UK Counter-Terrorism Strategy

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Written Statements

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

Protecting the safety of the UK and our interests overseas is the primary duty of Government. Terrorism remains the greatest threat to the security of the United Kingdom.

I have today published the annual report for the Government’s strategy for countering terrorism, Contest (Cm 8583). It covers the progress made towards implementing the strategy that we published in July 2011. Copies of the report will be made available in the Vote Office.

The threat from terrorism is changing but remains substantial. The terrorist threats we face are now more diverse than before, dispersed across a wider geographical area, and often in countries without effective governance. Collaboration with international partners remains vital. There have been no attacks on the scale of 7/7 in Great Britain over the period covered by the report. But since December 2010, there have been at least five serious terrorist plots in this country and a very significant number of terrorism-related arrests and prosecutions.

Our counter-terrorism response continues to reflect our commitment to protect the people of this country and our interests overseas in a way that is consistent with core British values. We recognise that our response must continue to be based on partnerships at all levels—local, national and international. Communities, local authorities, Government Departments, agencies, devolved Administrations, our security industry and overseas partners all play vital roles in the successful delivery of Contest.

Staying ahead of the threat requires a dynamic and responsive counter-terrorism strategy. I am convinced that Contest will continue to provide a sound basis for our work and that we will build on our success.

UK Border Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I think the words “follow that one” come to mind, Mr Speaker.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of the UK Border Agency. Since 2010, the Government have been getting to grips with the chaotic immigration system we inherited. We have introduced a limit on economic migration from outside the EU, cut out abuse of student visas and reformed family visas—as a result, net migration is down by a third. We have also started to get to grips with the performance of the organisations that enforce our immigration laws: through the Crime and Courts Bill, we are setting up a National Crime Agency with a border policing command; the UK Passport Service continues to operate to a high standard; and since we split the Border Force from UKBA last year, 98% of passengers go through passport control within target times and Border Force meets all its passenger service targets.

However, the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough. The agency struggles with the volume of its casework, which has led to historical backlogs running into the hundreds of thousands; the number of illegal immigrants removed does not keep up with the number of people who are here illegally; and while the visa operation is internationally competitive, it could and should get better still. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has published many critical reports about UKBA’s performance. As I have said to the House before, the agency has been a troubled organisation since it was formed in 2008, and its performance is not good enough.

In truth, the agency was not set up to absorb the level of mass immigration that we saw under the last Government. That meant that it has never had the space to modernise its structures and systems, and get on top of its work load. I believe that the agency’s problems boil down to four main issues: the first is the sheer size of the agency, which means that it has conflicting cultures and all too often focuses on the crisis in hand at the expense of other important work; the second is its lack of transparency and accountability; the third is its inadequate IT systems; and the fourth is the policy and legal framework within which it has to operate. I want to update the House on the ways in which I propose to address each of those difficulties.

In keeping with the changes we made last year to the UK Border Force, the Government are splitting up the UK Border Agency. In its place will be an immigration and visa service, and an immigration law enforcement organisation. By creating two entities instead of one, we will be able to create distinct cultures. The first will be a high-volume service that makes high-quality decisions about who comes here, with a culture of customer satisfaction for business men and visitors who want to come here legally. The second will be an organisation that has law enforcement at its heart and gets tough on those who break our immigration laws.

Two smaller entities will also mean greater transparency and accountability, and that brings me to the second change I intend to make. UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers. In making these changes it is important that we do not create new silos. That is why we are creating a strategic oversight board for all the constituent parts of the immigration system—immigration policy, the UK Passport Service, the UK Border Force and the two new entities we are creating. That oversight board will be chaired by the Home Office permanent secretary.

We will also work to make sure that each of the organisations in the immigration system shares services, including IT, because the third of the agency’s problems is its IT. UKBA’s IT systems are often incompatible and are not reliable enough. They require manual data entry instead of automated data collection, and they often involve paper files instead of modem electronic case management. So I have asked the permanent secretary and Home Office board to produce a new plan, building on the work done by Rob Whiteman, UKBA’s chief executive, to modernise IT across the whole immigration system.

The final problem I raised is the policy and legal framework within which UKBA has operated. The agency is often caught up in a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcement of its own policies, which makes it harder to remove people who are here illegally. That is why I intend to bring forward an immigration Bill in the next Session of Parliament that will address some of these problems.

The changes I have announced today are in keeping with the successes of this Government’s reforms so far. We are reducing net migration and we are improving the performance of the organisations that enforce our laws, but UKBA has been a troubled organisation for so many years. It has poor IT systems, and it operates within a complicated legal framework that often works against it. All those things mean that it will take many years to clear the backlogs and fix the system, but I believe the changes I have announced today will put us in a much stronger position to do so. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am afraid to say that, yet again, we received a characteristic response from the shadow Home Secretary. We still have not had an apology for Labour’s mass uncontrolled immigration, and we have had no apology today for the state in which the previous Labour Government created and then left the Border Agency.

