is an issue to which I shall want to return.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Home Secretary both for her statement and for the way in which she continues to handle this most important issue. Does she agree that one of the truly alarming things that we have discovered in the recent past is the extent to which there was what could almost be described as an organised stereotyping distortion of what had taken place, and the extent of the prejudice against those who attended the game at Hillsborough—both those who lost their lives and those who survived? Does she agree that one legacy that we should really want is the knowledge that, in any future situations of this kind, such prejudices will be continually challenged and rooted out? The only guarantee that we can have that something like this will not happen again is a guarantee that those attitudes will be utterly condemned, and will become a thing of the past.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. As I said earlier, when the Prime Minister made his own statement in 2012, he said that the second injustice that had taken place was the treatment that the families had received at the hands of the press. However, the injustice was wider than that: it did not just involve the press.
The press set out their particular portrait of what had happened, and of the families involved, but a collective view was then taken by society as a whole. With very few—but notable and honourable—exceptions, people had that collective belief, and felt that it was not necessary to take the matter further. Like others, I pay tribute not just to the families who continued the fight, but to the Members of Parliament and others who consistently challenged that view and said that it was not right to let the issue lie. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: while I hope that we never see an incident of this sort again, it is important for those who try to set a public perception on such issues to be challenged.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
On the question of the police notebooks, will the Home Secretary find out—it will be difficult, but not impossible in this computer age—how many police notebooks relating to the Hillsborough inquiry were used by the same police officers who in the 1984 miners strike compiled notebooks and statements all saying the same thing in the first few sentences?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my praise for the families, whose tenacity and courage are an example to us all? I know from speaking to many of my constituents how difficult this is for them. What plans does the Home Secretary have to offer counselling and additional support to the friends and families of the victims, who are going to relive the trauma of 1989 during the impending inquests?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady makes an important point; this is going to be a very difficult time for the families. Additional consultation space will be provided for them so that they can have meetings with their legal teams, and every effort is being made to ensure that, in every practical sense, attendance at the inquests is made as easy as possible for them. We recognise that support of the kind she describes needs to be provided to those involved, and the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the coroner are working together to ensure that that is made available.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I should like to echo other Members in thanking the Home Secretary for her statement and for paying tribute to the families, campaigners and Members of the House for their work on this matter over the past 25 years. May I take the Home Secretary back to the issue of Lord Justice Goldring’s deadline of 31 March for fresh inquests? Understandably, she has said that that is a matter for him, but does she understand that it is important for the families that everything that can possibly be done is being done to ensure that that deadline is met?
Mrs May
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I know that the investigatory teams are aware of the importance of meeting Lord Justice Goldring’s timetable in relation to the support they are giving him as coroner. Indeed, up to now they have met all his deadlines. They are clear that, in order for him to do his job, any requests put to them should be dealt with in the timetable that he has set.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary has made a welcome commitment to look again at the issue of the police withholding evidence. Does she not agree, however, that the fact that the notebooks, and other alarming acts, have only just been uncovered, despite all the previous investigations over many years, shows that the current system of police accountability and scrutiny is not fit for purpose, despite having been strengthened? She must know that she would get support from right across the House if she were to announce a radical overhaul of the system.
Mrs May
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this matter, but the Government have already acted in a number of ways in relation to this question. We have enhanced the powers of the IPCC to deal with these issues, and we will be giving it more resources to enable it to investigate all serious and sensitive complaints against the police itself, rather than passing them back to police forces. That is an important change. Also, I have already announced to the House a number of steps that are being taken in relation to the wider question of police integrity. The findings of the Hillsborough panel have raised a very real question in people’s minds about police integrity, and I welcome the steps by the College of Policing to introduce a code of ethics. A number of steps are being taken to improve that issue, so that people will feel that they can have full confidence in the police. The vast majority of police officers work day in, day out for our protection and to cut crime, and they work honestly and with integrity. However, when there are those who do not, it taints the picture that people have of the others. It is our duty to encourage and enhance people’s confidence in their police.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has referred in previous answers to the police notebooks being kept by individual officers. Will she clarify whether all the 2,500 notebooks were recovered from individual officers, or whether some of them were collectively stored by the police and deliberately withheld from previous investigations?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
A number of police forces, including South Yorkshire, have failed to provide evidence about Hillsborough. Does the Home Secretary think that that is due to a lack of resources or does she think that there is a worrying, ongoing reluctance to get to the truth?
Mrs May
It is extremely unfortunate that, at various stages, South Yorkshire police did not provide all the evidence, but I was pleased that they were willing to respond to and provide information to the independent panel. It is in everyone’s interests that we should be able to get to the full truth and to see justice done.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Perhaps the biggest risk to safety in football stadiums today is that posed by a panic mass evacuation, following a bomb scare, for example, or a terrorist incident. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is no requirement on any stadium to have a test mass evacuation using real people, that no such tests have been carried out and that every football stadium in the country relies on computer simulations to determine whether its mass evacuation plans will actually work?
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Home Secretary will recall that when we debated these issues in the House some time ago, the overwhelming sentiment on both sides of the House was that there was a need for full transparency and disclosure, not just as a prerequisite for justice but as a first step towards resolution. In the light of that, may I return to the question of the 13 retired police officers who have refused to comply with the IPCC’s requests for interviews? Does she agree that, rather than it being a matter for those officers to decide, before any interviews take place, that they have nothing to add, the IPCC should be allowed to discover whether that is the case during the process of such interviews?
Mrs May
As I said in response to earlier questions, those who have refused to be interviewed so far have been regarded as witnesses, which means that there is no requirement for them to take part in an interview at this stage. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about who should be the judge of whether they have anything to add to the investigation, but as I have said, they are being regarded as witnesses and are therefore not required to be interviewed.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I hope that this question will not be regarded as trivial, but at a meeting I attended recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), it was suggested that the facilities for the families at the inquests—toilets, tea and coffee-making facilities, catering and comfortable seating, for example—were not quite as good as they should be. Will the Home Secretary check that they are in fact up to scratch, because it is essential that those families should be made to feel as welcome and as comfortable as possible at the inquests?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. As I said earlier, it is my understanding that every effort is being made to ensure that the facilities are appropriate for the families, and that it will be as easy as possible for them to attend. She will have noted that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is in his place. He will have heard her comments, and I am sure that he will take them away to the Ministry of Justice.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I am sure the Home Secretary is aware that the families have asked for one person to be put in charge of the entire investigation so that they can co-ordinate all the various investigations that are going on. Will she consider doing that?
Mrs May
I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the families about this matter and what the most appropriate structure is to have in place. I believe that we do have the right structure at the moment, because the two investigations are looking at different aspects of this tragedy. It is of course important that there is co-ordination between them, and as I said earlier, the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation. What I have seen from visiting Warrington is that both investigations are conscious of not only those areas where it is necessary for them to co-ordinate, but those areas where it is necessary for them to recognise the difference in their investigation.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I acknowledge the worthy statement of the Home Secretary on the double injustice, but why should the ethic of apology and accountability not extend to the third possible level of injustice—the hostile surveillance of victims’ families? What standing policy says that evidence in that regard can continue to be withheld? Surely that is what would tell us how far and how high this syndicate of deceit and vilification actually reached. Before the Home Secretary tells me, as she told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), that families can go to the IPT, will she tell us what the IPT’s record is of upholding complaints or ever giving a reason?
Mrs May
I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, in that I will not be giving a different answer to the one I gave earlier. As I indicated, the IPCC is aware of this issue and is considering how best to address it. If it finds evidence of surveillance that has taken place, it will deal with that as appropriate.
Points of Order
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It is open to the Home Secretary to respond to that point of order if she wishes to do so.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
If I may, Mr Speaker, I will provide clarification. I apologise if my language was loosely used earlier, as it should not have been. It is the accepted policy that we do not deny or confirm whether somebody has been subject to interception, which I understood was potentially part of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), but I have noted the concern that has been raised in this House and I will take that matter away.
Immigration Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 12—Power to charge fees for attendance services in particular cases.
Government new clause 18—Deprivation of citizenship: conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK—
‘(1) In section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory.”
(2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2) of section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 in a case which falls within subsection (4A) of that Act, the Secretary of State may take account of the manner in which a person conducted him or herself before this section came into force.’
Manuscript amendment (a) to Government new clause 18, after proposed new subsection (4A)(b) in subsection (1), insert
‘and
(c) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under subsection (4B).
(4B) (1) This sub-section applies if the Secretary of State:
(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual in a case which falls within subsection (4A)
(b) makes an application to the court for permission to make an order.
(2) The application must set out how the deprivation is conducive to the public good and how the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, and of the islands, or any British overseas territory.
(3) The function of the court on the application is:
(a) to determine whether the relevant decision of the Secretary of State is
obviously flawed, and
(b) to determine whether to give permission to deprive a person of citizenship in a case which falls within subsection (4A)
(4) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.
(5) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (4A)(b) is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.
(6) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.’.
Manuscript amendment (b) to Government new clause 18, after subsection (2), insert—
‘(3) The court is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’.
New clause 13—Right of appeal: Impact assessment—
‘Before the Secretary of State makes an order under section 65 (commencement) to bring into force section 11 (Right of appeal to First-tier Tribunal) he must—
(a) undertake an impact assessment of—
(i) the number of appeals effected by the provisions of section 11; and
(ii) the costs attributable to appeals to First-tier Tribunals; and
(b) lay a copy of a report on that impact assessment before Parliament.’.
New clause 15—Exceptions to automatic deportation—
‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33 (Exceptions), in subsection (2)(a), for “Convention rights”, substitute “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention”.
(3) In section 33, after subsection (6A), insert—
“(6B) Exception 7 is where the Secretary of State thinks, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including the seriousness of the offence, that removal of the foreign criminal from the United Kingdom in pursuance of a deportation order would cause such manifest and overwhelming harm to his children that it overrides the public interest in removal.”.
(4) In section 38 (Interpretation)—
(a) after subsection (3), insert—
“(3A) In section 32, “Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”;
(b) omit paragraph (4)(b);
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) In section 33, “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention” means Articles 2 or 3 of “the Convention” as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”.’.
Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end add—
‘(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—
(a) ensure that children are not detained for immigration purposes, except in the following circumstances—
(i) where the Home Secretary reasonably believes they are a threat to national security;
(ii) in port or border cases where departure is the following day and no application for a visa or asylum has been made; or
(iii) to provide pre-departure accommodation under subsection (7)(b); and
(b) ensure that if a child requires accommodation prior to departure it is—
(i) dedicated pre-departure accommodation which is subject to inspection by HMIP;
(ii) for a maximum period of 72 hours;
(iii) following a recommendation made by the Independent Family Returns Panel, and
(iv) with their family.
(8) Where subsection (7)(a)(ii) and (iii) applies, the officer responsible must ensure that children are only separated from their parents and carers for the purposes of child protection.’.
Amendment 79, page 2, line 38 leave out clause 3.
Amendment 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
‘(1A) In paragraph 16 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal) after paragraph (4) insert—
(5) A person detained under this paragraph must be released on bail in accordance with paragraph 22 after no later than the twenty-eighth day following that on which the person was detained.”.’.
Amendment 57, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In paragraph 22 (bail) at end insert—
(4) The following provisions apply if a person is detained under any provision of this Act—
(a) The Secretary of State must arrange a reference to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine whether the detained person should be released on bail;
(b) The Secretary of State must secure that a first reference to the First-tier Tribunal is made no later than the eighth day following that on which the detained person was detained;
(c) If the detained person remains in detention, the Secretary of State must secure that a second reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Commission is made no later than the thirty-sixth day following that on which the detained person was detained;
(d) The First-tier Tribunal hearing a case referred to it under this section must proceed as if the detained person had made an application to it for bail; and
(e) The First-tier Tribunal must determine the matter—
(i) on a first reference, before the tenth day following that on which the person concerned was detained; and
(ii) on a second reference, before the thirty-eighth day following that on which he was detained.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, “First-tier Tribunal” means—
(a) if the detained person has brought an appeal under the Immigration Acts, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal dealing with his appeal; and
(b) in any other case, such chamber of the First-tier Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) In case of a detained person to whom section 3(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 applies (jurisdiction in relation to bail for persons detained on grounds of national security) a reference under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, shall be to the Commission and not to the First-tier Tribunal.
(7) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 may include provision made for the purposes of this paragraph.”.’.
Amendment 73, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 1, page 8, line 19, leave out clause 11.
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 80, in clause 12, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 33.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 81, page 11, line 32, leave out clause 13.
Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
‘(za) first, to the best interests of any child affected by a decision as specified in section 117A(1).’.
Amendment 3, page 13, line 11, leave out ‘qualifying’.
Amendment 4, page 13, line 12, leave out ‘reasonable to expect’ and insert
‘in the best interests of’.
Amendment 62, page 13, leave out lines 14 to 39 and insert—
117C Cases involving Foreign Criminals
(1) No decision of the Secretary of State under section 33(6B) (Exceptions) of the UK Borders Act 2007 may be questioned except on appeal to the High Court.
(2) For the purposes of determining whether to give permission to appeal and determining any such appeal under subsection (1) the High Court must apply the procedures and principles which would be applied by it on an application for judicial review.’.
Amendment 58, page 13, leave out lines 19 to 39 and insert—
‘(3) The promotion of the best interests of children is in the public interest.’.
Amendment 5, page 13, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 14.
Government amendments 23 to 26, 45 to 53 and 27.
Amendment 61, in clause 65, page 50, line 27, at end insert—
‘( ) Section 1 and Part II of this Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed, being no earlier than the day on which an order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 9(2)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 in respect of civil legal services in connection with removal under section 1 and appeals under Part II comes into effect.’.
Government new schedule 1—Sham marriage and civil partnership: administrative regulations.
Amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 54, line 13, leave out paragraph (5).
Government amendments 28 to 44, 8 to 16, and 54.
Government motion to transfer paragraph 44 of schedule 8.
Mrs May
It might be helpful, before I comment on new clause 11, to set the context in which the amendments and new clauses are being moved.
This is an important Bill. It has, I think, widespread support outside this House, and will ensure that the Government have greater ability to make it harder for people to live in the United Kingdom illegally. It will make it easier for us to be able to remove people who are here illegally and will streamline the process for appeals, reducing the number of appeals from 17 to four. It will also, crucially, enable us, in certain circumstances, to deport individuals before they have their appeals, so that their right of appeal is outside of this country. It also introduces a variety of measures, one of which I will be coming on to speak to, because it relates to some of the technical amendments ensuring that people who come to this country for a temporary period contribute to our public services, as I think every hard-working family would expect them to do. It is this Government who are putting that through in the Bill.
The Bill is important because it will enhance our ability to deal with a number of immigration matters, although that is against the background of our success in reducing net migration into this country and particularly in dealing with the abuse of certain immigration routes, notably student visas. That is the context of these amendments. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the number of amendments, but many of them are very technical and minor amendments.
Government new clause 11 is intended to ensure that the marriage and civil partnership provisions work as effectively as possible. Importantly, part 4 of the Bill will establish a new referral and investigation scheme to prevent sham marriages and civil partnerships from gaining an immigration advantage. Increasingly, sham marriages are being used as a back-door route around immigration rules. The ability to do that has been extended by the Metock case in the European Court, which has enabled people from outside the EU married to someone within the EU to gain free movement rights. There is concern about sham marriages not only in the UK, but in other parts of the EU, and the UK is leading work across Europe.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is right about sham marriages, which are an issue I tried to raise last summer. It is crazy that the law does not allow registry offices to provide information on all marriages being sought, where immigration might be an issue, directly to the Home Office. At the moment, Home Office officials have to go and look at the board on the wall in the office. Could we not change the law?
Mrs May
The Bill will enable that reporting mechanism. In particular, because we are extending the period that the Home Office has in which to investigate, we should see more cases being investigated. The large number of sham marriages is a problem. Sadly—I am an active member of the Church of England—there have been court cases involving Church of England clergymen actively conducting sham marriages and being brought to justice as a result. It is important, however, that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with that.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions that the notice period for marriages will be extended, which I fully support, but will she also confirm that the Bill will provide for shorter periods in exceptional circumstances? For example, people fighting in our armed forces overseas might, for very legitimate reasons, need a shorter notice period.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify this issue. We will retain that ability, in certain emergency circumstances, to reduce that period for people with an urgent need to marry. It could be in the circumstances he highlights or, for example, where someone is on their deathbed. That is another emergency circumstance we want to cover.
It is important that we can deal fully and properly with sham marriages, and I believe that the Bill will enhance our ability to do that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady will know that marriages and civil partnerships are covered by Scots law and are matters for the Scottish Government. Why, therefore, is there not a legislative consent motion for this or any other part of the Bill? Surely, there should be an LCM in the Scottish Parliament so that these things can be discussed and passed properly.
Mrs May
If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience—I know he might find it difficult—I will explain how the Bill will enable us to discuss such matters with the Scottish Government.
The basic design of the scheme is straightforward, but the statutory framework into which it has to be introduced is complex—marriage law in England and Wales dates back to 1949—which is why we are bringing forward further technical changes. The changes need to be reflected in the law governing civil partnership, thereby doubling the number of amendments that are required. I have said before on a number of occasions that I think it is preferable for the Government not to table too many amendments at this stage, but these are minor and technical. I hope that people will appreciate the importance, when dealing with a part of the law that is so complex, of ensuring that we are able to make amendments to ensure we get it right and that the operation of the law is appropriate.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that what might be called by a lawyer the gravamen of his point has been heard. I do not think that a judge in one of the courts in which the hon. Gentleman has served would have allowed him to bang on for the length of time I have allowed him.
Mrs May
To clarify, the Bill increases the marriage and civil partnership notice period from 15 to 28 days in England and Wales for all couples, and allows it to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham. But we will be retaining the ability in emergency cases such as those set out by my hon. Friend to require the notice period to be shorter than is being provided for.
Chris Bryant
I am trying to help the Home Secretary. She referred earlier to clergymen. Will she confirm that she is not changing the law in relation to clergy at all, which actually will still be the weak point in the system?
Mrs May
I accept that we are changing the law in relation to the state obligations of civil registrars, which is part of the state apparatus in relation to this matter. There is not a requirement on clergy to report in this way. With his background, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share with me a desire to give a clear message that we have considerable concerns where we see clergymen indulging in the practices that I referred to earlier. We have discussed new measures with the Church of England and the Church in Wales and will continue to involve them in our plans for implementation. We are removing bands on the common licence route for non-EEA nationals to ensure that couples within the scope of the referral scheme are correctly identified. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary clarify her response to an earlier interjection on registrars notifying the Home Office about impending marriages, which appears to be one of the weaknesses?