I can reveal to the House today, however, that the shadow Home Secretary now has an immigration policy. In a recent article for PoliticsHome, she said:

“We need much stronger action against illegal immigration to be a priority.”

I am sure that everyone in the House would agree, but how does the shadow Home Secretary propose to get there? We need, she said, a “taskforce”. So, that is it. That is how the Opposition think that we will get control of our immigration system: the classic new Labour solution of a taskforce.

After all the comments the right hon. Lady made, let us remember who we have to thank for the structure that is being dealt with today. The plans to create UKBA were set out in a paper published by the Cabinet Office in November 2007. Who was the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the time? None other than her boss, the Leader of the Opposition.

The right hon. Lady cited a number of figures and raised a range of issues. She referred to the fact that, to use her terms, two thirds of visas were not processed on time. I have news for her: more than 90% of visas are processed within the performance target time. She referred to clearing up the backlogs, which originated with the Government of whom she was a member. I will respond to the point, nevertheless. The structural changes that we are making today will make for better-run organisations with greater clarity and greater focus, with more transparency, more accountability and stronger management. That, as we have seen with the Border Force, will deliver better performance; but it is not the only answer, which is why I have also referred to the need for us to change the law, deal with the IT systems and improve the processes in the organisation. It will take time, but today’s announcements are an important start.

The right hon. Lady made a number of references to the Border Force and its performance. Until I took the Border Force out of UKBA last year, it was not possible to tell what its performance was. The Vine report, published last year, showed that checks were being suspended routinely and without permission for many years. That is no longer the case, thanks to the changes that I made.

The right hon. Lady cited numerous statistics about the performance of the Border Agency, but I suggest that she should have listened to my statement. I know that the performance of the Border Agency is not good enough. It never has been. That is why we are making the changes that I have announced today. The question for the right hon. Lady is whether or not she supports those changes.

The right hon. Lady asked when the changes will be made. The agency status will be removed at the beginning of April, and I shall return to the House with a further statement on the detail of the structural changes in due course. She said that there had been no reference until today to the possibility of changes to UKBA, but that is not right. If she had paid attention during Home Office questions yesterday, she would have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration refer to the fact that I would bring forward proposals. The Prime Minister also referred to that fact in his excellent speech on immigration yesterday.

The right hon. Lady suggested that I have made this statement only in response to the report from the Home Affairs Committee that was published yesterday, but the decision has been taken after many hours of serious work over many months. If I restructured UKBA every time the Select Committee criticised it, I would have restructured it on more than one occasion. [Hon. Members: “Quarterly.”] My hon. Friends are suggesting that we would have done so quarterly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a member of that Committee and knows that the restructurings would have been rather more numerous than the one that I am suggesting today.

We must remember why the Border Agency got into this situation. After the mess that the previous Government made of the immigration system, John Reid turned up at the Home Office, called the immigration system not fit for purpose and, instead of fixing it, turned it into an agency at arm’s length to keep all the trouble away from Ministers. That was a soundbite with no substance; but under the right hon. Lady, the Labour party is regressing, as she does not even have a soundbite. The Government have a very clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and to sort out the enforcement of our immigration laws. The Opposition have nothing. She is not serious; they are not serious; and the British people know that they cannot trust Labour with immigration.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I hope that my right hon. Friend will take absolutely no advice from the Labour party, which delivered massive net immigration and an asylum backlog of 450,000 and put in no transitional arrangements for eastern Europeans when it was in office. I congratulate her on applying common sense by taking back responsibility at ministerial level for the security of this country’s borders. Can she confirm that placing the new bodies that she has announced today under the direct supervision of Ministers will ensure the maximum scrutiny of the work that they do?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. I can indeed confirm that we will be increasing scrutiny of the work that is done in relation to the immigration and visa system and immigration enforcement by bringing it into the Home Office, under a board chaired by the permanent secretary and reporting to Ministers. It is common sense and the right approach to deal with the problem caused by the creation of the agency under the previous Government.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Home Secretary on putting the United Kingdom backlogs agency out of its misery by delivering this lethal injection today? May I join her in paying tribute to colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), for their work over the years in exposing the agency’s shortcomings? I put this option to the Minister for Immigration yesterday and he said that he would reflect on it, so coming back in 24 hours is quite an achievement. Will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that uppermost in her mind will be the clearing of backlogs, strong and effective leadership and strong parliamentary scrutiny? Only then will we have an immigration system in which the British people can have confidence.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I said, the Home Affairs Committee has been assiduous in its consideration of matters relating to UKBA over the years and has had a consistent message about the need to deal with some of the problems. It is obviously important that we deal with backlogs. It is also important that we ensure that the agency makes the right decisions on an ongoing, day-to-day basis, that those decisions are made not just appropriately but fairly and that people are dealt with properly when they interact with the agency. That will take some time. I think that we share an aim about the quality of system provided, but it will take some time to ensure that we fix all the problems UKBA is having to deal with.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she say something about the staff, from Mr Whiteman, whom the Home Affairs Committee will see at 3 o’clock to discuss his terms and role, to staff across the agency? We have recently returned from Abu Dhabi, where they seem to have turned around the visa processing unit. I think that there are really good people in UKBA who just need to be better led.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it gives me an opportunity to say that many people working for UKBA are dedicated officers who do an excellent job. Certainly, in some of the examples that he and other members of the Home Affairs Committee will have seen, such as the overseas operations, real change has been brought about. The work of the vast majority of staff in the areas of enforcement or the immigration and visa system will not change, but there will of course be change for the directors general heading up those two operations. Obviously, those are personnel matters on which the permanent secretary will make announcements in due course.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to take the agency back into the Home Office, which I think is the right one. Which of the new units will inherit responsibility for dealing with the backlogs, and how will she ensure that this does not become yet another opportunity to loose case files, passports and other documents in the ritual buck passing with which we have all become too familiar?

[Mrs May]

The differentiation between the two units will be clear: the immigration and visa section will deal with decisions on whether people should be entitled to enter or remain in the UK; and at the point at which those cases are closed and people need to be removed, cases pass to the enforcement part of the operation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on bringing the agency back into the Home Office—I suggest that he has more of a policy on the issue than Labour Front Benchers. We are very conscious that it is important to work out that separation, which is why I think that this clear-cut separation will help us to ensure that we do not see the sort of losses of files, passports and so forth that we have seen previously, so we have to look at the processes, too.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It will be a pleasure for the Home Affairs Committee no longer to have to report quarterly on ongoing problems within UKBA. I congratulate the Home Secretary on her decisive action. For too long the agency has stood in the way of a coherent, fair and credible immigration policy. My concern is that in 2006 the immigration and nationality directorate was spun out of the Home Office because it was not fit for purpose, had a vast backlog and was poorly led. We now have an agency that is still not fit for purpose, still has a vast backlog and still has leadership problems. How can she be so sure that it will work this time?

[Mrs May]

We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Is it not true that part of the problem is that ministerial attention has been diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches? Can the Home Secretary confirm that ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education? The Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said:

“If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN. With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.”

Can the Home Secretary confirm that statement?

[Mrs May]

We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors. We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children, but the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, which was that policy changes were about publicity stunts, is far from the truth. We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year. We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that one of UKBA’s main problems, apart from the inability to manage its data or communicate it correctly to the Home Affairs Committee, has been an identity crisis? It has tried to be an enforcement agency that pursues criminal investigations, but it has also tried to convey the message that Britain is open for business by offering a friendly customer service. Can she assure us that the new structure will fix that problem?

[Mrs May]

The aim of the new structure is that the two parts of the Home Office that will be dealing with these two areas of immigration policy will be focused more clearly on the roles within each part. The immigration and visa section will be focused clearly on giving an efficient and effective service on immigration and visa decisions, making the right decisions about who should be able to enter the country, but doing so in a way that gives individuals good customer service. The enforcement section will be able to focus clearly on the enforcement part. We are doing that precisely to get the focus my hon. Friend wants.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

From time to time, high-tech employers in my constituency ask for help with getting visas or work permits for highly skilled workers whom they desperately need for their businesses. If, in future, such workers do not have access to NHS care, there will be an increased cost either on the employer or the employee. Will the Government be reducing national insurance contributions for employers and employees in respect of those workers?

[Mr Speaker]

It is very hard to see the link with UKBA —[Interruption.] Well, it is a slightly strained connection, but we shall see, if the Home Secretary wants to give a brief reply.

[Mrs May]

It is a very strained connection. I understand that a similar point was raised in the urgent question yesterday and was responded to.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the immigration Bill that the Government will introduce in the next Session will seek to ensure that those who have no right to be within the jurisdiction are removed from it? Does she not think it a pity that the shadow Home Secretary does not have the same perspicacity as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee?

[Mrs May]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s latter point. Yes, the immigration Bill that I intend to introduce will look at a range of problems to do with deportation to ensure that we can remove from this country people who have no right to be here.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary alluded to the setting up of the National Crime Agency with the border police command. Will she reassure the House that there will be ongoing discussions to try to ensure that the entirety of the United Kingdom is safeguarded, particularly the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I recognise, Mr Speaker, that my referring to the National Crime Agency opened up the possibility for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am well aware of the operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. We want to ensure that the agency is able to do the job that it needs to do across the United Kingdom, and we are happy to continue discussions with those who share the same aim.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement. Should not UKBA now join the long list of Labour’s immigration failures, including the Human Rights Act 1998, an immigration backlog of 450,000, out-of-control and increasing net immigration and a total lack of control of eastern European immigration?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes very good points. It is precisely because of the difficulty that Opposition Front Benchers have in defending their poor record on immigration that we hear them trying to go on the party political attack rather than accepting the necessary decisions to deal with our immigration system.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Home Secretary confirm her estimates of the cost of her reorganisation and whether it will be met from existing budgets?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that any costs incurred in reorganisation will be met from existing budgets.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the shadow Home Secretary apologises for Labour’s shambolic immigration policy when in government, anything that she or her party says on immigration lacks any credibility whatsoever?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