Mrs May
They will refer all non-EEA marriages to the Home Office, and the purpose of the extension of the notice is that it gives further time for investigations to be conducted. In particular, the possibility of allowing that notice period to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham will enable the Home Office to investigate whether there is a genuine relationship and take immigration enforcement action where these are indeed sham cases. That will mean that an immigration advantage cannot be gained by entering into a marriage or civil partnership, if that were to go ahead. The Bill extends the powers for information to be shared by and with registration officials to help tackle these problems of sham marriages, immigration offences and, indeed, wider criminality and abuse.
I promised the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that I would refer to Scotland. The amendments allow further discussion with colleagues in Scotland and Northern reland about the extension there of the referral and investigation scheme. The new clause and schedule reflect no change in our overall approach but clarify the basis on which the Secretary of State may make regulations for the scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 11 also makes specific provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations and orders concerning the operation of the referral and investigation scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland when a clause 48 order has been made to extend the scheme there. Regulations concerning the operation of the scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be subject to consultation with the relevant Registrar General, as they are in England and Wales, and they will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
New schedule 1 supports the new clause by setting out the purposes for which regulations can be made under it, for example in respect of the specified evidence required of couples referred under the scheme. Amendment 27 to clause 64 provides for any order made under the new clause, for example in respect of the information required to give notice when an non-EEA national is involved, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments 23 to 26 to clause 52 provide an explicit reference in respect of the requirement for certain non-EEA nationals to give notice at a designated register office of civil partnerships to be formed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, in a similar manner to the existing provision relating to England and Wales, and it clarifies the requirements in such cases.
Amendments 28 and 29 to schedule 4 reflect the fact that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 will, where applicable, allow same-sex couples to provide evidence of consent to a same-sex marriage from their religious organisation’s relevant governing authority after notice of marriage has been given. The amendments will ensure that such couples are not prevented from giving notice if they do not yet have the evidence.
Amendment 30 to schedule 4 ensures that the requirement to provide additional information at the point of giving notice does not apply to a proposed marriage between former civil partners one of whom has changed sex. Amendment 37 to schedule 4 is an equivalent provision for a proposed civil partnership between former spouses one of whom has changed sex. Such couples will not be within the scope of the referral scheme, because no immigration advantage could be obtained from the marriage or civil partnership, and there is therefore no need for the provision of the additional information.
Amendments 31 to 33 to schedule 4, which relate to marriage, and amendments 38 to 40 to schedule 4, which relate to civil partnership, clarify the drafting of the requirement for additional information from couples who are within the scope of the scheme. They also limit the requirement to provide details of other names and aliases that are used to couples when one or both parties state that they do not have the appropriate immigration status or a relevant visa, or state that they have it but provide no evidence. Amendments 34 and 42 to schedule 4 make minor drafting corrections.
Amendment 35 to schedule 4, which relates to marriage, and amendment 41 to schedule 4, which relates to civil partnership, ensure that the Secretary of State notifies the couple, as well as the registration official, of the decision on an application to shorten the notice period in exceptional circumstances in a case referred under the scheme.
Amendment 36 to schedule 4, which relates to marriage, does two things. First, it makes a consequential change reflecting the new notice provisions. Secondly—along with amendment 43, which relates to civil partnership—it ensures that the legal validity of a marriage or civil partnership cannot be challenged just because notice of a decision under the referral and investigation scheme was not properly given by the Secretary of State.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Let me give the Home Secretary some time in which to take a breath before she continues to go through her 50 amendments. Does she think it unfortunate that the Government did not include the amendments in the original Bill, rather than tabling them on Report and not giving us enough time to debate them?
Mrs May
When my hon. Friend made a similar point during Home Office Questions on Monday, I said that I thought that it was always better for the Government to be able to ensure that they had covered every aspect of a Bill in the original drafting, and I am sure that that view is shared throughout the House. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech today, these are very technical issues, many of which, including some that I shall discuss later, were raised in Committee. It was appropriate for the Government to respond to the points that were raised then, and to table amendments accordingly when that proved necessary.
Amendment 44 to schedule 5 will enable registration officials to disclose information about reports of suspected shams to the Registrar General under sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as to other registration officials and the Secretary of State. That will support inter-agency work to tackle sham marriages and civil partnerships. New clause 12, which I tabled, relates to the deprivation of citizenship.
Michael Ellis
Does the Home Office have any idea how many people are gaining immigration status through the route of sham marriages or civil partnerships? Is that an easily ascertainable figure, even if it is an approximation?
Mrs May
It is not an easily ascertainable figure. The proposals that we are discussing will enable us to investigate more cases. We have made assumptions based on marriage registration statistics, the volume of reports of suspected sham cases from registrars and feedback from immigration caseworkers who deal with applications that are made on the basis of marriage or civil partnership. The resulting estimate was that between 4,000 and 10,000 applications a year are made to the Home Office on the basis of a sham marriage or civil partnership. My hon. Friend will see from the breadth of the estimate that we need to approach the matter with caution, but it does give a guide to the potential scale of the abuse. There are details in the explanatory paper that we have published on part 4 of the Bill. I expect these provisions to give us a greater ability to identify cases, and therefore to ascertain the number of them.
I apologise to the House, because I was getting ahead of myself in setting out my new clauses. New clause 12 relates to fees. I will come on to the new clause that relates to the deprivation of citizenship afterwards. On fees, we remain committed to ensuring that the UK continues to attract tourists and the brightest and best migrants, including those who are considered to be commercially important to the UK. To ensure that we can do that, it is important that our immigration and visa services are a match for or better than those provided anywhere else in the world.
In a number of important respects, our visa services are already world class. We have expanded and improved the network of visa application centres. There are now 200 around the world, with 12 in each of India and China compared to the three or four that are on offer from most of our competitors. We have introduced online application and booking systems, and 95% of applications are now submitted online. Online applications are supported by translated help text and extensive web guidance. We have also established a business network with dedicated UK visa staff to assist businesses with their visa requirements. All of that is in line with our desire to attract the brightest and best to the UK.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I endorse everything that the Home Secretary has said about the international section of the Home Office. Does she think that there is an opportunity for more face-to-face interviews to be conducted in the posts abroad, or at least for people to be interviewed from this country through the new system of televised interviews?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of face-to-face interviews. I have made it very clear that I want to increase the number of such interviews. We reached the number that I had hoped for by the end of the year, which was 100,000. Some of the interviews are physically face-to-face and some, as he has indicated, take place remotely through the use of video screens. That is an important tool in ensuring that people who apply for visas meet the criteria that have been set. I have seen interviews take place in a couple of countries overseas and have seen that the ability of our entry clearance officers to make judgments is enhanced considerably by conducting interviews, rather than just looking at a piece of paper. We have already achieved 100,000 interviews, but I want to see how we can extend that further across the visa system.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I ask the Home Secretary about the current arrangements for issuing visas to travellers from Iran? I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Iran. As a result of the invasion of the embassy at the end of 2011, we do not have an operational visa section—or any other section—in Tehran, and anyone applying for a visa has to go to Istanbul or Dubai. Many of those people then have to wait for days for their visa to be issued. Those people often have connections here. Will the right hon. Lady discuss this matter with the Foreign Secretary to see whether those arrangements could be speeded up?
Mrs May
I of course understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. As he said, there are good reasons why we do not have the physical capacity for people to make their visa applications in Tehran. I will be happy to look into the processing that takes place in Dubai and Istanbul, and to see whether there is any way to ensure that the service can be of a higher standard.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
In the same vein, concern has been expressed about the distances that people in China and Russia have to travel in order to get their visa applications processed. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to ensure that the high-value customers that we are looking for do not have to travel thousands of miles to get a visa to come to Britain?
Mrs May
As I have said, we have been enhancing the various services that we are able to provide in a number of countries; that includes the expansion of our network of visa application centres. My hon. Friend mentioned Russia and China. In China, we have more visa application centres than any of the other Schengen countries. We have 12 such centres there; most of our competitors have only three or four. We are also constantly working with the tour groups that bring people over to the United Kingdom, to see how we can enhance the service that we offer. The ability to apply online is also important. Yes, we require biometrics to be taken, but we are enhancing our biometric capture capability. For example, in certain cases the biometric capture capability can go to the individual applying for the visa, rather than the individual being required to go to the visa application centre. So we are enhancing these services, and we are conscious of the issues that he has raised.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May I support what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has just said about people from Iran? I have a constituent who was in exactly the situation that has been mentioned. His parents had to go to Istanbul to apply for visas. They then had to decide whether to go back to Iran or to hang around in Istanbul for three or four weeks to see whether they could come here. They were left in limbo, and we really need a fast-track service to deal with the parents and other relatives of people of Iranian descent in the UK who want to come here to visit them.
Mrs May
I hear what my hon. Friend says and understand the real example that he gives of the problems that can arise. As I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I will indeed go away and look at the whole issue of how visas are being processed and the length of time that it is taking.
Earlier, I said that we had introduced a super priority visa service in India, which allows a visa to be processed in 24 hours. We will expand that service to China by summer this year, and to other locations by the end of the year. In China, Russia and southern India, we are offering a passport pass-back service for applicants who wish to retain their passport to travel or to apply for a visa to another country while their UK visa is being processed. As a result of such improvements, we have achieved customer service excellence accreditation in at least one visa-processing hub in each of our six global regions. I hope that that is good news for the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who has had a longstanding concern about the services that are provided by the former UK Border Agency, which has now been broken up.
There is also strong demand for the bespoke services from overseas customers, who want us to go to them to deliver a visa service. Up to now, those bespoke services have been offered on a small-scale trial basis, mainly in China and the USA, to test demand and ensure viability. It is clear that demand for such services is strong, and we want to roll them out further. Neither the existing fees legislation nor the current Immigration Bill provisions provides powers that would enable a workable charging arrangement to be made for bespoke services. That only became clear after the Bill had been introduced.
Charging for statutory functions, whether connected to immigration or otherwise, is a technical area. As well as legislation and common-law precedent, there is much detailed guidance, such as “Managing Public Money”, which is published by the Treasury. The legislation and the guidance are there to ensure that the imposition of fees by public bodies, including Government Departments, is transparent, consistent and subject to proper scrutiny.
Fees for commercial services that are not connected to statutory functions are treated differently. For example, there is no requirement to set out in legislation fees for commercial services. It became clear after the Bill had been introduced that it would not be appropriate to treat bespoke services as commercial services and that the provisions in the Bill, while providing additional flexibility, would not be sufficient to enable a charging arrangement that would work in the real world. The main issue is that the services are bespoke. In other words, they vary considerably from one customer to another. That contrasts with other premium services, which are generally similar where they are delivered. For example, a bespoke service may compromise a member of staff visiting a customer at a location close to the visa centre. It could involve two members of staff travelling by air to another country with security escorts and overnight accommodation. It could involve the provision of services to several people, or several members of staff could be hiring a venue to provide services to a number of a firm’s employees.
The cost of providing a service could vary from around £100 to several thousand pounds depending on the precise nature of the request. It is not possible to use regulations to set out fees that take account of all the possible service variations that could apply, so we have made a new clause that enables fees for those services to be set without the need for regulations. In making those changes, we were keen to ensure that their effect was limited to this narrow but important range of bespoke services overseas. We do not want to take away the need for regulations on other visa and immigration fees, or deliberate restrictions on bespoke services fees to apply to charging for other premium services. To achieve that, we have separated out the part of the service that involves getting staff to the location of the customers’ choosing from the immigration services that may then be provided. The attendance service fee covers all the costs to the Home Office of our commercial visa partners preparing to deliver chargeable immigration functions. To put that plainly, it means that the cost of commercial partners’ staff time, travel, accommodation, security, venue hire and so on is charged as an attendance service fee. The fee will be priced on application, agreed between the customers making the request and the commercial partner based on the specific requirements of the service.
The cost of any related visa applications and any other premium services, such as accelerated processing, will be charged separately based on fee levels set out in the regulations. As a result, while the new clause permits fees to be charged without the need for regulations, several safeguards are in place. For example, the provisions apply only to bespoke services overseas delivered by our commercial visa partners. The services are optional and may be provided only at a customer’s request, and the fees may reflect only the cost to the Home Office of providing the service, and must be agreed by the customer in advance.
New clause 12 ensures that we may continue with our plan to expand the availability of bespoke mobile services overseas. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the attendance service provisions may apply when they are connected to a chargeable immigration function and provided at a time and place requested by a customer overseas. Subsection (3) ensures that the provisions still apply when the service is connected to a chargeable function, even if no charge is imposed. For example, if the visa application fee is waived for any reason, it would still be possible to offer and charge for the bespoke service. Subsection (2) ensures that the attendance service charging arrangements apply only to bespoke services and cannot be extended to cover other chargeable functions. Fees for those other functions will, as I say, continue to be set out in regulations as they are at present.
Subsection (4) provides that the customer will be charged the costs incurred in attending the location of his or her choosing at a time specified by him or her. Such costs include, but are not limited to, the cost of travel, including flights, hotel costs, security costs, the cost of hiring a venue, and staff costs. As I said, the fee will be charged outside the fees regulations.
The costs for overseas bespoke mobile VIP services will be based on the actual cost of providing the service and will not be set with regard to the criteria set out in clause 61(5), which include growth, international comparisons and benefit. All costs will be agreed between the commercial provider and the customer before the service is delivered.
Subsections (5) to (7) of the new clause ensure that the provisions on the treatment of fees paid for chargeable functions and debt recovery also apply in respect of fees paid for attendance services and that the new clause does not undermine other legislation.
Amendments 45 and 46 are consequential and ensure that the attendance service provisions fit within the wider immigration and visa fees framework established by the Bill. Amendment 46 replaces the wording in clause 60 that is being removed as part of amendment 45 and provides that fees other than for the overseas bespoke mobile service can be calculated by one or a combination of the following factors: a fixed amount, a per hour amount, or another factor. It states that the maximum amount for the fee or other factor must be set out in a fees order, a minimum amount may be set and that the actual amount of a particular fee will be set out in regulations. When fees are set by an hourly rate or other factor, the regulations will detail how the fee will be determined—for example, £50 per hour. Those provisions will not apply to the fee for the provision of the overseas bespoke mobile VIP service.
Amendments 47 to 53 are minor consequential changes to clause 60 to ensure that it does not limit or affect the proposed clause 61. Amendment 54 is a minor consequential change to schedule 8 to ensure that there is no effect on clauses 60 to 62.
Let me now come to the issue on which I got slightly ahead of myself earlier, which is new clause 18 and the deprivation of citizenship. As we move on to this important issue and before we get on to the specifics of what the clause seeks to achieve, it might help the House if I give some background to put it in context.
Depriving people of their citizenship is a serious matter. It is one of the most serious sanctions a state can take against a person and it is therefore not an issue that I take lightly. As I am sure all Members who were around during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 will recall, it can be a subject that generates lively debate.
It is noteworthy that depriving people of their citizenship is a concept with a long history. Almost as soon as world war one broke out, demands were made for denaturalisation of enemy aliens on grounds of disloyalty and/or their German past. That is the origin of the power. Before the war was over, legislation had been passed that made provision for revocation of citizenship if a naturalised person was suspected of treasonable activities. It has subsequently been amended to cover matters such as overt disloyalty, criminality, absence from the UK without maintaining a connection, through to it being conducive to the public good to deprive.
We are not seeking a wholly new power. The law as it stands today allows me as Home Secretary to deprive a person of their citizenship status in two scenarios. The first is when the person acquired it using fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. Essentially, that means that they used deception to obtain citizenship when had we known the full true facts at the time we would not have granted them that citizenship. The other circumstance is the reason why I am satisfied that doing so is conducive to the public good and that the person would not be left stateless as a result.
Keith Vaz
The Home Secretary is right that she seeks to amend a very important part of the Bill. When she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on 16 December we raised the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who was in Somaliland. He did not want to return to the United Kingdom, but Charles Farr told the Committee, and the Home Secretary supported this in her evidence, that there was an obligation to bring him back. There was no legal justification for taking away his citizenship or preventing him from returning. Is she now telling the House that the new clause gives her the legal basis to prevent a British citizen involved in terrorist activities abroad from returning to the United Kingdom because she can strip that person of citizenship and leave them stateless? Does it give her that power?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will explain exactly what the new clause does. It extends the Secretary of State’s powers to deprive someone of citizenship. It is in response to a particular case—not the one that he has quoted—which I will describe in order to set the background in a way that I hope will be helpful for the whole House. The right hon. Gentleman has a knowledge and understanding of these issues, but it would be helpful to set out the whole background.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate. The Home Secretary referred to her powers where someone has obtained citizenship by fraudulent means. There may have been strong mitigating circumstances when someone made such an application. For example, we know that some years ago many people came to the country on false documents because they had been persecuted. They may have applied on a false basis, but there were strong mitigating circumstances—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I know that this is complicated and many Members want to speak. May I clearly ask for your assistance. Will any Member making an intervention try to make it brief?
Mrs May
If citizenship was granted purely because someone used fraud or deception, did not disclose a material fact or used incorrect facts, and if we would not have granted citizenship had we known the full facts, the decision would be to deprive that individual of citizenship. I will not comment on the type of case that the hon. Lady has set out, but the initial question would be whether citizenship would have been granted if the full circumstances had been known at the time of the application. If the full facts had been known, would the decision have been not to grant citizenship? If so, the decision would be to remove citizenship.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Yesterday the House heard many noble speeches about our international obligations and humanitarian protection led by the Home Secretary. I was the first to congratulate her on that. Today, as the clause is drafted, she appears to be asking for a blank cheque to remove people’s rights to have rights. I wonder whether she can see the irony in that and whether our international leadership does not also cover such an important fundamental right?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter. I do not accept her description of what we are putting through in this Bill. We are not asking for a blank cheque. There are specific and limited circumstances in which the power would be used, which I will describe to the House. We are not suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into a situation that it has not been in before. We are suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into the situation that is required by the UN convention to which it has signed up. A decision was taken a few years ago to go beyond that UN convention. We think it is right to go back to the UN convention.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Home Secretary knows that we are dealing with complex and serious issues, so will she explain why she tabled the new clause 24 hours before Report without consulting any outside bodies? The situation is such that we have had to table manuscript amendments to deal with serious concerns about it. Will she explain why she is acting with such urgency today, rather than allowing for consultation before introducing a measure in another place that could then be examined by both Houses?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall set out why we thought it was necessary to table the new clause and how we have considered the matter. I accept that the Opposition have tabled manuscript amendments. While I wait to hear what he will say about them, if there are specific concerns, I will be willing to consider them and, if necessary, address them further in another place.