As the Home Secretary’s colleague, the Minister for Immigration, knows, I have been dealing with the case of Gordon Murray, a local councillor and college lecturer from Stornoway, who is trying to get his pregnant Chinese wife and unborn child from China to the Hebrides before she is unable to fly. The Minister has been very helpful—Gordon Murray and I are grateful for that—but he was bequeathed a system that is excessively bureaucratic and intimidatory and, in this case, is still cruelly dividing this family. Can we have, as Mr Murray has asked, a system that puts people’s needs at the centre rather than numbers and quotas?

[Mrs May]

I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has been dealing with this case. I want the immigration and visa part of the Home Office, as it will now become, to focus on customer service, but, of course, against the background of making the right decisions for individuals who apply to come to the UK.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Many of my constituents work at the UK Border Agency in Leeds, as do many other people across Leeds. Will the Home Secretary reiterate what these changes mean to the people who work there? Will she comment on how they will be able to do their job more effectively and get the results that they strive to achieve?

[Mrs May]

We do not intend that as a result of these changes there will be changes to any of the UKBA’s current sites. Most people will continue to do the job that they have been doing. As I have said, many staff are doing that assiduously and with the right commitment. It should be easier for them to do their job in the future because that part of the organisation, when within the Home Office, will have a much clearer focus but will also be making decisions that will enable us to improve the IT system and the processes within the organisation.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee discovered a backlog of some 33,000 legacy asylum cases and found that 59,000 cases have not even been entered on to the computer system. Is not one of the major reasons for that the loss of staff and resources presided over by the Home Secretary since mid-2010? Will she pledge not to be so comprehensively out-manoeuvred by the Chancellor in the next spending review as she so clearly was in the previous one?

[Mrs May]

When the hon. Gentleman is thinking about figures he should remember that the Government inherited a backlog of half a million asylum cases. The Government have cleared that backlog.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Although we always find that we get great personal service from individual members of UKBA, she knows, because I have raised it with her before, that many people in my central London constituency find themselves frustrated by some of the current arrangements. Can she assure me that the new arrangements will make it easier for some high-performing people to get their visas more quickly and thus send a keen pro-business message?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that in the House, as she has done with me directly. We certainly intend to ensure that the service provides a premium service for business people and others who may need to come here on a faster basis. Indeed, we are setting up in India the first super-premium service, which will provide a 24-hour visa service for individuals who need it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. One of the biggest complaints in my office about the UK Border Agency is the processing of visas and passports, which often takes up to 12 months. Staff are always helpful, and we appreciate that, but what assurance can she give to my constituents, who are totally frustrated with the delays that they face?

[Mrs May]

I am very conscious that this is one of the issues that we have needed to address in relation to the processing of applications. Particular concerns have been raised with us about the length of time that it has been taking to process business applications for tier 2 workers to come to the UK. That is currently being dealt with inside UKBA. I believe that having a clearer focus on that part of the business, but also working overtime to improve the IT systems and processes within it, will lead to the sort of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given that most asylum seekers come to our shores via other nations, what happened to the previous convention of returning these people to the last safe country from which they came? If that has lapsed, can we bring it back through the immigration Bill that the Home Secretary has promised?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend refers to the Dublin regulation, which does indeed enable a country to return an asylum seeker to the first country in the European Union that they entered. We are still able to do that, with the exception of one country—Greece—and we do.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all see in our surgeries lots of cases—sometimes dozens or hundreds of cases—of bona fide applicants who are waiting months and months, sometimes years and years, beyond the guidelines to get their applications dealt with. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the changes will lead to improvements in the near future for these people? We do not want this reorganisation merely to lead to more interim delay while it is put into effect.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about ensuring that the reorganisation does not lead to further problems in the short term. Like the longer-term changes to IT systems and processes, it is intended to try to deal with precisely some of the problems that he identified regarding the length of time taken to make decisions.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new system will quickly implement judicial decisions to deport foreign criminals back to their countries?

[Mrs May]

A number of problems are encountered when trying to deport foreign national prisoners back to their country of origin. The new enforcement command in the Home Office will be able to put greater focus and emphasis on the removal of those who no longer have a right to be here and the deportation of foreign national offenders who should be removed. There are other issues in such cases and those will be dealt with in the immigration Bill that I intend to bring forward.