The new clause is a consequence of a specific case. The power to deprive on conducive grounds is such that even when I consider the first and arguably the most important part of the test to be met—that it would be conducive to the public good to deprive—I am still prevented from depriving a person of their citizenship if they would be left stateless as a result. That was the point explored in the Supreme Court case of al-Jedda.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary help me to understand what is being proposed? There is a question of British citizens overseas, to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred, and another of what would happen to someone in the UK who was made stateless. What would such a person’s immigration status be, as there would be nowhere to remove them to? Would we not be trapping someone who was dangerous to this country in this country?
Mrs May
When I explain the circumstances in which it would be possible to remove somebody’s citizenship, I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it would not necessarily be the case that an individual would be left stateless, because we are talking about a situation in which they would be able to acquire statehood from somewhere else.
Mrs May
Perhaps hon. Members will have some patience and let me set out my points.
I will not to go into too much detail about the case of al-Jedda, but he was an Iraqi refugee who was granted British nationality in 2000. In 2004, he was detained by British forces in Iraq because of his suspected involvement in terrorism. In December 2007, the then Home Secretary made an order depriving him of his British citizenship.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As far as I can see, there are no copies of the manuscript amendments on the Table. It seems bizarre, on the matter of whether people should be deprived of their citizenship—[Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration can keep quiet for a moment. The reason we need manuscript amendments is that the Government tabled their new clause only at the very last minute to try to shove other measures off the agenda. Can we ensure that the manuscript amendments are available to everyone so that we know what we are debating?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not finished my sentence yet. It would be helpful if that could be checked, although I am assured that they are available, and if copies could be made available in the Chamber for Members who feel unable to get to the Vote Office because they wish to hear the debate.
Mrs May
I hope that the manuscript amendments, which were tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, are indeed available in the Vote Office.
As I said, in December 2007, one of my predecessors deprived the individual of his British citizenship. That gave rise to lengthy litigation, which culminated in a Supreme Court hearing in June 2013, with the verdict promulgated in October 2013. The Court—disappointingly to my mind—rejected my assertion that the individual could reassert his Iraqi nationality and that his failure to do so was the cause of his statelessness. Its conclusion was that the question was simply whether the person held another nationality at the date of the order depriving them of British citizenship.
Having studied the Supreme Court determination carefully and considered my options, I asked my officials to explore the possibility of legislating to address the key point identified in the al-Jedda case, namely that our domestic legislation, and the changes brought about in the 2002 and 2006 Acts, go further than is necessary to honour our international obligations in terms of limiting our ability to render people stateless.
That may have been well intended. It was done, as I believe, in anticipation of signing the 1997 European convention on nationality. We have never signed that convention and this Government have no plans to do so.
It is also important to stress—it is a point that has been made by a couple of Members already in interventions—that I have discussed this at length with colleagues across Government; it is not something I have just decided on. Given the importance of the subject matter, we wanted the time to ensure that we got it right. Indeed, I had a meeting with my hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party on 4 December last year to discuss the proposal and listen to their concerns and the issues they wished to raise.
The United Kingdom has signed the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. We made a declaration on ratifying that convention to allow for the prospect of leaving a person stateless in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include the ability to deprive a naturalised person of their citizenship, regardless of whether or not it might leave them stateless, where that person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I am a naturalised British citizen and the clause therefore applies to me. I support it wholeheartedly. There are rights as well as obligations that come with British citizenship. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should go even further—the Immigration Bill may not be the place to do so—and introduce similar sanctions against anyone who is British, irrespective of how they got British citizenship, if they do something so heinous against the British state.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point about his position and also about the desire that we have in the House to ensure that we can take appropriate action against people who are acting in a manner that is not conducive to the public good and who are acting in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to this country’s interests.
New clause 18 recreates—
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
When I first became a Member of this House, anyone born in Britain automatically became a British citizen. That right was taken away by the Thatcher Government. Will this law apply to the children of people who have acquired British citizenship?
Mrs May
It applies to somebody who is a naturalised person. That is who it applies to. It seeks to recreate the very specific sub-set of cases that are currently provided for under the “conducive” power. It would allow me to deprive a person of their citizenship, regardless of whether it left them stateless, but as I say, it applies only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who register to acquire citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act—
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman would wait—such as those which provide for children to acquire British citizenship. And it would apply only to very serious cases of people whose conduct is
“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.
Those safeguards and limitations are important. The amendment will allow the key consideration to be whether the person’s actions are consistent with the values we all attach to British citizenship. We may all have a slightly different interpretation of what they might be, but I am confident that Members of this House would agree that this is encapsulated by the oath that naturalised citizens take when they attend their citizenship ceremonies.
Mrs May
I understand my hon. Friend’s point about foreign national offenders. The Government are conducting an exercise to ensure that we can deport more foreign national offenders from our prisons to serve the remainder of their sentence elsewhere, and the prisoner transfer agreements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is negotiating are an important part of that. However—this is the important point—this power applies in a very particular set of circumstances in which someone has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty. The power being put into the Bill will apply in only a very limited number of circumstances. My hon. Friend also asked whether it would stand the test elsewhere. I believe that it will. What we are doing is returning the United Kingdom to the position set out in our international obligations under the United Nations convention.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; she is being most generous. I realise that this is a very difficult issue. What happens if another country will not take the individual who has been stripped of their citizenship?
Mrs May
I recognise that there are many questions that Members wish to ask on this. I am answering the questions and taking as many interventions as Members are requiring. I will give way again shortly.
A stateless person is defined by article 1.1 of the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons as one
“who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.”
If they are inside the UK, we, as a party to that convention, are legally obliged to comply with its provisions, which set out various rights for stateless people. One of our aims in seeking to deprive might be to remove the individual from the United Kingdom, as I have indicated. It might not always be possible to do that, especially when the individual is stateless. If they are deprived, they become subject to immigration control, but we have provisions in the immigration rules that enable a person regarded as stateless to regularise their stay.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
One of the things that concern me is the definition of “seriously prejudicial.” If we look up “prejudice” in the dictionary, we see that it just means something we have decided before, so “seriously prejudicial” could be anything a Home Secretary liked. I am absolutely convinced that the present Home Secretary would never in any way abuse that power, but how do we know what will happen next week, next month, in two years’ time, or in five years’ time? A Home Secretary will be able to use a term that is so vague and has so little meaning that they could strip someone of any citizenship, leaving them stuck in this country with no ability to work, receive benefits or do anything at all, simply because of a definition that is pretty much meaningless.
Mrs May
I think that the concept of something that is seriously prejudicial to the interests of Her Britannic Majesty—to the interests of the United Kingdom—will be understood. There will of course be an opportunity for a review of that through a court process—a judicial review—so the definition would be tested. My hon. Friend might not choose to rely on the abilities or understanding of future Home Secretaries, but I hope that he will see that there is a further safeguard.
I wish to reiterate—this is an important point—that that is the position the United Kingdom had prior to 2003, when the law was changed. It is the position that we are required to have under the United Nations convention. All that we are doing is returning our position to the scope of our declaration under that convention. It goes no further.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In response to an intervention, the Home Secretary said that at some point a stateless person’s position in the UK could be regularised, which is an interesting concept. If they became stateless, they would in the meantime presumably become destitute in this country, because they would not be eligible for access to any benefits or other aspects of society. Has she considered that, and are there any people in that situation at present?
Mrs May
The answer to the second question is that there are no people in that situation, because I have not been able to deprive anybody of their citizenship and therefore potentially make them stateless. That is the existing situation. If somebody is stateless and either does not apply for citizenship of another state despite having access or is denied permission to do so, but stays in the United Kingdom, we would have to look at the situation and at their immigration status. Crucially, their status would not attract the privileges of a British citizen—they would not be entitled to hold a British passport or to have full access to certain services—so they would therefore be in a different position from the one they were in when they held British citizenship.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way for a second time. I understand what she is trying to do and I believe her when she says that she will use the powers only rarely, but she still has not answered this question: once she has taken away citizenship from someone in this country and they are stateless, how will she get them out of this country? We know full well that she is doing this because Jacqui Smith tried to get rid of al-Jedda and was not able to do so. That matter is still before the courts, and the right hon. Lady’s judgment will also be challenged in the courts. How will she get such people out once she has taken away their British passport and they have no travel documents?
Mrs May
The al-Jedda case went to the Supreme Court, which promulgated its verdict last October, which was when we started to look at how we could legislate and what vehicle we could use to remove people. That circumstance might apply to somebody in the United Kingdom or, as in that case, to someone outside it. The important point is that the process applies in cases where the individual could access the citizenship of another country, and it would be open to them to apply for such citizenship. That is the whole point.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for being very generous in giving way again. She may recall the case of Abu Hamza, who was an Egyptian citizen as well as a British one. Under the Government of Mubarak, the former President of Egypt, his Egyptian citizenship was withdrawn, leaving a very difficult case for this Government and, indeed, the previous one to deal with. The Home Secretary has surely come to the House with some figure in her mind of the number of those currently on the prison estate who might fall into the Abu Hamza category. I wondered what the number is.
Mrs May
My only comment on my hon. Friend’s request for figures is that he mentioned people on the prison estate. We are not necessarily talking about them, but the number of people involved is very limited. The number of cases of the particular type of deprivation of citizenship dealt with since the law was changed—I apologise for saying that that was in 2003, because the law was changed by the 2006 Act—is 27. Since 2006, 27 people have been deprived of citizenship under the conducive powers, which apply only when somebody would not be made stateless.
Mark Pritchard
For clarification, is it the Government’s position that someone considered under the new criterion would not need to have committed any criminal or terrorism-related offence, but could be walking around the streets of London right now?
Mrs May
Yes. People need not have been convicted of a particular offence to be deprived of their citizenship. On the numbers, it might be helpful for me to add that 13 people were deprived on grounds of fraud during the same period. Those are the sort of numbers that we are talking about.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been extraordinarily generous in giving way. I broadly support this measure, which addresses a small number of very serious cases, but can it be applied to somebody abroad at the time? If it can be so applied, how would any subsequent appeal handle sensitive intelligence material of the sort that clearly could not be allowed to go, for example, to Strasbourg?
Pete Wishart
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Is it not the case that she has not got a clue? She has brought forward the measure to prevent proceedings on what Conservative Members want to discuss and vote on. To say that this was concocted on the back of a fag packet would do a massive disservice to fag-packet speeches.
Mrs May
It is a bit rich of the Scottish National party to talk about not having a clue. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—I have said it before and I will say it again as many times as necessary—that we are giving effect to our declaration under the United Nations convention. That position applied in the United Kingdom until the previous Government changed the law in 2006, and we will return to that position.
Mr Cash
I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the way in which the provision is expressed will give the Secretary of State enormous power. Effectively, it involves the opinion of the Secretary of State, which will make it largely non-justiciable. Given its width and the cases of which the Home Secretary has given examples, is there a danger that we might be regarded as a nasty party if we put this kind of provision into effect?
Michael Ellis
Despite the protestations and mock indignation of Labour Members—
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for actually listening to what I have said this afternoon. He is absolutely right. The previous Government changed the law because they were going to sign up to the new European convention on nationality, but they did not do so. We have not signed up to it, and we do not intend to do so. It is therefore right to take the law back to the previous position, which is that of our international obligation under the United Nations convention.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
May I press the Home Secretary on our international position under the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, to which we are a signatory? My understanding is that we would be required to seek a reservation from that convention. Is that correct, or does she plan that the UK should operate in contravention of it?
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady has been speaking for well over an hour and we are only a proportion of the way through the amendments in this group. Is this any way to make legislation?
Mrs May
The reason I have been on my feet for more than an hour is that I have been incredibly generous in taking interventions from Members in all parts of the House. This is an important Bill, which we must get right, and an important new clause. I am taking interventions on new clause 18 in particular because I recognise that Members have not had as long to consider it as they would perhaps have wished.
The Government have been considering the matter since we saw the result of the al-Jedda case. I specifically asked officials whether there was anything that we could do to ensure that we would be able to take action against people whose activities, particularly those related to terrorism, were seriously prejudicial to the state. Lo and behold, we discovered that had it not been for the law that the last Government passed, I would have been able to deprive al-Jedda of citizenship.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
As another naturalised British national, I fully support what the Home Secretary is doing. May I ask her for clarification? Five British nationals had their nationality taken away under the previous Government, and 16 had their nationality taken away under the current Government between 2010 and 2012. What has happened to those people? Have we been able to return them to their countries of origin? If not, is that why the Government are pushing forward with the new clause—so that we can do that in future?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In some cases we are able to return people, and we do a lot of work with other countries, through our agreements on deportation with assurances, to ensure that we can deport people elsewhere. Of course, there was a particular case in which we could not take such action against an individual because it would have rendered them stateless, notwithstanding the fact that they were in a position to apply for citizenship of another state.
Frank Dobson
It may be a fault in me that I did not understand the Home Secretary’s reply to my question earlier. Will she confirm that the child of someone who had acquired British citizenship would be subject to the law that she envisages?
Mrs May
I thought that I had provided some clarity in the answer that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. The law will be limited to naturalised citizens and will not apply to anybody who has British citizenship by any other means. The action would be taken against the naturalised British citizen, not their child.
Mrs May
I recognise that there are consequences, and they have been considered. The circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are if the child was in the United Kingdom and their parent was elsewhere conducting activity that was seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom. That would be considered on a case by case basis—there would not be a tick-box, mechanistic approach. All circumstances would be looked at in considering whether it was appropriate to apply the new power to an individual. There are safeguards within the proposal, such as the seriously prejudicial nature of the activity that an individual must have undertaken.
I had not quite finished my response to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) when I allowed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to intervene. I repeat the response that I gave earlier to the former: the law will apply only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who acquired citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act, such as those that provide for children to acquire British citizenship. I hope that I have perhaps made that clearer to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
Frank Dobson
If that is the case, what powers did the Home Secretary use to take citizenship away from my constituent Mahdi Hashi, who was then kidnapped by the Americans in Somalia and is now in court in New York?
Mrs May
I will not discuss an individual case, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about it, I will respond to him. I have set out the powers that I already have to deprive citizenship, which are twofold. The first circumstance is when somebody has acquired citizenship through deception or fraud, and the second is when somebody has acted in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to our national interest and they would not be rendered stateless as a result of the deprivation of their British citizenship.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Is this not just about getting rid of very bad people and preventing them from coming back to our country? Is that not the nub of what we are discussing?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter so succinctly and sensibly. This is about dealing with people whose behaviour is seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom, and I would have thought that we all wanted to ensure that the Government had the appropriate powers to do that.
Dr Huppert
The Home Secretary is doing sterling work in taking interventions on new clause 18. May I thank her for coming to talk to Liberal Democrat colleagues about it? I understand what she is trying to achieve with it, but I still have a number of concerns. She places great reliance on the point that the people affected will be able to get another citizenship. Does she think it is likely that somebody who is in this country and has been deprived of citizenship will find it easy to go to another country and say, “Here is my background. Britain has just stripped me of citizenship. Could I have yours, please?” Or will we just find those people stuck in this country and unable to leave?
Mrs May
As I made absolutely clear, if somebody was in a position to acquire other citizenship, I would expect them to attempt to do so. As I indicated earlier, there may be circumstances in which somebody remains stateless, in which case our international obligations to those who are stateless would kick in, and we would abide by them.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have spent some time looking at cases in which people have been deprived of citizenship, many of whom were abroad. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is reasonable for the judicial review clock to start ticking at the point when the person affected becomes aware that such a decision has been taken rather at the time when it is taken? There is a three-month limit on applying for judicial review of the decision, and to allow proper consideration that clock should start ticking when the person in question becomes aware of it.
Mark Pritchard
The Home Secretary will know that I, along with many other Members across the House, have championed refugees being allowed to come to the UK in some numbers. As she will know, in the case of Syria, there is a national security issue relating to British nationals with either single or dual citizenship returning to this country and possibly causing problems here. How quickly does she believe the new law will be in place, and does she believe it should apply to nationals and dual nationals coming back to the UK from Syria?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of people who may have trained and fought in Syria potentially coming back here radicalised and with the desire to do us harm. I am sure that is a matter of concern throughout the House. As I have indicated, I believe the power in question would be exercised in a limited number of cases, but it is important that the Government have it. As I have said, they had it until about 10 years ago, then the law was changed to reduce their ability to take action against those acting in a way that comes under the definition of “seriously prejudicial” to us. It is important that we have such a power, but I am not in a position to say to my hon. Friend that I will suddenly use it in a number of circumstances. The power will be used on a case-by-case basis, but, as I have indicated, I expect that it will be used in a very limited number of circumstances.
I will conclude my remarks on new clause 18 by stating again that it is consistent with our obligations under international law and, as I have said, it was a power we had for most of the past century. It is a carefully constructed measure designed to give effect to our declaration under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, but it goes no further. My officials, together with those from other relevant Departments and in consultation with our in-House legal advisers, conduct the research and provide a recommendation on each case, but these are decisions that I—or, on the rare occasions I am not available, another Secretary of State—will review and sign off personally. The persons subject to provisions in the new clause will continue to be afforded an independent right of appeal, retaining an avenue of judicial redress. This is not about arbitrarily depriving people of their citizenship; it is a targeted policy that will be used sparingly against very dangerous individuals who have brought such action upon themselves through terrorist-related acts. I urge the House to conclude that new clause 18 is a proportionate and necessary measure.
New clause 13 stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and I will wait to hear what he says and respond to the issues he raises. New clause 15 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I will make a few comments about it. I respect the fact that he will speak about his own new clause, so at this point I will not go into all the detail but will simply set out a few points.
I think we are all agreed across the House—this is one of the things the Bill tries to do—that we want to enhance the ability of our country to deport foreign criminals from the United Kingdom where it is appropriate to do so. The Government have taken a simple position on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which is that our judiciary have not been interpreting it in the way we believe it should be interpreted, because it is a qualified right in the European convention itself. Having changed the immigration rules, and that not having had the effect we desired, we are now putting it into primary legislation and ensuring that we clarify absolutely what the qualified interpretation of article 8 should be in relation to the Government’s ability to remove people from the United Kingdom. I believe that is an important change that the public, as well as Members of the House, would wish us to put through. It is right that the Government are taking this opportunity to include that measure in the Bill. We all have a shared desire to ensure that we enhance our ability to deport foreign criminals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has tabled a new clause that would amend the Bill, but I think that some aspects of it would not strengthen our ability to deport foreign criminals, but could actually weaken it. Other aspects of the language he uses might indeed strengthen our proposals.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way as there are many things to discuss in this group of amendments. Has she received any formal advice from the Attorney-General or her departmental lawyers that the new clause would be compatible with the European convention on human rights?
Mrs May
The advice I have received is that it is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. I am concerned with other aspects of the new clause because I believe that in a number of areas it weakens the Government’s proposals in relation to article 8. I am also concerned about the practical application of the new clause, because in reality I think we would effectively hinder our ability to deport people for a period of time because there would be considerable legal wrangling about the issue.
Mrs May
I am making a few comments about the new clause. I would like to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton speak about it and hear whether he intends to press it to a vote.
I think that where children are involved the new clause weakens the Bill, and as I have said, there are concerns about how the measure would operate and its practical implications. I think it would lead to circumstances in which—potentially for a significant period of time—we would not be able to deport people who otherwise we would be able to deport.
Sarah Teather
Given the strong line the Home Secretary has taken on trafficking, how does she feel about the exclusion of article 4 of the European convention on human rights from the new clause?
Mrs May
I have indeed taken a strong line on trafficking, but the exclusion of certain other articles of the convention in the new clause is one of the aspects that makes it incompatible with that convention and raises the issue of how it would operate. I have already indicated that I think the new clause is incompatible with the European convention, and I am raising some of the other practical issues that I think would be its impact. I think we will find it harder to deport people because of some aspects of the new clause, and that more cases will go to the European Court as that would become the first decision maker in a number of cases. There would be considerable litigation in the domestic courts if we found ourselves seeking to remove someone contrary to a rule 39 indication. Those are practical issues about whether we can deport individuals.
I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, and others, about our ability to deport foreign criminals, and in relation to the European convention on human rights. I have said on many occasions that it is necessary for the Government to determine and sort out our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, and as far as I am concerned, nothing should be off the table in doing that. Today we are considering a Bill that will deal with the deportation of foreign criminals.
Yasmin Qureshi
Again, will the Secretary of State’s party support new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab)?
Mrs May
I am sorry, but I answered that question earlier. I said that I will respond to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton makes, and see whether he moves the new clause. I will make the Government’s position clear to the House. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Lady believes that debate in the House is important. I am therefore sure she agrees that listening to hon. Members is also important.
As I have said, the Bill puts in place stronger practical arrangements that will enable us to deport more foreign criminals, which all hon. Members want.
Dr Huppert
It looks like the Home Secretary is nearing a conclusion, but may I press her on amendment 74, which I have tabled, and which would write into law the Government’s achievement of ending child detention for immigration purposes? The Immigration Minister has said that he would come back to that. Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress? Will the Government accept my amendment or come up with a better drafted version?
Mrs May
The Government accept the principle of my hon. Friend’s point. We propose to reinforce the commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes by putting key elements of the family returns process into primary legislation. That will involve providing a statutory prohibition on the detention of children within immigration removals centres, subject to the exceptions agreed in 2010, which continue to be Government policy; providing families with children a minimum of a 28-day reflection period following the exhaustion of appeal rights against a removal before their enforced removal; placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to appoint an independent family returns panel to advise on the best interests of the child in every case in which enforced return is proposed; and providing a separate legal basis for pre-departure accommodation independent of other immigration detention facilities. Our intention is to introduce those amendments in Committee in the House of Lords. I hope that covers my hon. Friend’s concerns on ending child detention for immigration purposes.
Simon Danczuk
The right hon. Lady will be familiar with the two Rochdale grooming cases. The country of origin of some of the perpetrators of those horrific crimes is not the UK. Will the Bill make things easier? Will she assure me and the people of Rochdale that, under the Bill, those who committed those crimes can be sent back to their country of origin?
Mrs May
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee on any specific case, but the Bill will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It clarifies the interpretation of article 8 in a way that will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It ensures that foreign criminals can be deported first, unless there are particular circumstances in the country to which they are going, and appeal against their deportation afterwards. However, on people who have been convicted of a crime and who are in our prison estate, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is working hard with Home Office immigration enforcement people to ensure that we can remove more foreign criminals to their country of origin in a number of ways, such as through prison transfer agreements.
The House shares the concern that we should be able to deport more foreign criminals. The Bill strengthens our ability to do that. I would not wish to see it weakened in any way. As I have said, I have concerns with some aspects of new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, because it could weaken our ability to deport more foreign criminals. However, I recognise that he has sought to strengthen the language in the Bill. The public want an immigration Bill that strengthens our ability to deport foreign criminals to get through Parliament. That is a shared aim. I believe that that is what the Bill, as drafted, does.
Mr Hanson
The Home Secretary spoke for just over an hour and a half, but at the end of her contribution I am still not clear on key aspects of the Government’s proposals. I am not clear whether the Government as a whole have a united position on them. Do the Liberal Democrat members of the Government have a different view? The interesting proposals in new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), are yet to be considered the Government in a full and frank way.
I want to mention measures on which I agree with the Government, as the Bill does contain measures that the official Opposition support. On new clause 11, the Home Secretary has our full support for her proposals to tackle sham marriages. Sham marriage is a serious problem. The Home Office estimates that 4,000 to 10,000 applications to stay in the UK each year are based on sham marriage or sham civil partnership—the Minister for Crime Prevention and I discussed this extensively in Committee. That is a significant number of cases and action is needed.
New clause 11 deals with the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which the Opposition raised in Committee, and contains measures we support. We can support the measures on same-sex marriage, on which we sought clarification in Committee. New clause 11 is welcome, and the Opposition support it.
As I have mentioned, we have four and a half hours for the debate. The Home Secretary took one third of that time for her opening contribution. She explained the issues, and I look forward in due course to listening to hon. Members’ concerns. I will try to take less time than her, but I have some things to say.
I reach out a hand of friendship on new clause 12. The Opposition will not oppose it today. It is reasonable to try to recoup charges from individuals who use our services, but we might disagree with the Government, because we believe we need to improve those services. As the Home Secretary has recognised, we need to ensure that the charges do not deter the brightest and best, and those with skills, from coming to work here to create jobs and growth in our economy. We need to ensure that they do not deter students. I am afraid that Government policies currently deter students from coming to the UK. We need to ensure that we do not turn away people who will contribute strongly to our community. The tourism economy is particularly important. We need to ensure that the level of charges, which we will discuss shortly, does not damage investment in our economy through tourism.
The Opposition have three concerns. The Home Secretary devoted around 45 minutes to new clause 18. I accept and understand that it deals with a serious problem. We are dealing with people who are undertaking activities—terrorism—that are of great concern to the state. Having been a Home Office Minister in the previous Government dealing with terrorism and counter-terrorism activity, I understand the need to examine those matters. I should tell the Home Secretary clearly that it is not acceptable, at least as far as the Opposition are concerned, to bring a major new clause to deal with that to the House 24 hours before the debate on Report and Third Reading. We have only four and a half hours to debate important issues, including European accession—the Opposition and the Government have different views on that, but it is valid to discuss them—new clause 15 and the concerns of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton. I tell the Home Secretary that that is not the way to discuss sensitive issues such as taking steps to deprive individuals of their citizenship.
I have listened to what the Home Secretary has said on a number of measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has concerns. Others, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and, dare I say it, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) have raised pertinent issues of concern. However, we have less than three hours to reach conclusions on these major measures.
Mr Hanson
My objective is the same, I think, as the Home Secretary’s, which is to protect the British people from potential terrorist activity at home and abroad. That is a key joint objective.
New clause 18 raises complex issues on which a range of individuals will have a view, but on which there has been no consultation outside the House. Let us look at the manuscript amendments and consider whether we could tighten up the process so that we are all content, and we will reserve judgment until we reach another place, at which point I hope we can reach a conclusion that meets our objectives.
Mrs May
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the time to consider the new clause, and I am happy for the Government to have discussions with him to set out in more detail how it would operate. On that basis, I hope he will consider not moving his manuscript amendments, although obviously, following those discussions, the Opposition could come back to them in another place, if they felt it necessary.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her accommodation, and obviously we will reflect on her comments. This is an important issue, which is why we tabled the manuscript amendment. It is unusual for such amendments to be taken, so—I should have done this before—I would like to thank Mr Speaker for accepting it at this late stage. We tabled it so late simply because the new clause was also tabled late.
Mrs May
If I may, I will make a triaged intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. To clarify, all I said was that I had received legal advice. It is not the practice for Ministers to say in this House whether legal advice has come from the Attorney-General or from other sources. I am absolutely clear from the legal advice that I received that new clause 15 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
In answer to my hon. Friend, the advice from the Home Office is absolutely clear that a rule 39 injunction would be less likely to be imposed where the decision had undertaken a balancing act in considering the issues. That is precisely what the Bill allows. My hon. Friend’s new clause does not allow that. That is why rule 39 would be more likely to be used under his proposal.
Mr Raab
I thank the Home Secretary for her intervention. I have the memo that I received in front of me. I will read from it so that there is no doubt and so that hon. Members can make up their minds. It states that it is clear from the case law that
“it would only be in exceptional cases that an interim measure would be granted in an A8 case.”
It goes on to say:
“I can’t say whether there has ever been a Rule 39 in a UK A8 case, but it is obviously rare.”
It goes on to say, because I was asking the question in relation to the Government’s clauses:
“we do not expect interim measures under Rule 39 to be issued routinely, if at all.”
I do not want to engage in a clash of legal opinions here, although the Attorney-General is free to intervene on me, but I say briefly in response to the Home Secretary that there is nothing in the limited case law of Strasbourg to suggest that the Bill and the new clause that I have tabled are different. One never gets such precision from the Strasbourg Court and I do not think that that is what the Home Secretary meant.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We have heard thoughtful and powerful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want to link my views with those of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who made a compelling and well-informed case about the cruel, counter-productive and ill thought out nature of the Bill. I also associate myself with the views of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who spoke with his customary eloquence and reminded us that we should be under no illusion that this miserable Bill has very little to do with national security, but everything to do with out-toughing UKIP. No one would argue that our immigration system does not need fixing or that it is not blighted by inefficiency and error, yet rather than taking positive steps to fix the problems, the Government have brought forward proposals that will drive standards down, not up.
All the amendments in the group that I support would make the immigration system fairer and more accountable, such as amendment 1, which would delete clause 11. It is important that we support that amendment because the latest figures reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry-clearance applications were successfully appealed last year, yet the Government’s depressing response to that large margin of error is not to try to improve the quality of decision making, but to reduce the opportunities for challenge by slashing the scope for appeal.
Amendment 79 was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke movingly about it, and co-signed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The basis of clause 3 is utterly flawed, given that it sets out the idea that directions for removal within 14 days are somehow sufficient grounds to assume that bail should not be granted. On any common-sense analysis, there are factors that bluntly challenge that assumption. Plenty of people suffering from psychological or physical illnesses, or who have been bereaved or have caring responsibilities, should not be detained, but will not be able properly to challenge that detention.
I support amendment 60, which would retain the status quo on the use of force, not least because there are serious gaps in the training provided on the exercise of force, especially regarding the use of restraint techniques, by immigration officers and contractors. That is just one reason why it is completely unjustifiable that the Government are extending the use of force without any reference to the type of power exercised and the necessity of that force, and without parliamentary scrutiny.
I get the sense that you would like me to conclude my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall oblige, but let me simply say that this is a miserable Bill and that I hope the House will take every opportunity to vote against it.
Mrs May
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised. I do not agree with the manuscript amendments to new clause 18 that were tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). It is right for the Secretary of State, as someone who is democratically accountable, to take the initial decision, but I confirm that there will be a full right of appeal, so a judicial process will apply. I accept that the Opposition have concerns about the new clause, so I will be happy for the Minister for Immigration to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman and go through his concerns before the provision is considered by the other place. I hope that that will be of benefit to him and that it brings him some comfort.
I stress again that I strongly support the intention behind new clause 15, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Everyone in the House wants to ensure that we can deport more foreign criminals, but it is absolutely clear that the provision, as drafted, is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Crucially, it would weaken at least two aspects of the Bill, given that it does not deal with persistent offenders who have been subject to sentences of less than 12 months. I am also worried that it provides for an exception to apply when a child has not lived in the country for a significant time and does not have a relationship with their parent. Our Bill requires that a child must be British, that they must have lived in the country for a particular period of time, and that there must be a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. Given its drafting, the new clause would cause problems in the sort of cases that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talked about.
There are also concerns that the drafting of the new clause would lead to a number of rule 39 cases. However, I recognise that there are issues—the right hon. Gentleman said this—with some of the language in the new clause, which we can consider and come back to. As drafted, I do not think that it is appropriate, but Conservative Ministers will abstain from the vote.
I said that I would mention rule 39, on which I intervened earlier. The reasons why I am concerned that the amendment would lead to fewer deportations are: first, because the language in the amendment in relation to children would lead to significant litigation; and secondly, because although article 8, under the current system, does not lead to rule 39 orders—
Mrs May
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a considerable and lively discussion today. I thank all who have contributed to the Bill during its various stages so far, particularly those who steered it through the Committee stage: the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and the Minister for Crime Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Indeed, I am grateful for the hard work that was done by all members of the Committee.
Let me remind the House why the Bill is so necessary. It will bring clarity, fairness and integrity to the immigration system, and will address long-standing problems that have prevented the effective operation of immigration controls. It will do that by ensuring that those who are refused permission to stay are required to leave the country, and know that they must do so; by streamlining the appeals system to reduce the scope for playing the system; by ensuring that foreign criminals can be deported first and appeal afterwards, unless there is a real risk of serious irreversible harm; and by ensuring that courts must have regard to the will of Parliament when considering article 8 in immigration cases.
The Bill will make it more difficult for illegal migrants to live in the United Kingdom by denying access to the tools of everyday life. That will include giving landlords a duty to check the immigration status of tenants and imposing penalties on rogue landlords, and denying illegal migrants access to bank accounts and driving licences. We will also strengthen the enforcement of penalties for employers of illegal workers. The Bill reinforces controls to counter sham marriages and sham civil partnerships, conferring new powers and duties, and it will ensure that temporary legal migrants contribute to our national health service.
Ms Abbott
I accept the Home Secretary’s wish to clean up the system and discourage people from “playing” it—I deal with thousands of immigration cases every month—but has she given no thought to the effect that her measures that are designed to crack down on illegal immigrants could have on people who are British nationals, but appear as if they might be immigrants?
Mrs May
We have given a great deal of thought to the way in which our measures will operate. The changes that we propose will strengthen our ability to deal with those who are here illegally. We are, for example, strengthening our ability to enforce penalties for those who employ illegal workers. The system enabling employers to determine whether the workers whom they employ are here legally or not is in place, is well known and is running properly, and the same will apply in the other areas that we are discussing.
The Bill will also help to discharge the Government’s commitment to introduce exit checks on people leaving the UK in order to tackle overstaying and prevent people from fleeing British justice.
Let me now go into a little more detail, although not too much, because I know that others wish to speak. The Bill substantially reforms the removals system, and ensures that illegal migrants who have no right to be in the UK can be returned to their own countries more quickly. We inherited a complex system involving multiple stages before an individual can be removed, allowing numerous challenges to be issued during the process. The Bill will ensure that we adopt a system whereby only one decision is made. Individuals will be informed of that decision, and if the decision is that they can no longer stay in the UK, immigration enforcement officials will be allowed to remove them if they do not leave of their own accord. The Bill also reforms the system whereby illegal migrants held in detention centres are allowed to apply for bail, and it gives immigration officers stronger powers so that they can establish the identity of illegal immigrants by checking fingerprints and searching for passports.
The current appeals system is also very complex. There are 17 different immigration decisions that attract rights of appeal, but the Bill will cut that number to four, which I think will prevent abuse of the appeal process. It will also ensure that appeals address only fundamental rights. It will make it easier to deport foreign criminals by requiring individuals to appeal from abroad after deportation, unless they face the prospect of serious harm.
Sarah Teather
I do not intend to make a speech, because I know that others wish to speak, but an issue that has not been mentioned at all today is health. The organisation Doctors of the World, whose clinic I visited last week, is very worried about the Bill’s impact on those who do not have residence status. Such people are often extremely vulnerable, and many have been trafficked.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady has raised a number of concerns about aspects of the Bill, and has indicated her objection to it overall. A number of the changes that we are making relate to migrants’ access to services, but I think that the issues to which she has just referred are within the purview of the Department of Health, and are therefore not relevant to the Bill.
We are strengthening our ability to deal with cases in which it has not been possible to deport foreign criminals because they have had recourse to an argument relating to article 8. That is a qualified right under the European convention, and we are now putting it into primary legislation. We expect the courts to respond appropriately.
We will require migrants who will be here temporarily to pay a surcharge so that they contribute to the NHS. I think that most hard-working people would agree that that is appropriate. We have improved our ability to deal with sham marriages.
The deprivation of citizenship is an important new power. As I indicated to the shadow Minister for Immigration, we are happy to discuss with him the full impact of that power. The Minister for Immigration will have those discussions with him. What we are doing meets our international obligations and will strengthen our ability to deal with those who wish to act in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the UK.
The Government are getting to grips with immigration. Net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010. Net migration from outside the EU is down to 140,000 and is at its lowest level since 1998. The reduction is being driven by cuts in the number of people coming to this country. In 2013, there were nearly 100,000 fewer people immigrating to the UK than in 2010.
We are making good progress with our reforms. We are transforming the immigration and border system. We have abolished the UK Border Agency, established two new operational commands, tightened immigration routes where abuse was rife, strengthened the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK, reformed the family visa system, and set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants who are admitted to the UK. All those reforms are working well and are doing much to tackle the chaotic and dysfunctional system that we inherited from the previous Government, but we need to go further.
The Bill will build on our achievements. It will ensure that immigration serves our economic interests and that our system commands the respect of the British public, who need and deserve an immigration system that is fair, reasonable and measured. I commend the Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper
I am going to make some progress, because time is very tight.
The Home Secretary has become terrified of her own legislation. Even though Parliament has had hardly any business, she has kept the Bill away from the House and has then tried to rush it through in four hours today. We have had just four hours to debate a series of important amendments. On our proposals to tackle the impact of immigration on jobs and growth, and to take stronger action on the minimum wage and agencies that exploit immigration, there has been no debate today. On the proposals of Tory Back Benchers on Bulgaria and Romania, there has been no debate today. On the workability of the housing proposals, there has been no debate today. On the fairness of the appeal proposals, there has been no debate today. A series of amendments has been tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but none of them has been debated today.
What have we had instead? The Home Secretary pulled out of her hat, at the last minute, a new power on citizenship, with no consultation and no scrutiny, in a desperate attempt to distract her own party, but it failed. She then stood up for an hour and a half—I have to admire her resilience—to kill time, without even knowing what her position was on the key new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 23 and 24 January in Athens. I attended the interior day on 24 January on behalf of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was unable to attend the justice day due to commitments in Parliament, but he was represented by a senior official. The following items were discussed.
The justice day began with a discussion of the future development of the justice and home affairs area. There was widespread support among member states for implementation and consolidation of existing EU legislation, mutual recognition, exploiting new technologies, and greater coherence between internal and external EU justice and home affairs activities. Fundamental rights and minimum criminal procedural standards were also a theme for many member states. The UK supported concentrating on the implementation of existing EU law rather than creating new legislation, and argued against further harmonisation. The presidency concluded that mutual recognition should remain the basis of judicial co-operation and that existing legislation needed to be implemented and codified. It also said that there was a need to make full use of e-Justice and new technologies, and to have much greater coherence between internal and external EU JHA work.