Retention of Biometric Data

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I have today launched a public consultation inviting views on the draft guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A national security determination will enable the police and other law enforcement authorities to extend the length of time that they may retain an individual’s biometric data where it is necessary for the purposes of national security. These determinations are subject to independent review by the Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material.

The use of DNA and fingerprints by our police and other law enforcement agencies is a vital tool in the fight against crime and combating threats to our national security. However, in discharging our duty to protect the public, we will not undermine the importance of our historic freedoms. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 changed the law to ensure the public is safeguarded while also protecting those innocent people whose DNA is taken and held by the police. The new framework provided by the Act for the retention, destruction and use of such material provides the necessary balance between public protection and individual freedoms.

The draft guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations is intended to provide clear guidance to the police on the exercise of these important powers and sets out both the principles and procedures required for making a national security determination under the provisions of the Act. A copy of the draft guidance will be placed in the Library of the House and full consultation details can be found on the Home Office website.

The consultation closes in May 2013 and I would encourage all interested parties to participate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

1. If she will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce a modern slavery act.

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

The Government have a strong record on tackling the appalling crime of human trafficking. We have a clear strategy, robust legislation, good-quality support for victims, and strong enforcement against offenders, both in country and at the border. We are also working closely with our international partners to tackle the problem at source. Today is the 206th anniversary of the Act for the abolition of the slave trade, as well as the international day of remembrance for the victims of slavery, and it is entirely right that my hon. Friend reminds us of the issue today. We must continue our efforts to eradicate human trafficking, which can indeed be seen as a form of modern-day slavery.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. She has stated that fighting human trafficking is a Government priority, but with the number of victims found increasing month on month, what consideration has been given to a new initiative such as an independent commissioner?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which has also been raised by others. The Government are not convinced of the need to introduce an independent commissioner and we have, we believe, a very effective inter-departmental ministerial group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration. Crucially, that group includes not just representatives from Departments across Whitehall, but also from the devolved Administrations, and we believe that that is working well. It is necessary, however, to consider continually our effectiveness in this area, and we will keep the work of the inter-departmental ministerial group under review to ensure that it is carrying out the effective work that we want it to do.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has made ending modern-day slavery one of his top priorities. Does the Home Secretary welcome, as I do, the fact that he will open the hidden slavery in UK constituencies exhibition in the House of Commons on 22 April?

[Mrs May]

I am pleased at the excellent news that the Prime Minister will open the exhibition, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in chairing the all-party group on human trafficking and on bringing forward that exhibition. I am sure that it will remind us not just of the hidden trafficking that exists in UK constituencies as a result of cross-border trafficking but also—unfortunately—of the fact that trafficking takes place within the United Kingdom.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill.

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

The Government have committed to accepting the substance of all the Joint Committee’s recommendations. We are currently redrafting the Bill and are engaging with interested parties on our proposals. The Bill is vital to help catch criminals, including paedophiles, terrorists and members of organised crime, and we welcome the Joint Committee’s and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s conclusion that we need new law.

[John Robertson]

The Home Secretary obviously agrees with me that the Bill has been widely drawn and does not contain enough safeguards. What safeguards will she put into the Bill to improve it?

[Mrs May]

I can only repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I just said, which is that we will accept the substance of all the Joint Committee’s recommendations. It considered issues such as how widely the Bill was drawn and that of future-proofing, and we have accepted its recommendations. When it comes before Parliament, the Bill will be much more tightly drawn, in terms of some of the definitions and the issue of future-proofing. We are redrafting the Bill, and if he can be patient for a little while, I think when he reads it he will see that we have indeed responded to the Joint Committee’s recommendations.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the Joint Committee, on which I sat, confirmed the desperate need for new laws in this area—for one, to catch paedophiles and other types of criminals and terrorists—and so agreed with the Government’s policy of introducing such new laws?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend and all other Members of this House and another place for their work on the Joint Committee ably chaired by my noble Friend Lord Blencathra. Obviously, we have looked at the details of the Joint Committee’s proposals, but it was striking that, on a cross-party basis, every member agreed that we needed new legislation in this area.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

8. What support her Department is providing to police and crime commissioners and local authorities to tackle illegal Traveller sites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

17. What progress her Department is making in reducing net migration to the UK.

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

As has already been referred to this afternoon, the latest statistics show another significant fall in net migration—down almost a third since June 2010. This shows that we are bringing immigration back under control. Our tough policies continue to have an effect, and this marks a further step towards bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.

[Nigel Mills]

I welcome the fall in net migration. Can the Home Secretary confirm to the House that it was caused by fewer people coming to the UK and not more people leaving, as some have suggested?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figure for net migration is reached by looking at the numbers leaving and the numbers coming in. The Office for National Statistics has been absolutely clear about the statistically significant fall in immigration and net migration, and it is the fall in immigration that has led to the fall in net migration.