Next, the Commission set out its package of measures on procedural rights in criminal law. The chair of the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee said the package would be a priority for the new European Parliament. There were mixed views from those member states who spoke in response, with support expressed in principle but some concerns raised about the detail of what the package would mean in practice.
Over lunch, the presidency asked for views on the proposed amendments to the European small claims procedure regulation. The UK joined the majority of member states in agreeing that the threshold should rise but there was a difference of opinion about what the new level should be. Most also agreed with the greater use of electronic communication methods, provided member states retained some discretion in their use. Although not raised by the presidency, some member states also expressed concerns about the proposed changes to the cross-border restriction and the introduction of a cap on fees.
After lunch there was a discussion on data protection and the issue of international transfers of personal data. There was broad support among member states for the principle of extending the rights of EU residents to third countries where possible but also concern among some delegations, including the UK, about the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism outside the EU, the potential for controllers to be confronted by conflicting legal obligations and a lack of certainty for data subjects about their precise rights. The UK maintained that the focus of effort should be on chapter 5 of the draft regulation, and its rules on international data transfers which are enforceable within the EU. Nonetheless, the presidency concluded that Justice Ministers agreed to the geographical scope of the proposed regulation while highlighting that there were issues about enforceability outside the EU. Further discussions will now take place at the technical level.
The interior day began with the presidency referring to the tragedy earlier in the week off the island of Farmakonisi in which a number of migrants died. The Commission (Malmström) expressed its concern about the loss of life.
The first session concentrated on terrorism and border security, including links between terrorism and border security, the “smart borders” package and preventing the movement of fighters to and from conflict zones.
The Commission also described the content of its communication on countering radicalisation and violent extremism. Member states and the EU’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator (De Kerchove) broadly welcomed the communication. A large number of member states stressed the importance of making progress on EU passenger name records (PNR) and called upon the European Parliament to unblock it.
The UK argued that EU PNR was essential to enable authorities to track the movements of terrorists across borders. The UK also suggested that other member states consider a system using advance passenger information (API) data to implement a “no fly” system, as we do. On smart borders, the UK stressed the need for joined up co-operation with third countries, in particular Turkey. Finally, the UK offered to share its experience of legislation to prevent people travelling to conflict zones for terrorist purposes.
The Commission stated that it intends to review the implementation of the framework decision on terrorism. Several member states were willing to look at amending the EU’s legislation on terrorism, in particular in the light of new legislation at national level.
The presidency concluded by calling for the use of all available tools to combat terrorism, in particular EU PNR and better use of the SIS II system; the smart borders package and better co-operation with third countries also needed to be stepped up.
The second session focused on the future development of the JHA area where the presidency introduced its paper and underlined the importance it attached to the strategic guidelines being clear about the need for burden sharing in the migration field, and solidarity with those member states under the most pressure.
The Commission said that the strategic guidelines on the future of the JHA area needed to take account of a range of new security and migration challenges. There was also a need to step up work on counter radicalisation and a number of serious crime areas, including trafficking in human beings and cybercrime. The European Asylum Support Office had an important role in supporting some member states to deal with excessive pressures on their systems. These issues would be considered in more depth at DG Home’s conference on the future of the JHA area on 29 and 30 January.
The UK highlighted that burden sharing was not the solution and that it would simply increase the pull factor. Nor should we call into question the Dublin system, which had only recently been strengthened. Instead, there was a need to strengthen the external border and reduce illegal immigration into the EU through practical co-operation, with a focus on returns and reducing abuse of migration and asylum systems. The UK stated that future JHA priorities should include better exchange of criminal records as well as action to tackle trafficking in human beings and modem slavery, where the UK was introducing new legislation.
The UK argued that the strategic guidelines should address the issue of abuse of free movement; in particular the way in which illegal third country migrants and criminals exploit free movement to circumvent controls on immigration. This was core JHA business and had previously been covered in the Stockholm programme.
In conclusion, the presidency called upon the Commission to listen to member states’ views in preparing its communication. There would be a further discussion at the March JHA Council.
Syrian Refugees
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement regarding the Government’s proposal to relocate some of the most vulnerable refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria. The whole House will join me in deploring the appalling scenes of violence and suffering that we have witnessed in Syria. More than 100,000 people have been killed, and the credible reports of systematic use of torture and starvation are simply sickening. Millions of innocent people have fled their homes. There are now more than 11 million Syrians in desperate need, including 6.5 million people displaced inside Syria and more than 2.3 million refugees in neighbouring countries, at least half of whom are children. The numbers are staggering and the scale of the crisis is immense. The Prime Minister has rightly called it the greatest refugee crisis of our time.
The greatest contribution we can make is to work to end the conflict altogether, using UK diplomacy and our international influence to support the negotiations taking place in Geneva at this moment, and that is precisely what we are doing. Our goal is a peaceful settlement that enables a political transition and an end to the violence in Syria. That is the only way to create the conditions for all Syrian refugees to do what they most want to do, which is to return to their homes and livelihoods in peace.
We are also leading the world in responding to the humanitarian disaster. Britain is the second largest bilateral donor in the world after the United States. We have provided £600 million for the Syrian relief effort so far, of which £500 million has already been allocated to support refugees and the internally displaced. We are helping Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey to support those who have sought refuge there. As a result of our assistance, 320,000 people a month are being given food, 900,000 a month have drinking water, and we have enabled almost 316, 000 medical consultations to take place. This is the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis, and it comes on top of our efforts to secure humanitarian access inside Syria and to provide essential materials such as shelter, blankets and stoves to help vulnerable Syrians to survive the winter.
The greatest need is in the region and it is there that the United Kingdom can make the largest impact. The Prime Minister made it clear last week that our country has a proud tradition of providing protection to those in need, and where there are particularly difficult cases of vulnerable refugees who are at grave risk, we are ready to look at those cases. Following consultations with the London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in recent days, I can tell the House that the Government will be launching a new programme to provide emergency sanctuary in the UK for displaced Syrians who are particularly vulnerable.
The programme—the vulnerable person relocation scheme—will be based on three principles. First, we are determined to ensure that our assistance is targeted where it can have the most impact on the refugees at greatest risk. The programme will focus on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option. In particular, we will prioritise help for survivors of torture and violence and for women and children at risk or in need of medical care who are recommended to us for relocation by UNHCR. That is where we, as the United Kingdom, can make a distinctive contribution. For example, some of the worst abuses in the Syrian conflict involve the use of sexual violence, including in regime detention centres. The UK’s preventing sexual violence initiative is working to end those crimes globally. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has deployed teams of experts to train Syrians to document and investigate crimes of sexual violence and enable future prosecutions. The Department for International Development is prioritising the protection of women and girls, including providing clinical care for 12,000 Syrian refugee survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in Jordan. Looking at examples such as these through our resettlement scheme, without excluding any others, will help promote our wider goal of ending war-zone sexual violence. That is an approach co-ordinated across the whole of Government.
Secondly, the scheme will be run in addition to the two resettlement programmes the Home Office operates in partnership with the UNHCR: the gateway programme, which settles 750 refugees from a small number of targeted locations every year; and the mandate resettlement scheme, which is designed to resettle individual refugees who have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. It will also be in addition to the asylum claims that we have been considering—and will continue to consider—under our normal rules. Since the crisis began, we have taken in nearly 3,500 Syrian asylum seekers, the fourth highest number in the European Union, with 1,100 Syrian nationals recognised as refugees in the year to September 2013.
Thirdly, because we want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, we do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. I want to make it clear to the House, therefore, that this programme will run in parallel with the UNHCR’s Syria humanitarian admission programme and we will work in close consultation with UNHCR offices in London, in Geneva and in the region.
The United Kingdom has a deep and strong working relationship with the UNHCR built up over many years and £61 million of UK humanitarian assistance to Syria is being delivered through UNHCR programmes. Our approach is entirely consistent with the wider UNHCR programme, is supported by it and will allow us the control to make the best use of our capability to help these cases.
This House and our whole country can be proud of the role we are playing in supporting the Syrian people at a time of great crisis. British money is helping to provide food, water and shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians every day. We are granting asylum to those who need it, consistent with this country’s proud tradition of giving help to those who need it most, and through the relocation scheme that I have announced today we will be providing emergency sanctuary to the people who are most at risk, including victims of torture and violence. But the only way for the violence and suffering to end is with a negotiated political transition and the Government will spare no effort in working to find a peaceful solution to the crisis that will allow refugees to return home. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We have long had cross-party agreement about humanitarian aid for those suffering in the region as a result of the dreadful conflict and crisis in Syria. I believe that now we can come together with cross-party support for helping the most vulnerable civilian refugees, too.
Compassion and common sense have prevailed over the Government’s resistance last week. Britain is rightly providing help and assistance to the majority of refugees that have claimed sanctuary in the neighbouring countries—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—and is rightly leading international efforts, but the Opposition and many others have argued for some time that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or survive in the camps: the abandoned children, torture victims, women who have been abused and those who need medical help.
We have all heard the heart-rending stories of children burnt by chemicals, families torn apart, fathers executed and mothers raped, so when the UN asked us and other countries across the world to provide sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and 18 other countries stepped forward to help it was simply wrong of Britain to refuse. It is a tribute to the support of Members from all parties in this House, to the charities that have campaigned on the subject and to the UN that the Home Secretary has bowed to the pressure before the Opposition day debate this afternoon. It is a reversal of her position last week, but she is right to have listened and I am glad that she has done so.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to helping the survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those who have suffered sexual violence. Let me now ask the Home Secretary a series of questions about her announcement today. First, I welcome her announcement that these places will be in addition to the places provided by the UN to the existing UN gateway and mandate programmes. Countries such as France, Finland and Austria have each agreed to take about 500 refugees, and the Netherlands 250. The right hon. Lady has not set a specific figure, but can she confirm that she expects Britain to provide similar levels of sanctuary?
Secondly, can the Home Secretary confirm that the refugees to whom Britain offers sanctuary will also have access to specialist help and support—for example, working with many of the excellent charities that help those who have suffered great trauma and abuse?
The right hon. Lady says that much of the programme will in fact be delivered by the UNHCR, and she will know that all the things she says she wants to do—the three principles she set out—are possible within the UN Syria programme. Some countries within it have set specific figures; some, such as the US, have not set what she would call a quota, but are still operating within the UN programme. So my third question is: is what she has announced effectively the UN programme, but with a different name?
Fourthly, will the Home Secretary agree to look again at her net migration target? I am sure she agrees with me that there is a world of difference between immigration policy and border control on the one hand, and giving sanctuary to those fleeing persecution on the other. Refugees are included in her net migration target; does she agree that they should no longer be?
I believe that there is now cross-party agreement in support of helping the vulnerable refugees whose lives have been wrecked by the Syrian conflict, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Britain has a long history of helping those who are fleeing terror and persecution. We should stand together in this House and support that tradition now.
Mrs May
I think this is an issue on which Members from all parties across the House can genuinely come together and welcome the steps—all the steps—taken by the Government to provide aid and support to those suffering from the terrible humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict in Syria.
The right hon. Lady asked several questions, the first about the numbers. We have not set a figure. As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we expect several hundred refugees to come, but we have not set a quota precisely because we want to look at particular needs.
It is particular needs that drive the answer to right hon. Lady’s second question, about specialist help and support. We will of course look to the arrangements we have used for the gateway programme, for example, to see the extent to which we will be able to relocate refugees in line with our existing structures and relationships with local authorities, but there will be people, identified on a case-by-case basis, who need very particular assistance—perhaps very particular medical assistance. We will of course seek to ensure that that is provided for those individuals.
The scheme I have announced is, I think, in the spirit of the UNHCR programme, but it is not technically part of it. The UNHCR has welcomed what we are doing—[Interruption.] I have to say to the Opposition Front Benchers that I think they are trying to make an argument where we do not need to have one. We took a very simple decision. We wanted to create a scheme that gives us greater flexibility and enables us to focus clearly on the issues on which the Government as a whole have been focusing, particularly women and girls at risk and preventing sexual violence. I hope that the whole House accepts that the scheme will offer genuine benefit to some of the most vulnerable people who have been displaced from Syria, and that it will welcome the scheme.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
As one who was critical earlier this week, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement—although I cannot conceal my belief that perhaps it would have been better had we been a part of the overall UNHCR programme.
My right hon. Friend knows that I have previously emphasised the need to deal properly with the children who have suffered so grievously in Syria, and I hope that she will ensure that that is given due regard in applying any criteria.
If anyone is moved to challenge the decision my right hon. Friend has announced, I remind her of the wise words of her noble Friend Lord Hurd, who on a similar occasion said, “The fact that we can’t do everything does not mean that we should do nothing.”
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I am pleased that he is pleased that I have been able to respond rather more fully on this issue today than I was able to do in oral questions on Monday. We will give priority to survivors of torture and violence, women and children in need and at risk, and particularly those in need of medical care. I hope that the priorities that we are setting will incorporate his concerns on this issue. The flexibility that we have within the scheme will be of benefit to us.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
In the early 1990s, the Major Government accepted under humanitarian programmes about 3,000 refugees from Bosnia, and in the late 1990s, when I was Home Secretary, we accepted a slightly larger number from Kosovo, because of the terrible crises that existed in both those territories at those times. Will the Home Secretary look carefully at the experience of both the Bosnian and the Kosovan refugees to see what lessons can be learned, including about support within the UK, for these vulnerable people, and the contribution that these people, who often did not have go through the awful hoops of seeking access to this country, were able to make subsequently to our prosperity?
Mrs May
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the contribution that has been made by many groups of refugees who, over the years, have found sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. We will, of course, look at past experience. When the scheme was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman there was no limit on numbers, so it was not a quota system. The circumstances in Syria are slightly different from those in Bosnia in terms of the scale of the numbers involved. That is why the focus must continue to be on helping the maximum number of people by aid being given within region, which, as I have said, is where the UK has a very proud record.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for the statement. It is unquestionably right that we should offer refuge to the most vulnerable refugees, and I particularly welcome the focus on survivors of torture and sexual violence, many of whom remain at risk even in refugee settlements. But the effectiveness of this scheme will depend on early identification and access to the right package of specialist support in the UK. How will she ensure a seamless transition between identification in country and access to those specialist services in the UK?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This will depend very much on the relationship that we have built up and will be exercising with the UNHCR in terms of identifying those cases that it believes it is appropriate for the UK to take, and in doing so to work with it to ensure that we understand the nature of the case and the particular needs of the individual. The transition will depend on that relationship and us working with UNHCR.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome what the Home Secretary has done. She has done absolutely the right thing. On the question of resettlement, will she ensure that she involves the British-Arab diaspora? There are 10,000 Syrians living in this country. I do not know what the formal structure will be— it will certainly not be as big as the resettlement of the Gurkhas—but their involvement could be helpful for those who are vulnerable.
There is £90 million sitting in bank accounts in London that has been frozen that belongs to the Syrian Government. Will she speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether we can access some of those funds, as other EU countries have done, to help with our humanitarian efforts.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes two very good points. On the first issue, as I have said, we have some existing relationships with local authorities, for example, which we work with in resettling through existing resettlement programmes. He makes an important point that refugees coming into this country being able to be welcomed into an environment by people with a similar background can make that transition easier, particularly for someone who is vulnerable. We will be looking carefully, on a case-by-case basis, at how we deal with individuals.
I am certainly willing to talk to the Chancellor about the right hon. Gentleman’s second point. My understanding was that there are strict rules about these frozen accounts and whether it was possible to access money within them. If there is an opportunity to do so, I will certainly be talking to my right hon. Friend.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this thoughtful and tailored extension of what the UK is already doing in relation to Syrian refugees, not least in relation to the situation of women, who will need special care bearing in mind the circumstances from which they come and the impact upon them. In view of the need for us to stay close to the UN, for whom no country could have done more than ourselves, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this does have its endorsement as the right thing for the UK to do, and that her approach will remain flexible should circumstances require it?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has long been promoting the needs of Syrian refugees, particularly women and children who are at risk. I can confirm that the UNHCR has endorsed and welcomed the scheme. The UNHCR’s representative to the UK, Roland Schilling, said:
“We welcome the announcement of the UK government to provide refuge to some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, in cooperation with UNHCR. This decision will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees…Today’s decision is an encouraging and important step, reaffirming the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts in support of more than 2.3 million Syrian refugees and the countries hosting them. UNHCR also recognises the UK’s generous contribution towards massive humanitarian needs in the region.”
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
What about the 560,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, marooned by a conflict that is not their conflict and with no homes to go to? In the Al Yarmouk camp, they are dying of starvation and their food consists of grass and animal food. What precisely and specifically is being done for the Palestinian refugees?
Mrs May
We are, as a country, helping Palestinian refugees who have been able to leave Syria. But the problem with helping those who are in Syria is the lack of access to them, which is the result of the action taken by and the attitude of the Syrian Government. Obviously, some recent steps have been indicated in terms of possible humanitarian access in Syria. We all want to ensure that we can have access to be able to provide support to those people who are suffering inside Syria as a result of this conflict.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today. Saving the life of even one woman or child or person who has been tortured or starved in Syria is well worth doing. Does she agree that these people will not necessarily come here for ever? Many of them will come for treatment of one sort or another or for rehabilitation, and we look forward to the time when they may be able to return to their homeland at some stage in the future.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The vast majority of Syrian refugees want to be able to return to their homes and live in peace. Under the scheme, we will be offering a temporary residence here in the UK, but we will consider each individual case as the situation in Syria evolves.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the Home Secretary kindly confirm that asylum seeker status and refugee status are entirely different things in international law? Will she also confirm that she will liaise closely with the Welsh Government on resettlement?
Mrs May
I am very happy to liaise closely with the Welsh Government, and any opportunities or support that they can give on the relocation of individuals who come to the UK as a result of this scheme will be welcomed. There are different types of status for individuals. We will consider the matter further, but we currently propose that these individuals will be given temporary residence here, but with access to the labour market and other benefits in the same way as refugees would have.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
As someone who was critical of the Government’s position on this, I congratulate the Home Secretary on this announcement. Will she confirm that, when looking at the criteria, children will not be separated from parents?
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I welcome what the Home Secretary has announced today, but I do not quite understand why we are not working hand in hand with the UNHCR resettlement scheme. Is it because under that scheme Germany has committed to taking at least 10,000 refugees? Will we be able to match that figure?
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Having visited Jordan and seen the conditions in which Syrian refugees are living, I am absolutely delighted that the Home Secretary has made this statement—I hope that it gives her heart to think that doing the humane thing for refugees is often popular and not always unpopular. I am a little disappointed that we are not signed up to the UNHCR’s scheme, but so long as we are working hand in hand with it to identify the vulnerable people, that is what is most important. I ask her to keep under review the priorities she has set as the crisis unfolds, because the people who are the most vulnerable may well change over time. If we are to have our own programme, rather than the UNHCR scheme, that might be important.
Mrs May
I take the hon. Lady’s point about continuing to look at the priorities we have set. As I have said, those priorities tie in with other work we are doing in the region. I think that it is important to have that degree of flexibility, which is what having our own scheme gives us. However, I reiterate the point I made in answer to the previous question: we are working alongside and hand in hand with the UNHCR.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
While I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and share her pride in the way this country has acted so positively in furnishing humanitarian aid to the refugees, will she clarify who will be responsible for defining what constitutes the most vulnerable? I welcome her earlier response that children will not be separated from their parents, but will she also ensure that they are not separated from their siblings?
Mrs May
The intention is that responsibility for determining that will be with the UK and the UNHCR, working together. The UNHCR will identify cases and we will work with it to identify whether the UK could provide the necessary support in those cases and therefore take them on board. The intention is not to separate families. Obviously there might be children with particular needs, such as particular medical needs, but the intention is not to separate families.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The organisation that goes into the greatest danger and is often best placed to identify victims of torture and sexual misconduct is the International Committee of the Red Cross, which in my view is often much better than the UNHCR. What is its involvement with the UNHCR in deciding who should come to this country?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have made it clear that we will be looking at the issue primarily with the UNHCR, which I think is appropriate, because it is on the ground and identifying vulnerable individuals, but I hope that the International Committee of the Red Cross will work with it to ensure—
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I welcome the decision that the Home Secretary has taken today, but surely she recognises that we also have a proud record of championing multilateral responses to international crises. If every country demanded the flexibility to set up parallel and unilateral schemes, the entire effort would be undermined to some degree. Does she not at least recognise that? Why is the flexibility she is asking for so important? It undermines our ability to be part of the multilateral effort to help those refugees.
Mrs May
I take a slightly different view from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that countries that take a separate route, working with the UNHCR to identify vulnerable cases, undermine the international community’s ability to provide support, aid and help to those who are vulnerable as a result of the Syrian conflict. I think that what we are doing is absolutely appropriate. We will be working with the UNHCR, as I have said, but we have identified a bespoke scheme that will allow us to focus on particular groups of people, such as victims of sexual violence and women and children who are at risk or in need of medical assistance. We will be able to prioritise those groups within the scheme in a way that would not have been fully possible under another scheme.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I certainly support the Home Secretary’s statement. I visited a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey only recently, and they were very thankful for the support Britain is providing, but I have to tell her that in three days not a single refugee told me that they wanted to relocate to Britain, or indeed any other country; they wanted to go home and to be free from a murderous regime. I think that we need to keep that in mind when prioritising our resources.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend him and the other Members of the House who visited the refugee camp in Turkey, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). They not only talked with the refugees there, but did some constructive work to support them. He is absolutely right that the vast majority of refugees want to be able to return home to a Syria that is not in conflict. That is why our first priority must be to try to ensure that there is a political resolution and a smooth transition in the government of Syria. Our second priority must be to help those who are “in region”, which means that they will be able to return home when the time comes.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and welcome the Government’s decision to receive the most vulnerable refugees from Syria. It is also vital that the humanitarian aid that we are sending reaches those most in need. However, on the point that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made, is it not most important that the Government strengthen their efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement that will finally end the nightmare that is happening in Syria and meet the needs of the people of Syria?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our first focus must be on trying to ensure that we see that political transition taking place so that the refugees can return home and Syria can return to peace. That is why the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are so important. He has been one of the leading figures in the international community trying to secure the Geneva II negotiations and ensure that we get positive results from them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I was afraid that you would choose me for that, Mr Speaker.
Like hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I strongly endorse any help that can be given to vulnerable victims of war, but with regard to the second category that the Home Secretary mentioned—people who have received political asylum—can she assure the House that they are being properly screened so that we do not store up trouble for the future for our security services, as we are already worried about jihadists of our own going out to Syria and coming back?
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Secretary of State for International Development for her regular updates to MPs. I ask the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to work together so that we get regular updates on what is happening, including the total number of refugees and the progress of the scheme so that hon. Members who are concerned about what is happening can be kept up to date regularly.
Mrs May
I am happy to ensure that regular updates are available for Members, working with not only the Foreign Secretary, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who should be commended not only for her updates to the House, but for the leading role she has played in providing humanitarian aid in the region.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I of course very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. There is a good history of orphans from war-torn countries growing up to be much-valued citizens in their adopted countries. Will she consider prioritising Syrian orphans and perhaps increasing the number that Britain will take? Such a policy would be both morally right and of great benefit to this country’s future.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Non-governmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, very much welcome the Government’s humanitarian contribution to these awful problems and will no doubt welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. However, they are puzzled, as I am, that the Government have not thus far associated themselves with the UNHCR’s programme, and therefore with 18 important countries. That lack of solidarity seems to be a wee bit intransigent and hardly fits in with the rest of the Government’s approach. Have I missed an obvious explanation?
Mr Speaker
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has put in to speak in the debate as well. We are grateful to him. He will have made two speeches by the end of it.
Mrs May
I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) to the quote I gave earlier from the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, who has welcomed our announcement. He said that it
“will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees”,
and that it reaffirms
“the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts”.
I think that what matters is whether we are providing help and support for vulnerable refugees in Syria. We are showing solidarity through the humanitarian aid effort that we are providing. As I have said, we are providing the second largest contribution in the humanitarian aid effort in the world, after the United States, which is a very big step in showing solidarity.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not think that the word “orphans” was mentioned by her in the statement or, indeed, by the shadow Home Secretary. Is it not right that, by definition, vulnerable children and children at risk must include orphans?
Mrs May
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), we will look at this case by case. We have said that children at risk are obviously one of the categories that we will prioritise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has reminded me that our work on orphans is not just what will happen as a result of this scheme, because we are doing very specific work to support them in the region.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I still do not understand why we cannot be part of the UNHCR programme, which seems the obvious thing to do? May I take the Home Secretary back to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)? Many of the Palestinian refugees in Syria are themselves refugees from Iraq or, before that, other countries in the region. I hope that she will look very carefully and sympathetically at the plight of people driven from pillar to post by the travails and history of the whole region, and at least give them a place of safety here.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is correct in his identification of the particular problem for many individuals who have been displaced not just once, but many times. That is why we have done specific work with Palestinian refugees who, as I understand it, are in the refugee camps. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the problem about working with people inside Syria is of course the lack of access for humanitarian aid efforts in Syria.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
This is a good announcement and an appropriate way to mark the 75 years since the Kindertransport, when this country saved 10,000 children from the horrors of the holocaust.
I note that the Home Secretary said that the Government do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. Will she therefore confirm that there are no targets or limits on how many people can be taken, and that the number can be expanded if necessary?
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which follows this country’s honourable tradition of supporting refugees. Will she consider giving support to effective charities, such as Asylum Link, to enable them to play their part, too?
Mrs May
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. As I have said, we are obviously looking at a number of asylum cases. The UK has taken the fourth highest number of asylum seekers of those taken into countries in the European Union. We of course look at every one of those cases on the right and proper basis of the need presented.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the refugees we spoke to told us some horrendous stories about how they got there. Will my right hon. Friend say exactly who will decide, and on what criteria, that one heart-rending case is given refuge here over another heart-rending case? Perhaps that should be done according to the specific medical skills that we can offer.
Mrs May
There will be a combination of factors: the UNHCR will identify individuals who are particularly vulnerable or at risk, but we will have to consider whether the UK can provide the particular support that they need. That will be discussed with the UNHCR, but it will initially identify the most vulnerable cases.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Like the UK, Germany is among the largest bilateral humanitarian aid donors in Syria, but Angela Merkel’s Government have announced that they are prepared to take 10,000 refugees. The Government’s statement about hundreds of vulnerable people receiving refuge in the UK is welcome, but how does the Home Secretary account for the difference in the scale of ambition between the UK and Germany?
Mrs May
All countries look at how they are best able to give the support that they feel is right. As a country, we have put a particular focus on the amount of money and support that we give to people in the region. As several of my hon. Friends have said, most of the refugees in the camps want to be able to return to Syria. We believe that it is right to focus on humanitarian aid to support those in the refugee camps. It is also right to welcome some particularly vulnerable people to the United Kingdom, and I have set out that scheme today.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my pride that only one country, whose economy is six times the size of ours, is giving more help to Syria than Britain?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The United Kingdom can be very proud of its record on the humanitarian aid that it is giving refugees from the Syrian conflict. As he says, it is the second highest amount in the world—second only to the United States—so we can hold our heads high and recognise the tremendous support that we are giving to Syrian refugees.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
When does the Home Secretary expect the first people to arrive in this country under the scheme, and has she already had discussions about that, particularly with NHS trusts that will have to provide the capacity to deal with them?
Mrs May
I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for when the first people will arrive. We obviously have to ensure that we can provide individuals with appropriate accommodation and support. That process can be done generically at the start, but individuals will then have to be considered case by case.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I appreciate the Home Secretary’s measured response to this dreadful tragedy, for which the United Kingdom has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever, but may I invite her to consider seeing it in the context of the overall impact of migration to this country in recent years? While Germany and France have population densities of 235 and 119 people per square kilometre, England and Wales have 374 people per square kilometre. I therefore suggest two things: first, that we should limit the scheme to hundreds and not thousands; and, secondly, that as a Christian country, we should prioritise Christians who are being persecuted in Syria. Does she agree?
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend that I am often very happy to debate and discuss immigration matters with him, but today our focus must be on the help that we are providing to the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. I have indicated the categories of vulnerability that we will prioritise, but I repeat that they are survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those in need of medical care.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on those who have faced sexual violence. Is she aware of the work of Human Rights Watch in respect of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Syrian refugees? Will such refugees have access to the programme?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comment that he has made. In putting the priorities together, I decided that although we will have a focus on women and children at risk, the survivors of torture and violence will include not only women and children, but people of both genders. It is therefore quite possible that individuals who have been subject to the sort of violence that he raises will qualify within that category.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Emphasis has correctly been placed on helping people who have been subjected to the worst abuses of the Syrian conflict, including sexual violence and being detained in regime detention centres. Will she confirm that when people are brought to this country, the evidence collection will not end? It is vital that when people are taken away from the refugee camps, the UK Government continue to co-operate with the evidence collection so that the perpetrators of crimes can be prosecuted.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, this country is helping with the process of evidence collection by training Syrians to collect evidence. It is important that in bringing people to the UK, we do not lose the possibility that evidence can be collected and break that chain. I entirely accept the point that he has made.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and particularly her focus on vulnerable groups. I want to return to the question that was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). LGBT groups have experienced particular victimisation, stigmatisation, violence and so forth. I urge her, in looking at vulnerable groups with the UN, to focus on LGBT communities. She said that it was “quite possible” that such people would qualify. That was not as reassuring as I had hoped.
Mrs May
I hoped in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby to make the point that the first category will be the survivors of torture and violence, and that we have a particular concern about those who have been subjected to sexual violence. I did not intend to suggest that this was only a “might possibly”. We will work with the UNHCR and it will make the initial identification of the most vulnerable cases and identify those for whom the support that is available in the UK would be most appropriate.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said that we need to learn the lessons from Kosovo. Has the Secretary of State seen the comments that were made by the then Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short? She said that Britain refused to take a quota:
“We are not working on numbers. We are working on vulnerability and need”.
She went on to say:
“We believe that the refugees should be cared for in the region”.
Does the Secretary of State agree that our approach is very similar to that of the previous Government to the refugees in Kosovo?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and he is absolutely right. The important thing is that the United Kingdom asks what is the most appropriate way to support refugees who have been displaced by conflict, as in Syria. First and foremost, it is humanitarian aid in the region that is needed, but it is also right for us to take vulnerable cases and we have set no quota.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will have been aware of the widespread unease across the House earlier in the week about the Government’s position on this issue. I therefore congratulate her, as others have, on the change of tone and spirit in her statement today, which has largely dispelled that unease. However, it is puzzling that Britain—a founding and permanent member of the Security Council—is running parallel with the UN on this matter. If we are working so closely with the UNHCR on this matter, surely we could take a leading role as we have on all other issues.
Mrs May
We are taking a leading role in providing aid and support to refugees from Syria in a variety of ways. We just do not happen to be signing up to a particular programme of the UNHCR. We are not working in parallel with the UN, but are working hand in hand with the UNHCR on a parallel scheme.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the understanding of colleagues. The debate on this matter will follow relatively shortly and I am sure that there will be opportunities not only for speeches, but for interventions if Members still feel inclined to make them.
UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
No one chooses to be a refugee. The women and men pouring across Syria’s borders are the innocent victims of a conflict in which the vast majority have played no part. In many cases, they flee because their towns have been pulverised, their children’s schools destroyed, their hospitals bombed and their supplies of food and water cut off. They have lost relatives. Many have been injured. Some have survived the first use of chemical weapons this century. Their suffering, inflicted on people who are no different from us in their desire for peace, security and freedom, is hard for any of us to imagine.
As hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, this is a humanitarian catastrophe with no end currently in sight. At stake are the lives of millions of innocent people and security in the middle east, all of which has an impact on us here in the UK. The question is: what can we do, as the United Kingdom, to address these problems? The answer, above all, as I made clear in my statement earlier today, and as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have also explained, must be that we work to end the conflict. Her Majesty’s Government are using diplomacy and humanitarian aid to carry out that work, and are taking measures to protect the security of our own country.
The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in addressing this crisis. At the United Nations Security Council, we and our partners are urging Russia to work with us to end the conflict, and we are pressing for full and unfettered humanitarian access. As members of the core group of the Friends of Syria, we are instrumental in supporting a moderate opposition, without which there can be no political settlement in that country, only the murderous tyranny offered by Assad or the warped ideology of terrorist extremists and foreign fighters seeking to exploit the violence. In addition, we are saving countless lives through our humanitarian assistance.
Britain has indeed been leading the world in responding to the disaster. We are the second largest bilateral donor, after the United States. We are providing £600 million for the Syrian relief effort and to help neighbouring countries, which are supporting those who have sought refuge there, to meet the needs of those refugees and bolster their own security. This effort has united support across the House. Right hon. and hon. Members have rightly expressed their considerable concern, and I commend those on all sides of the House who have done much to raise the issue and keep the plight of innocent Syrians in our thoughts.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for taking an intervention. Her doing so allows me to say how much I appreciate the statement she is making today and the way in which it has unified the House on the significant part of her speech. That will be welcomed in Wales, where there is a long tradition and history of supporting peoples who are being displaced and threatened by humanitarian crisis.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his reference to the tradition in Wales of supporting people who are refugees from humanitarian conflicts.
Earlier this month a team of MPs, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), travelled to the Syrian border in Turkey to see how refugees there are being helped by humanitarian aid. The Select Committee on International Development also held a special oral evidence session focusing on the British response, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for his campaigning on this issue. It is clear that everyone in the House understands the obligation this country and the international community has towards helping the Syrian people during this time of great crisis.
Last week the Prime Minister was clear that given the scale of the current refugee crisis, with more than 11 million Syrians in dire need of humanitarian aid, the greatest need is in the region—that is where we can make the deepest impact. He was equally clear that, where there are particularly compelling cases of vulnerable people at grave risk, we will look at those cases. Earlier today, I announced to the House that, following consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in London, the Government will be launching a new programme to provide emergency sanctuary in the UK for particularly vulnerable displaced Syrians, including women and girls at risk, survivors of torture and violence, and children at risk or in need of medical care.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement earlier today on providing emergency sanctuary for vulnerable refugees in co-operation with the UNHCR. I wonder whether, now or later in her speech, she can tell the House what role she envisages for the voluntary sector at a local level in the effort to help refugees with their transition to our country?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is indeed the case that the voluntary sector will play an important role. The prime focus of interaction in various parts of the country—on, for example, ensuring that accommodation is available—will be local authorities, but voluntary groups will have a very important role to play. Indeed, it is part of the Government’s ethos to look to work with voluntary groups, because of the quality of support that they can give in such circumstances.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Following on from that point, may I urge the Home Office to discuss with the sizeable Syrian community around the UK what help and support it can give to incoming refugees?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. When people come to another country in these circumstances, when they are fleeing from violence and are particularly vulnerable, working with those who have a similar background and who will be able to welcome them here to the UK is an important part of our work.
Mr MacNeil
Although the right hon. Lady has not confirmed a date for when people might arrive, I hope the door is open from now. Given the importance of this matter, has she discussed with the Scottish Government how they might play their full part and how the Scottish national health service might be ready to deal with the needs of refugees if and when they come to Scotland, which I hope they do?
Mrs May
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I indicated earlier, we will be talking to both the Welsh and Scottish Governments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will be writing to the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations on this matter.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members were in the House earlier for my statement, but I reiterate that the vulnerable person relocation scheme will be based on three principles. First, to ensure our assistance helps those refugees at greatest risk, it will focus on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option. Secondly, it will be run in addition to the two resettlement programmes we currently operate in partnership with the UNHCR: the UK’s gateway protection resettlement programme, which resettles a number of refugees from a small number of targeted locations every year; and the smaller mandate resettlement scheme, which is designed to resettle individual refugees who have been recognised by UNHCR and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. Thirdly, because we want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, we do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. Instead, our programme will run in parallel with the UNHCR’s own Syria humanitarian admission programme, and will be carried out in close consultation with UNHCR offices in London, Geneva and in the region.
I want to be clear that we are not signing up wholesale to the UNHCR’s existing scheme, because we think we can best contribute through a complementary scheme focusing on the most vulnerable cases. Our scheme is, however, entirely consistent with the UNHCR’s wider programme and we have its full support. Indeed, the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, Roland Schilling, has welcomed
“the announcement of the UK government to provide refuge to some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, in cooperation with UNHCR.”
He has said:
“This decision will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees many of whom have been deeply traumatised and face immense hardship. It is also a concrete and important gesture of solidarity and burden sharing with the countries neighbouring Syria as they continue to bear the brunt of the refugee crisis.”
Others, including the chief executive of the Refugee Council, have also welcomed our action today.
With widespread support for our approach, including from the UNHCR, I hope the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members will agree that this scheme is clearly within the spirit of today’s motion. Now is not the time for politics, but for sending a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to do its bit to help those who are suffering. On that basis, I hope that nobody thinks it necessary or appropriate to divide the House on this issue.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. There is absolutely no doubt that today’s announcement will be welcomed by everyone in this House and by constituents who have contacted us with their concerns. Does she accept, however, that there are still concerns about the UK’s failure to sign up to the UNHCR programme, and will she acknowledge that those concerns have not been fully addressed by what she has said today?