[Alun Cairns]

The new “Life in the UK” test comes into force this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should focus on encouraging immigrants to play a full part in British life, rather than teaching them how best to claim benefits?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is exactly what the new “Life in the UK” test does. We have revamped the requirements for people taking the test. It is no longer about water meters and how to claim benefits, but enables people to participate fully in our society. It has sections on British history. The test enables people to understand what being resident in the United Kingdom is about and how to participate in our society, and I think that is absolutely right.

[Mr Baron]

The nation has always been tolerant of persecuted minorities—quite rightly—and, indeed, seen the benefits of immigration, but controls under the last Government collapsed into an absolute shambles. What more can the Government do to control immigration for the benefit of public services and how confident are they that the Prime Minister’s proposals, announced today, will be implemented in time for the EU transitional controls, ending at the end of the year?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that, despite the significant falls we have seen in net migration, it is necessary for us to continue to look at the routes for migration into this country and the so-called pull factors and to ensure that we are enforcing our rules. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s speech today is important because it sets out the importance of embedding immigration across Government as an issue that is not just for the Home Office, but for other Departments. That includes the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, and, indeed, local government. We are clear that we will do all we can to deliver those parts of my right hon. Friend’s speech that can be delivered before the end of this year. For anything that requires legislation that goes beyond that, we will maintain our commitment to it, despite the transitional controls coming off at the end of this year.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Can the Home Secretary confirm that net migration of British citizens has fallen by 47,000 under this Government because fewer British citizens are returning home and more are leaving? Does she regard it as a successful immigration policy if two thirds of the reduction in net migration under this Government is down to fewer British citizens in this country?

[Mrs May]

I have to tell the hon. Lady that her question is based on a false premise. It is not the case that two thirds of the fall in net migration is due to the number of British people leaving. The Office for National Statistics is absolutely clear that the significant fall in net migration is due to a fall in immigration.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

We need a firm, fair and sensible immigration policy, but that is confused by the inclusion of international students in the net migration figures. Those students contribute about £5 billion to the economy. America does not do that, Australia does not do it and Canada does not do it. Why do we continue to do it?

[Mrs May]

We continue to keep students who are staying for more than a year in the calculation of those who are immigrants into the UK because it is an international definition. It is the definition used around the world. It is very simple: those who are staying here for more than a year have an impact on public services and on the UK more generally. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that our policy of differentiation means that we have been cutting out abuse in the student visa system, while at the same time the number of overseas students applying to our universities has gone up. We are welcoming the brightest and the best.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

10. How many requests for a reconsideration of a decision to refuse leave to remain are outstanding; and what the oldest such cases currently being reconsidered are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

19. What assessment her Department has made of public support for reducing net migration.

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

As my hon. Friend will have heard, I have made a number of references, in answer to earlier questions, to what we have done on net migration. I can confirm that the British public see immigration as the third most important issue facing Britain today—that was the response to an Ipsos MORI poll in February.

[Jason McCartney]

I commend Conservative Ministers for the progress they have made in cutting net migration by a third, as they head towards their target of tens of thousands. May I give them further encouragement by telling them that a recent YouGov poll showed 63% support for that target among Labour voters, even though the Labour party opposes the target?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was aware that public opinion polling showed that eight in 10 British adults support the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. I am encouraged by the fact that such a high percentage of Labour voters also support the target—it is just a pity that that message has not got through to Labour Front Benchers.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

T2. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

Next month, Sir Jonathan Evans will move on from his role as director general of the Security Service, and I wish to pay tribute to Sir Jonathan for the 33 years he has dedicated to the service. During that time his contributions have varied from investigating counter-espionage, developing and implementing key policies on security, and, most recently, countering the threat of international terrorism. He has experienced the service evolving over the years and as director general has led the service through particularly challenging times of change and unrest, including the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. His tireless work helped to ensure the delivery of a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic games last year. I commend and thank him for his invaluable contribution to public safety and national security.

[Lorely Burt]

Recent Government legislation seeks to abolish appeals for family visitors, but one third of appeals currently succeed. Would it not be better to get a proper decision in the first place than to go through the whole process all over again?

[Mrs May]

We looked at this issue closely and what is clear is that in a significant number of cases the initial decision was not wrong on the basis of the information available at the time it was taken; in so many cases further information is put into the system between the initial decision and the appeal, and the appeal is then decided on a different basis. It is slightly cheaper, and it will take less time, for individuals to make a further application rather than going through the appeals process. As this is the only part of the visit visa system that has this appeal, we think it is right that we change the rules for this particular category.

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

May I, too, give our thanks for the work that Jonathan Evans has done over many years for the security of this country? The Prime Minister has spoken today about immigration, and it is right to have conditions on benefits and public services, but will the Home Secretary confirm that she has no estimate of how many people, if any, will see any change in their jobseeker’s entitlement as a result? Will she also tell us why the number of employers fined for employing illegal workers has dropped by 42% since the election?