Mrs May
I have to say to the hon. Lady that the key people we should look to, to see if they are concerned, are those in the UNHCR. The UNHCR has been absolutely clear that it does not have any concerns about us not signing up to its programme. It has welcomed the scheme that we are putting together. I think that across the country people will welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the plight of Syrian refugees and have been willing to take this action, particularly with a focus on those who are most vulnerable.
In addition to the scheme announced today, we continue to consider asylum claims under our normal rules. We have a proud tradition of giving sanctuary to people in genuine need, and since the crisis began, we have taken in nearly 3,500 asylum seekers—the fourth highest in the EU—with 1,100 Syrian nationals recognised as refugees in the year to September 2013. Where Syrian nationals were working or studying in this country when the conflict broke out, we have also made it easier for them to stay here until there is a resolution to the crisis.
As Ministers have said consistently, we believe that the best way of reaching the greatest number of people is by focusing humanitarian efforts on the region, and that is the only realistic way in which the rights of the vast majority of displaced persons can be safeguarded. Let me outline what the £600 million that Britain is providing is helping to provide.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I commend the Home Secretary on today’s very welcome announcement, but I want to ask her about the wider issue of humanitarian aid. I visited Zaatari refugee camp not long ago and witnessed at first hand the extent of the UK aid to Syrian refugees. Does she share the concern that I and others, including many of my constituents, have about the level of help being given by other EU member states and others in the international community? As well has taking refugees, they need to contribute more financially to help those in the greatest need.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We can be proud of what we have done. As I indicated earlier, our £600 million is the second largest bilateral contribution—second only to the United States—and I agree that other countries need to look at what help they are providing.
Angus Robertson
I want to help the Home Secretary with a suggestion I have made before to the Foreign Secretary. Why do the Government or international organisations not keep a running total showing which countries have pledged and which have already transferred funds, making it all much more transparent?
Mrs May
We have the totals of what has been pledged by countries around the world. For example, the UK, with its £600 million, is, as I have said, the second largest contributor, whereas Germany, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, is contributing the equivalent of £350 million—less than us—in humanitarian aid.
Thanks to our funding, food, water, shelter and medicine are being provided to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians. Almost 320,000 people a month are being given food inside Syria or in the surrounding region; more than 900,000 people a month are being provided with drinking water; almost 316,000 medical consultations have been enabled; and 300,000 people inside Syria have received basic life-saving items, such as blankets, shelter and clothing. We are also acutely aware of the impact the crisis is having on the lives of children, 1 million of whom are now refugees. We are leading the No Lost Generation initiative with UNICEF and others, which is allocating £30 million to provide protection, trauma care and education for children affected by the crisis.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the need for immediate and unfettered access so that all those in need inside Syria, including those trapped in besieged or hard-to-reach places, can receive aid. The deliberate obstruction of aid has been a particularly sickening aspect of this conflict, and there are reports of people being allowed to starve to death, which is utterly inhumane. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach all those in need, and we will not let up until that is done in the besieged city of Homs and across the country.
One of the considerable consequences of this conflict has been the immense pressure placed on Syria’s neighbouring countries. More than 2.3 million Syrians fleeing Assad’s brutality have sought refuge in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq. I cannot commend highly enough the humanitarian spirit demonstrated by these countries, and we cannot underestimate the strain placed on their infrastructure. Through the humanitarian assistance we are providing in the region, we can help them better to shoulder that responsibility. In the face of the vast scale of this crisis, the resettlement of small numbers of refugees from those countries will provide them with only very limited relief, whereas funding to support a larger number of refugees in those places will help ease the stress on their systems.
We have also pledged support to a regional development and protection programme that will provide protection in neighbouring countries to those displaced from Syria, making it easier for them to return home when it is safe to do so. In addition to the £600 million we are providing in humanitarian relief, Britain is also providing £12 million in development funding from the Arab Partnership economic fund to Jordan. It is clear that the best and most immediate way to help displaced Syrians caught up in this terrible conflict is to focus on the region and neighbouring countries, thus reaching a far greater number of people and minimising the trauma and the displacement so many have already endured.
Britain can and should be proud of the role we are playing in supporting the Syrian people during a time of great crisis. As I have made clear, British money is helping to provide food, water and shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians every day. We are providing humanitarian assistance to people inside and outside Syria, working hard to achieve improved access to humanitarian aid and pressing Assad’s allies to push the regime to do much more, and through our relocation scheme, we will provide emergency sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable caught up in the war, including children and victims of torture and sexual violence.
The only real way, however, to ensure that the horror, the misery and the killing stop is through an agreed political settlement. That is why the Government will continue in their determination to urge all those involved to find a peaceful and sustainable solution to this crisis, and it is why we must keep up the pressure on Assad and his allies. Only when the fighting stops can the conditions for a solution to the humanitarian crisis be created, and only then will the men, women and children who have suffered so much and been so cruelly torn from their homes be able to return in safety to their homes and livelihoods, which is what the vast majority of Syrians so dearly wish.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
1. What assessment she has made of the effect of police reductions on Northumbria police.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The independent inspectorate of constabulary has found that, like other forces, Northumbria police are rising to the challenge of making savings while maintaining and improving service to the public. The Northumbria police and crime commissioner has recently restated her and the chief constable’s shared commitment to maintaining the number of police officers and staff working in their neighbourhoods. She is clear that her force needs to do things differently, use technology more effectively and work from different buildings that are cheaper to run.
Chi Onwurah
This morning, Northumbria police arrested eight people as part of Operation Sanctuary, an investigation into horrific allegations of sexual abuse of looked-after young girls and other vulnerable victims in the west end of Newcastle. Police have assured me that they are working with safeguarding agencies and local communities to protect the victims and pursue the perpetrators, but that very police station in the west end of Newcastle is to close as part of the £67 million cuts and we have seen a 7% rise in total crime in the region over the past 12 months. Will the Home Secretary give me a commitment that Northumbria will have the resources it needs to pursue this critical investigation?
Mrs May
I recognise the sort of case that the hon. Lady raises. Sadly, we are seeing too many such cases, particularly involving the horrific abuse of young girls. There have been a number of cases and I was with Thames Valley police a matter of weeks ago to talk to them about Operation Bullfinch and the lessons they had learned from that for the future investigation of such cases and how victims are treated. There has been a lot to learn. I do not think that the physical presence of a police station is what makes the difference to how such a case is treated and I am sure that the chief constable of Northumbria will ensure that there are the resources properly to investigate and to bring to justice those who are guilty of such crimes.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
6. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of reductions in local authority funding on police forces.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Funding for local authorities is a matter for the Communities Secretary. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 puts in place two related, reciprocal duties for police and crime commissioners to co-operate with partners. These duties ensure that local leaders work together to achieve the most effective outcomes for their areas. PCCs are already working with local partners to ensure that they provide the services the public needs, and we encourage them to continue do so.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but the fact remains that people across Northumbria are being unfairly hit with savage reductions in local authority budgets and a loss of nearly 400 front- line police officers, which has resulted in an increase in violent crime. With this toxic combination stretching the fabric of partnership working and community policing to breaking point, what steps is the right hon. Lady taking to stem the rise in violent crime and reassure our communities and my constituents across Northumbria?
Mrs May
I am pleased to say that crime survey figures show overall across the country that violent crime is down by some 13%, but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier to her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about Northumbria. The PCC and the chief constable in Northumbria are looking to use technology to work more effectively and looking at ensuring that they collaborate with local partners so that they continue to provide the effective police service that her constituents and the PCC’s constituents want in Northumbria.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I note that police funding in Northumbria is slightly higher than in my county of Leicestershire per head of population. I also note that according to the latest recorded crime figures, crime fell by 19% in Northumbria and 24% in Leicestershire. Does not that show that the issue is not about absolute budgets but how that budget is allocated?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he echoes a comment made by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which shows that it is not the number of police officers that is relevant but how they are deployed. So it is about how the resources are used. As I have said, in Northumbria, the PCC and the chief constable are looking to ensure that they use their resources as effectively as possible, particularly through the introduction of new technology.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary must be aware of the disproportionate anomalous effect of the cuts overall— by local and central Government—in the west midlands. We await her review of what happened to Coventry because of the damping review, where we received £44 million less than her own formula should have awarded, and the top-slicing that she announced in January means a cut against what we should have received of a further £3.9 million. Of course, the City of London and Surrey are doing much better. What has she got against the west midlands?
Mrs May
I am pleased to see that the crime figures show that crime continues to fall in the west midlands, and that the West Midlands police have been able to put in a bid to the new innovation fund, which the Government have introduced, and they were successful in that bid, so they will be able to put in place the creation, I understand, of a new intelligence hub, which will greatly enhance their ability to deal with crime in the west midlands.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
During the past two years, the budget for policing in the west midlands has been reduced by 13%, and during the same period crime has fallen by 18%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that this more-for-less outcome is in the interests of law-abiding taxpayers as well as the police?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is interesting that the Opposition always refuse to accept that good policing is about how the police are deployed, rather than overall numbers. We understand that, and so do chief constables, which is why, I am pleased to say, we are seeing the effectiveness of police constables and the work their officers are doing up and down the country in reducing crime.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
To be a victim of violent crime is traumatic. To see one’s assailant not brought to book adds insult to injury. With 7,000 fewer crimes of violence against the person solved under this Government, does the Home Secretary accept that this is the inevitable consequence of the combination of the biggest cuts in local government history and the cutting of 10,000 police officers from the front line: more violent criminals getting off scot-free?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating North Yorkshire police on further reducing crime by 5%? Does she also agree that local authorities have a useful role to play in reading the films from CCTV cameras and that that should continue on an ongoing basis?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her comment about the necessity of working with local authorities, which I think is absolutely imperative. The work that local authorities do in looking at images from CCTV cameras and working with the police on that is an important part of the picture of partnership working to reduce crime in the local area.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment her Department has made of the availability of over-the-counter acidic substances and the use of such substances in violent crime.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
13. What recent steps she has taken to improve the visa and immigration system.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are working to build an immigration system that works in the national interest. We are reforming immigration routes, tackling abuse and improving customer services. We have abolished the UK Border Agency and created three distinct commands focusing on border control, visas and immigration, and immigration enforcement. Those are the right changes, but it will take substantial work and a number of years to fix the broken system that we inherited.
John Howell
Does the Home Secretary agree that recent visa figures showing a 7% rise in the number of applications to study in Britain show that we continue to attract the brightest and best students from around the globe?
Mrs May
That is absolutely right. One of the key changes that we made to the immigration system was to introduce a greater degree of differentiation so that we encourage the brightest and the best. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted show that we are bringing the brightest and the best into our universities, and long may that continue. At the same time, we have rooted out abuse and continue to work to do so, particularly in the student visa system.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This morning on the “Today” programme, the Prime Minister said that the Government were simply introducing NHS charges for
“people who have no right to be here”.
Will the Home Secretary therefore table amendments to the Immigration Bill to exempt students and others who do have the right to be here and are making a major contribution to the UK economy, or has the Prime Minister got it wrong?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes that we are bringing forward in the Immigration Bill, which will do a number of things. They will indeed make it harder for people to be here in the United Kingdom when they have no right to be here. They will also make it easier for us to deal with people who are here illegally who I am sure everybody in the House wants to see removed from this country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On Thursday, the Immigration Bill will come back to the House on Report. The Home Secretary will be delighted that there are 30 pages of new clauses and amendments. There are 50 Government amendments, and it appears that we cannot possibly have enough time in the four hours on Thursday to debate or even read those 30 pages. Will she now tell the House that we will have an extra day for Report?
Mrs May
The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Today, on behalf of the official Opposition, I have signed new clauses 7 to 10 to the Immigration Bill, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and several other Conservative Back Benchers, which would strengthen future European Union accession arrangements. Given that new cross-party consensus, will the Home Secretary join us in supporting those new clauses on Thursday?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what happens on Thursday, but I have looked with interest at the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I am pleased there is agreement across the House that we must take action in future on accession countries, and the number of people who may be coming to the UK from those countries.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
15. What steps she is taking to ensure all directly employed and contract staff who work in her Department are paid the living wage.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office’s legislative programme for the year ahead builds on the successes of our work since the last election. Net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010, with net migration from outside the EU now at its lowest level since 1998. The Immigration Bill will reform the removals and appeals system, end the abuse of article 8, and prevent illegal immigrants from accessing and abusing our public services or the labour market. Police reforms are working: crime continues to fall and stands at its lowest level since the independent crime survey began in 1981. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will, among other things, introduce simpler, more effective powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, which will provide better protection for victims and communities. The Joint Committee scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill began its work last week. Tackling individuals and organised crime groups who subject victims to horrendous abuse will result in more arrests, more prosecutions and—most importantly—more victims being released from slavery and more prevented from entering it in the first place.
Andrew Miller
What plans does the Secretary of State have for next month’s illegal wildlife trade conference? Will she publish her action plan for that conference, and set out her plan for Britain to continue to play an important role in this area, on which there is cross-party agreement?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will be aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department on that conference, but the Home Office is heavily involved. We are working with DEFRA and are committed to continuing funding of the wildlife crime unit.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T2. The Normington report found that the Police Federation harasses those with dissenting views, lacks financial transparency and is a weak voice for officers. The report made 36 specific recommendations. Does the Home Secretary agree that the current chairman presiding over that systemic failure cannot be the right person to reform it?
Mrs May
I have to say to my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the Police Federation initiated the review. He wanted properly to review the federation’s role and whether it represents officers properly. Obviously, a number of key recommendations have come forward. It is important that the federation has had the review. If any changes require Home Office input, we stand ready to work with the federation on them.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary refused to come to the House to answer a question on vulnerable Syrian refugees, and sent the Immigration Minister to convey to the House her decision that Britain would not provide sanctuary to any of the vulnerable refugees, torture victims, abandoned children and others whom the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged her to help. He told us that to do so was simply a “token”. Twenty-one MPs asked the Home Office to change its position and sign up to the UN programme, and each time the Minister said no. As a result of the pressure that the Home Secretary has been put under, and in advance of the vote on Wednesday, has she listened, and is the answer now yes?
Mrs May
First, the United Kingdom has a fine record in terms of the amount of money we are providing in humanitarian aid—it is the largest sum of money of any of the European Union countries. We have also accepted in the past three years several thousand asylum seekers from Syria. That is another way in which we are appropriately offering support. Through the mandate programme, we have the ability to take refugees who have family connections here and whose families are willing to support them. However, I am working with the Foreign Secretary to look at what further support can be provided by the Government. Further announcements on that will be made in due course.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. As she will know, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that aid to the region is vital. The majority of people will be helped through that, but the UN and others have made it clear that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or even to survive in the camps. That is why it is so important to provide extra help. This is not an either/or.
Let me press the Home Secretary specifically on the UN programme. She will know that there is huge flexibility within the programme on the numbers of people whom Britain can offer to help, on Britain’s ability to do security checks on those coming forward, and on Britain’s ability to specify who and what kinds of refugees it can support. Will she therefore tell the House now whether she will agree in principle to sign up to the UN programme—yes or no?
Mrs May
This issue is of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are looking at the most appropriate way for us to provide support and enhance the support we are already giving. As I said in answer to the right hon. Lady’s first question, I am working with the Foreign Secretary, and announcements will be made in due course. She wants an answer from me today, but I can assure her that she will have a response from the Government in advance of the House considering the Opposition motion on Wednesday.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T4. My constituent, Rebecca Holmes, was murdered by an abusive ex-partner while under the protection of the police. We have waited two years for an Independent Police Complaints Commission report in order to learn the lessons. Can the Minister do anything to hurry such reports along, or at any rate to monitor how slowly they go?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police, the police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, and Chief Constable Adrian Lee on overseeing a 23% cut in violent crime—over halfway to their target of a 40% cut by 2016— that makes it the second most improving force in the country in this area of crime?
Mrs May
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the work done by individual officers, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire. Their work is having a real impact on crime levels in the area, and that is of real benefit to those who live there. The Northamptonshire PCC has been at the forefront of looking at innovative ways for the police to work more effectively—for example, by bringing the blue light services together—and we support him in that.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
T6. Given the responsibility of police and crime commissioners for setting force budgets, how many have been consulted on, and voiced their approval of, capping the police precept?
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend understand that many of us believe that, in the matter of Syrian refugees, the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a particular obligation? How can it be that we are not able to accept some of the children who have suffered so grievously—traumatised, orphaned and, in some cases, disabled—as a result of the unrest in Syria? Surely this is a matter for humanity on the part of the Government, or are we to allow our moral compass to be set by Mr Nigel Farage?
Mrs May
As I said in answer to the shadow Home Secretary, the UK has a good record in supporting hundreds of thousands of refugees in the region. I have heard the concern expressed on several occasions in this place by Members on both sides of the House on the specific issue of vulnerable refugees, and as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I are considering what further the UK might do.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
T7. Earlier, the policing Minister said he wanted police forces to do more to increase the recruitment of black and minority ethnic officers—I think he said the College of Policing should show some “early energies”. Why does he not go a step further and introduce a legal requirement for every force to increase the number of black and minority ethnic officers serving our communities?
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
May I press the Home Secretary on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) about the Police Federation? On the one hand, Normington made proposals that required legislation, but on the other hand, there are examples of the federation promoting injustice that Normington gave no answer to. Is there not a clear requirement for the Government to act on this matter?
Mrs May
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), the Police Federation is considering its response to the Normington review, and I look forward to seeing what it proposes to bring forward as a result of its consideration. The Home Office stands ready to make the necessary changes to enable the federation to put in place the right structure to ensure that it is truly representative of police officers.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
T8. The Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot suspend officers, it cannot compel them to give interviews, it cannot prosecute them and its budget is smaller than that of the Met’s complaints department. Given what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, is it not time to reform this organisation so that we have a proper, independent, efficient investigatory body looking at the minority of police officers who offend?
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Each year, more than 1 million women suffer from domestic abuse, more than 300,000 are sexually assaulted and 60,000 are raped. These are shocking numbers. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle violence against women?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should all remain concerned about the fact that violence, particularly domestic violence, against women has continued at levels unchanged for some time now. The Government have ring-fenced funding—for example, to support the specialist local domestic and sexual violence advisers and advocates—and made changes to the law, for example introducing domestic violence protection orders to ensure that the victim can stay in their home and that it is the perpetrator who has to leave it when action is taken. So support is being given in a number of areas.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Since the Home Secretary has accepted that there is much understandable concern across the House about the Syrian situation, would it not be far better for the House to reach a unanimous agreement on Wednesday, instead of dividing, given that we all basically want the same outcome, which is to assist as far as possible victims of violence and terror in Syria?