[Mrs May]

The Prime Minister has made a wide-ranging speech today, in which he has referred to a number of areas where the Government will be taking action to ensure that the United Kingdom is not seen as a soft touch and that people who come here are coming to contribute to our society and to our economy—that will be across the board in relation to benefits and to matters such as access to the health service.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary did not answer my questions about whether the policies will have any impact, how many people will be affected by the new policies or why enforcement has become consistently worse since the election. Unannounced checks have fallen by more than 30%, the number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by 16% and there has been a 50% drop in the number of those refused entry to Britain since the election as well as a 50% increase in the number of long waits for asylum decisions. There is also the point I raised with her initially: the number of employers employing illegal workers being fined has dropped by some 40% since the election. What will the Home Secretary do to improve enforcement and the effectiveness of the system so that people can have confidence that it is working? It has got worse since the election, not better, so what is she doing to improve enforcement?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady lists a range of issues, so let me pick one that has already been answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration—that is, the one about foreign national offenders. My hon. Friend correctly said that the number of appeals from foreign national offenders has increased. In 2012, there were about 1,000 more such appeals, which extends the time it takes to deport those individuals. I will not take any lectures on how to deal with immigration from the party that left our immigration system in such chaos. We have spent three years bringing control into the system and we will continue to do that. On the back of the Prime Minister’s speech today, we will enhance enforcement and ensure that people who come to this country do so to contribute to our society and our economy; Labour did not do that over 13 years.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

T3. Intelligent use of new technology is bound to be vital in the fight against crime, whether through online crime maps or better IT procurement, but will the Government deploy it with due regard to liberty and privacy?

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T4. Following the Secretary of State’s Government’s 20% cuts, Nottinghamshire has lost more police officers than any county in the east midlands and police morale is badly hit. After cutting police numbers and bungling the police and crime commissioner elections, will she apologise to areas such as Clifton in my constituency, where crime and antisocial behaviour are a real problem?

[Mrs May]

We have published a draft Bill on antisocial behaviour, the aim of which is to make it easier to deal at a local level with the issues of antisocial behaviour that sadly blight too many communities across the country. The hon. Lady talks about reductions in officer numbers, but she might also reflect on the fact that in the past year, recorded crime in Nottinghamshire has gone down by 13%.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T5. Further to the earlier questions on student visas, and given that Lancaster is home to one of our top universities, is any extra support available when a university needs speedier visas so that overseas academics can come to conferences and seminars that are vital to the university’s international reputation?

--- Later in debate ---

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

T6. Will the Home Secretary look favourably on a holistic approach to rural crime, so that illegal horse grazing and illegal fly tipping can be treated as what they truly are—rural crimes?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In various parts of the country, there is real concern about the attention given to a number of issues that corporately come together under rural crime. I will certainly look at the specific issues she raised, but a number of police and crime commissioners were clear last year that they wanted to ensure that greater emphasis was put on rural crime, which blights many of our rural communities.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In just the past few months, there have been seven gang-related shootings in Maghull in my constituency—a town with no previous experience of gun crime. The Home Secretary will understand the very real fears of my constituents that it is only a matter of time before an innocent bystander is hurt or killed. Will she make sure that Merseyside police have all the resources they need to protect residents and to stamp out this worrying trend in gun crime?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Sadly, we have seen problems related to gun crime in a number of parts of the country and, as he says, there has been evidence of completely innocent individuals getting caught in those incidents. We have been looking particularly at offences in relation to guns, and indeed we are introducing a new offence relating to the provision of guns—the intent to supply guns—so that we can catch some of the middlemen who are making guns available. Often they are rented out by middlemen for a variety of crimes. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I will respond.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

T7. The breach rate for antisocial behaviour orders is running at 57.3%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to change the law on antisocial behaviour so that we punish the perpetrators and empower local communities, and through that, cut antisocial behaviour and crime?

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary found it at all embarrassing to be the centre of so much speculation about going for the top job in politics?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House, so he knows that that is not a matter relevant to the remit of the Home Office.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T8. I will make an effort to ask a better question than the last one. Ministers will be aware that alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour have damaging consequences in seaside resorts such as Blackpool. Given that we are not proceeding with minimum unit pricing for alcohol, what additional measures, not in the Government alcohol strategy, will they now consider to tackle this social scourge?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My young constituent, James Harrold, aged 19, from Middlewich, lost both his legs after being hit by a police car travelling at speed. In 2011-12, police vehicles were the cause of 18 deaths and many serious injuries such as those sustained by James. What are the Government doing to ensure that the number of such tragic incidents is reduced?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and certainly the case to which she referred is very distressing. While speed limits do not apply to vehicles used for emergency service purposes if observance of the limit is likely to hinder that purpose, I can assure her that emergency services drivers remain subject at all times to the law on careless and dangerous driving, of which exceeding the speed limit may be a component. The Department for Transport has recently consulted on the issue of extending the exemption to other emergency services, but it has also looked at amending road safety legislation so that emergency drivers will be required to complete high speed driving training before they are allowed to exceed the limit, and it proposes to base that training on the code drawn up by the emergency services.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Terrorism Acts (David Anderson Report)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I announce today the publication of the Government’s response to the report of Mr David Anderson QC on the operation in 2011 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which will be laid before the House today.