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Government have taken significant steps to combat online child abuse, working with the police, technology companies and independent charities and experts, but an intensified risk is now posed by the hidden internet software Tor. What action can the Government take?
Scotland Analysis (Borders and Citizenship)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am today laying before the House the 10th paper in the Government’s Scotland analysis programme, “Scotland analysis: Borders and citizenship”. This series of publications is designed to inform the debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom ahead of this year’s referendum.
This paper analyses the UK’s framework for managing its common external border, considers the benefits of an absence of internal borders within the UK, as well as the implications for both if people in Scotland vote for independence. It also considers the impact that Scottish independence may have on issues of citizenship.
The paper sets out the importance of borders and the considerations that states around the world must take into account when determining how to manage their borders. It then analyses the UK’s internal and external borders, and examines the current framework for managing the UK’s external border.
The paper then considers the UK’s policies and systems for managing the movement of people into the UK, both for short-term visits and economic migration. It sets out some of the issues that the Government of an independent Scottish state may have to consider when determining how to manage the movement of people into and out of an independent Scotland.
It also assesses how the movement of goods, both legal and illegal, between Scotland and the UK could be impacted if Scotland became an independent state, and the challenges this could pose for the Governments of both the continuing UK and an independent Scottish state.
Finally, the paper also considers the question of citizenship and how an independent Scottish state may define its own citizenship policy. It then analyses the impact on the citizenship of the continuing UK if Scotland became an independent state.
Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2014 to ensure that people in Scotland have access to the facts and information ahead of the referendum.
Copies of the paper are available in the Vote Office.
Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I would like to inform the House that changes have been made to the arrangements for publishing reports of the independent chief inspector for borders and immigration. The reports prepared by the chief inspector will from today be laid before Parliament in order to bring the process into line with the current legislation.
There is a requirement under section 50 of the UK Borders Act 2007 for the Home Secretary to lay copies of the reports of the independent chief inspector before Parliament. This requirement has only recently been brought to my notice and therefore, in order to comply with the legislation, I will now be laying the reports I receive from the chief inspector before Parliament.
This change in process will ensure that the requirements of the legislation are fulfilled but there is no change to the independence of the chief inspector and the work done by his office. The only amendment I may make to the reports that I receive are through the provision for redacting material on the grounds of national security or an individual’s safety in section 50 (3) of the 2007 Act.
All reports will continue to be available on the chief inspector’s website once they have been laid before Parliament.
Today two reports are being laid before Parliament; the first one is a report on the short notice inspection of a sham marriage enforcement operation and the second is report on an inspection of Border Force operations at Stansted airport. Neither of these reports contains redactions.
Copies of both of these reports are available in the Vote Office.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Since 11 September 2001 successive Governments have grappled with the problem of how to deal with terrorist suspects who can neither be prosecuted nor deported. The last Government first introduced the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in November 2001. This legislation effectively introduced detention without trial for foreign terrorist suspects who could be held pending deportation even when that deportation was unlikely ever to happen. In 2004 the Law Lords struck down those powers.
We later had the extraordinary spectacle of the attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention to 90 days, which was rightly defeated by Parliament, and in 2005 the last Government introduced control orders, but control orders too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) has said, were steadily eroded by the courts. Three control orders were quashed because the courts said they were wrong in principle, two control orders were revoked because the courts directed that they were no longer necessary, and three control orders were revoked because the previous Government felt they were unable to make the disclosures ordered by the court. All those individuals were then freed from their controls.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does what the right hon. Lady has just described not show that the judicial oversight of control orders was actually working?
Mrs May
I have to say that that is an ingenious argument to make in support of the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers, but what it shows is that the courts were giving a very clear message about aspects of control orders. What we needed was a regime that was legally viable and would command the confidence of the police and security services, and TPIMs have been consistently endorsed by the courts, two successive independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation, the police and the Security Service. They provide some of the strongest restrictions available in the democratic world and some of the strongest possible protections that our courts will allow. We now have a strong and sustainable legal framework to handle terrorist suspects whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.
Hazel Blears
I am beginning to have a concern that, as a result of the outcry because people have absconded from the TPIMs regime, the Government will in future be reluctant to use the TPIMs powers. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if there are people who pose a serious security risk to this country, the Government will continue to use the TPIMs powers, although they are considerably weakened in my view, to try to protect the people of this country?
Mrs May
The TPIMs remain on the statute book. They remain there as an option; they are an option for the Security Service and the police to look at in relation to any individual and to bring forward to the Secretary of State for determination and then through the court process, which the right hon. Lady knows is in place.
Ian Paisley
Some of us come from the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” brigade on a lot of these matters, but will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to spell out the additional measures, which she has referred to, that will convince us that what will be put in place will be stronger, better and give us more security?
Mrs May
If the hon. Gentleman has a little patience, I shall refer to some of the other measures we have taken a little later on in my speech, but first I want to address the issue of funding.
As part of the TPIMs package, we provided additional funding to the Security Service and the police of tens of millions of pounds a year to help keep the public safe. For obvious reasons, I cannot go into detail on how that money was spent, but I can assure the House that it has significantly strengthened the police and the Security Service’s surveillance and counter-terrorism capabilities.
We followed that up by increasing spending on the security and intelligence agencies, most recently also protecting counter-terrorism policing budgets in the 2015-16 spending round. The police and Security Service made it clear that the move from control orders to TPIMs, combined with the additional funding for counter-terrorism, would not substantially increase overall risk. In fact, I can tell the House that the police and Security Service believe that TPIMs have been effective in disrupting the individuals subject to TPIMs and their networks.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Did the Home Office not fail to confiscate Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed’s passport when he was subject to a TPIM? Surely that is not a secure system.
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I made clear to the House following the statement I made on that individual, when that individual returned to the United Kingdom he did so on a document that was not a passport, and therefore the passport was not available to be taken.
Let me deal with the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Anyone listening to her would sometimes think that the control order regime would have solved every terrorist plot, but as well as the eight people released when the courts revoked their orders, another seven people absconded during the six years that control orders existed, and only one of those seven was ever found again, so people did abscond on control orders.
Mr Straw
One of the central differences between control orders and TPIMs that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned so far is the issue of relocation. Nobody absconded from relocation, and she cannot claim that she abandoned relocation because of orders from the courts, because the courts generally were supportive of relocation.
Mrs May
I was about to answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. When I refer to the seven absconds that took place under control orders, the answer that I always get from Opposition Members is about this issue of relocation. What neither he in his intervention, nor the right hon. Lady in her speech tell us is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases, including those of two individuals who were subsequently placed on TPIMs. The right hon. Lady also does not say that several control order subjects breached their control orders even while they were relocated, so the idea that relocation would prevent orders being breached is simply not correct. When the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was asked whether the removal of the option for relocation would have had any bearing on the case of Ibrahim Magag, in particular, he answered:
“we do not think so”.
Mr Kevan Jones
What about the point made by David Anderson in his latest review? He says:
“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”
to terrorism.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because David Anderson has consistently said:
“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”
As I said at the beginning of my speech, that option, without charge or prosecution, has already been struck down by the highest courts in the land.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). He specifically said that the independent reviewer has said:
“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”
to terrorism-related activity. The Home Secretary has just claimed that the Government had to get rid of relocation because it kept getting struck down by the courts, but the independent reviewer has said the complete opposite. He has said that the courts supported the principle of relocation. Will she now make clear her view: does she simply think the independent reviewer is wrong or will she now withdraw her previous comments?
Mrs May
I will repeat precisely what I said a few minutes ago, which is that what the right hon. Lady never tells this House is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases. The point is that she and others speak about relocation in this House as if it was never queried, but it was; in four cases it was struck down.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary clarify whether the principle was objected to by the courts?
Mrs May
What I have made clear is that the courts struck down forced relocation in a number of cases. That is a fact that the shadow Front-Bench team never put before this House.
The Opposition’s motion also raises a number of other issues, as the right hon. Lady did in her speech, so let me start by addressing the issue of the two-year time limit. Again, the Opposition do not tell us the whole story. If the police or Security Service observe any of those individuals engaging in new terrorism-related activity, they can apply to have a new TPIM placed on that subject. That is something that is entirely open to them. Besides, people coming off restrictions is nothing new. Convicted prisoners serve their sentences and are released every day. Opposition Members can say what they like, but that also includes people convicted under the Terrorism Acts.
Hazel Blears
It would help the House enormously if the Secretary of State could confirm now whether she is prepared to look at the recommendation from David Anderson that at the end of a TPIM there be some power similar to licensed conditions when people are released from prison, so that at least there is some mechanism for making these people engage with the authorities, whether it is the National Offender Management Service or the probation service. There needs to be some vestige of control over those people’s activities.
Mrs May
I will come on to those points about individuals in general and individuals who are coming off TPIMs. As I have said, if individuals have been conducting new terrorism-related activity, it is perfectly possible for a new TPIM to be established and for a request to be made for that TPIM to be applied to those individuals.
The Opposition can say what they like about the issue of the two-year time limit, but I suggest that the fact that people are released having been convicted under the Terrorism Acts suggests that there are people released on to our streets who have been involved in acts of terrorism.
Mr Straw
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Having been in her position, I remember what it is like trying to defend a very weak position. To compare people who are released from prison under terrorism legislation with people whose TPIM comes to an end is no comparison at all. Will she acknowledge that if someone is released from prison after serving a lengthy sentence for terrorism offences, they will be on licence and they are eligible to be recalled to prison straight away without any further court proceedings?
Mrs May
As my hon. Friends are saying from a sedentary position, there is a basic difference between the individuals: one set of individuals has been prosecuted, convicted and put in prison. The suggestion that somebody who has at some stage been involved in terrorism activity is never allowed to be released on to the streets is not correct, yet that is the impression that the Opposition sometimes give. In their comments on control orders, they fail to concentrate on the fact that 43 people who were on control orders came off their restrictions. That may have been because the orders were allowed to expire or they were revoked or quashed by the courts, or people may have absconded. As I have said, even before TPIMs were introduced, the courts would simply not allow people to be parked permanently on control orders. When the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was asked whether he had concerns about time limits, he said, “I do not think so.”
Pete Wishart
It has come to something when the Tories are having to lecture Labour on civil liberties. Why does the right hon. Lady not just test the evidence? Why does she not make sure that those who are on TPIM orders are taken to the courts so that the courts can decide? Surely that is what we do in a democratic society.
Mrs May
We take individuals to court where it is possible and where there is evidence on individuals to prosecute them for crimes under the Terrorism Acts. The court is then able to make those decisions. The issue is what does society do with the individuals we are not able to deport or to prosecute. The Government took the decision at an early stage that we introduce TPIMs and give them a two-year time limit. That matter was debated and discussed in this House.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), can she confirm on how many occasions the First Minister of Scotland or Scottish Ministers have lobbied her, expressing concerns about this or any future arrangements?
Mrs May
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that these matters of security are reserved matters for us here in Westminster. I have not looked at the debate on these issues in Hansard, but I would not be surprised if the hon. Gentlemen from Scotland or indeed Northern Ireland took part.
I will now make some progress. On the specific cases, the police and Security Service have now been working for some time to put in place tailored plans to manage each individual once their TPIM restrictions are removed. Those plans, which are similar to those put in place for the release of prisoners who have served their sentences, are kept under constant review, and they are similar to the plans the police and Security Service use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.
I completely reject the suggestion that the Opposition are putting about that the police and Security Service have not carried out proper risk assessments of these individuals. They have done so because that is their job, and they have put in place specific, tailored plans to deal with each individual.
Ian Paisley
Will the Home Secretary spell out very clearly that this will not be like the licence system? When the Labour party was in government, hundreds upon hundreds of licensed prisoners—including mass murderers—were released from our jails in Northern Ireland. Those people were at large to commit crime and their licences were only revoked after they had committed another crime. That was not good management. Will she assure us that the management system that will be put in place will not be like the licence system?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of this matter to the House. As I said, the police and Security Service have been putting plans in place for those individuals who will come off TPIMs, and they are similar to the plans they use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress as I have taken quite a few interventions.
We continue to believe that the best place for a terrorist is behind bars. As I have said, if the police and Security Service find any individual engaging in new terrorism-related activity, the police will seek to have them prosecuted. If that is not possible, it is open to the police and Security Service to recommend that a new TPIM notice should be imposed.
In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim, I said that I would talk about the new powers that we have introduced. We have not just given extra money to the police and Security Service; we have strengthened their powers. In April last year, in a written statement to the House, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who we believe want to travel abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorist training or other fighting. That has significantly enhanced the security services’ powers in this area and the prerogative has already been used on several occasions, helping to disrupt terrorist suspects who want to travel abroad to gain skills or contacts that they could use to plot attacks in this country.
Yvette Cooper
In the cases of several of the six people expected to be released from TPIMs this month, the concerns raised were that they would travel abroad to be involved in terrorist activity. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether that power has been used to remove the passports of any of those who are coming off TPIMs this month?
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary answered this question when she was asked about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, and specifically about his passport—she initially gave an incorrect answer to the Home Affairs Committee, which she then corrected. If she was prepared to answer a question about his passport, why is she refusing to answer legitimate questions about the attitude towards the passports of these suspects?
Mrs May
I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would have been able to distinguish between the information given to this House about the passport of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed and the question of whether the royal prerogative has been exercised.
Given the conflict in Syria, powers to disrupt terrorist travel are now particularly vital. The UK already has some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with suspected terrorists and those suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity, both in the UK and abroad. We will not hesitate to use every power at our disposal. If a terrorist suspect is a dual national, I will consider deprivation of their British citizenship, and the Government are considering strengthening our legal powers in that area. If a suspect is a foreign national, the Government can exclude them from the UK. This Government have excluded more foreign hate preachers than ever before.
We will further increase our efforts to remove foreign nationals from this country where they threaten our national security. After this Government finally secured the deportation of Abu Qatada—who was, of course, one of the original Belmarsh detainees—we introduced the Immigration Bill to make it easier for us to get foreign terrorist suspects out of our country. The Opposition failed to vote for that Bill on Second Reading.
As well as tackling foreign terrorist suspects, we are doing more to stop home- grown extremism. This summer, we saw events that shocked the nation, with the horrific killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich and the murder of Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham. Last month the Prime Minister announced new measures to tackle extremism, with the outcome of the extremism taskforce, which was established in the wake of those tragic events. That built on the revised Prevent strategy, which we extended to cover all forms of extremism, including non-violent extremism. We have already had success in restricting extremist speakers. Many events with extremist speakers have been referred to the police, some have been disrupted, and in other cases, venues have been persuaded not to host speakers with extreme views.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
That does not answer the central point. In January 2011, when introducing TPIMs, the Home Secretary said:
“there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported...no responsible Government could allow those individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 307-8.]
In relation to the five or six people who will be released, what assurance can she give to Parliament that they will not now go about their terrorist activity?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are some people whom it is not possible to deport or prosecute. That is the sentence I opened my speech with. That is precisely why we have the TPIM measures as possibilities to be used for certain individuals.
In addition to the other measures I have spoken about, more than 21,000 items of illegal terrorist content have been taken down from the internet. As I have mentioned, we have excluded more preachers of hate from this country than ever before. While some Labour politicians positively welcomed the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London, under this Government foreign hate preachers are not welcome here.
We are stopping terrorist suspects travelling abroad, we are depriving them of the option of coming back, we are deporting foreign terrorist suspects and we are doing more to tackle home-grown radicalisation.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary has not answered the basic question about whether these six men still pose a risk. Let me ask her about one of them, the man known as CD. She has told us plenty about him before and has said plenty to the courts. She told us plenty about Magag and Mohamed. Why does she not simply tell us now whether she believes that CD still poses a risk that he will pursue terrorist-related activity—yes or no?
Mrs May
I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady and to the House that of those individuals who are coming off their TPIMs, the police and the Security Service have made a proper risk assessment and have put in place measures to ensure that they are dealing with those individuals in the way that they believe is appropriate. Those are decisions that they take.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s patience. I am sorry to try it, but I really do not think that she has answered the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. She was asked whether she believes that CD currently represents a threat. She responded by saying that an assessment was carried out. That is not the answer. Does she believe that CD poses a threat to the public safety of this country?
Mrs May
I recognise that quite a few hon. Members, possibly including the hon. Gentleman, want to speak in the debate and time is pressing. For every individual who comes off a TPIM, an assessment is made of the risk that they pose. That assessment is properly made by the police and Security Service, and that is a decision that it is right for them to make. They put into place the appropriate measures that they believe are right in order to deal with those individuals, as they do—as I have said—with other suspects, other people who are of concern, people who have not been on TPIMs or control orders.
The other issue is ensuring that we have successful prosecutions. There have been some notable recent successes. In the year to 30 June 2013, 40 individuals were convicted for terrorism-related offences, under both the Terrorism Acts and non-terrorism legislation, and a further 15 defendants were awaiting trial on 30 June 2013.
Those convicted include Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali, from the Birmingham area, who were convicted in February 2013 of offences including: travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism; collecting money for terrorism; assisting others to travel to Pakistan for training in terrorism; recruiting others for terrorism; and planning a bombing campaign, which was assessed to be potentially on a scale greater than the 2005 London bombings. Naseer was sentenced to life imprisonment for each count and will serve a minimum term of 18 years. Irfan Khalid received a sentence of 23 years. Ashik Ali received a sentence of 20 years.
On 30 April 2013 six men, also from Birmingham, pleaded guilty, following a police investigation, to preparing acts of terrorism. They had intended to attack an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury using a home-made improvised explosive device and various other weapons. Three of the men were sentenced to 19 years and six months, and the other three were sentenced to 18 years and nine months.
We should not forget that we must also tackle the threat from far-right extremism. Last year the police arrested Pavlo Lapshyn, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Mohammed Saleem in April 2013 and IED attacks on three mosques in the west midlands. He received a life sentence with a recommended minimum tariff of 40 years. Unlike the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentence, this Government have proposed that those convicted of serious terrorism offences should no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their sentence without an assessment of their suitability for release.
To keep us all safe, our police and security services do exceptional and often dangerous work every day. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their skill, courage and dedication. TPIMs are just one weapon in the considerable armoury of powers at their disposal. But the Government have shown that we are committed to doing all we can to support the police and Security Service in tackling the threats we face. That is why we have enhanced our powers to disrupt terrorist travel, we will help deport foreign terrorist suspects, and we have given the police and the Security Service tens of millions of pounds in extra funding each year. The police and the Security Service do a tremendous job in keeping our country safe. Rather than questioning their work, we should be supporting them with the powers and resources they need. That is why the Opposition’s motion deserves to fail.