I thank David Anderson QC for his report and have carefully considered his recommendations after consultation with other relevant Departments and agencies.

The Government’s response is available in the Vote Office and online.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

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

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 7 and 8 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. Roseanna Cunningham MSP also attended on behalf of the Scottish Administration. The following items were discussed.

The Council began in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) where the Council agreed that the second generation Schengen information system (SIS II) would go live on 9 April 2013. The UK supports this date and has planned for integration into SIS II in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Next the presidency introduced a state of play on Bulgaria and Romania’s accession to the Schengen area. Although it was clear that the required unanimity to lift all internal borders did not exist, they considered that a two-step approach (lifting air and sea borders before land borders) could offer a way forward. The presidency concluded that the Council would address the issue again by the end of 2013 on this basis.

The Commission presented the new smart borders package aimed at enhancing EU border security and strengthening the Schengen area through an entry/exit system (EES) while facilitating travel through the proposed registered travellers programme (RTP). The Commission said that there had been extensive consultation and analysis in the preparation of the proposed package, and £949 million has been earmarked in the external borders element of the internal security fund for development costs. Despite some positive welcomes for the package, the high implementation cost dominated the exchange of views with calls for lessons to be learnt from other large scale IT projects. Many member states pressed for the inclusion of law enforcement access and biometrics from the start of the system in order to justify the cost and ensure added value in tackling illegal immigration. The presidency noted the exchange of views and looked forward to discussions at expert level. The UK will not be participating in either component of the smart borders package as they build on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate. However there is value in the successful introduction of an entry/exit system that would enable better measurement and control of illegal migration in the Schengen area.

Under AOB the presidency provided an update on several legislative proposals. They were continuing negotiations with the European Parliament and hoped to find a solution on the visa regulation (539), Eurosur (border surveillance) regulation and the Schengen governance package.

The main Council started with a joint presentation from Guilles de Kerchove (EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator), Pierre Vimont (Secretary-General of the EEEAS), Frontex, Europol and Eurojust on the situation in the Sahel and Maghreb and the associated threat to internal EU security. In recognising the success of the French-led military effort, member states acknowledged that much remained to be done to develop police and criminal justice capabilities in the region. The counter-terrorism co-ordinator, supported by the UK, stressed the importance of work to counter extremist narratives and the need to strengthen aviation security. The UK argued that terrorist groups in the region had benefited from ransom payments and restated the long-held position of the UK Government not to pay ransoms or grant other substantive concessions to hostage-takers. The UK also noted that data-sharing, in particular passenger name records, was vital for detecting individuals travelling to conflict zones. Finally, the UK highlighted the importance of sending a clear signal that terrorist attacks on EU soil would not be tolerated. If there was compelling evidence linking the military wing of Hezbollah to the Bourgas attack, the UK said that the EU had a responsibility to consider that evidence and take action.

Under AOB the presidency updated the Council on the progress of the asylum procedures directive, seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees proposals. On the multi-annual financial framework, the presidency noted that trilogue negotiations had started in February on the asylum and migration fund and internal security fund. Figures were still being examined, and work was expected to continue on these matters in the coming months.

The Spanish delegation informed Ministers of its intention to establish a platform in Bogota for the exchange of information on transatlantic cocaine trafficking. This would follow the example of similar platforms in Accra and Dakar and bring together operational staff from EU member states in Colombia.

The Commission gave a brief overview of the radicalisation awareness network high-level symposium that took place in January. Both the presidency and the Commission saw a need to revise the current EU radicalisation and recruitment strategy; input to this would be provided through Council conclusions in June and a Commission communication in the autumn.

The Commission updated the Council on the Morocco mobility partnership negotiations following Commissioner Malmström and President Barroso’s visit to Rabat, during which broad agreement on the political declaration of the mobility partnership was reached. It was made clear that visa facilitation and a readmission agreement would be negotiated together. The Commission thanked the countries that had agreed to take part in this partnership, including the UK (which has offered to share best practice on border management with Morocco), and invited Ministers to sign the declaration upon completion of negotiations.

Over lunch the Council received presentations from Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office on the recent trends at the external borders and resulting pressures on member states’ asylum systems, with particular focus on developments in Syria and Mali, and the continuing volatile situation in north Africa. A number of member states stressed the need for an EU-wide response to migratory pressures on the external borders and some member states, including the UK, expressed their concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria. Ministers agreed to continue discussing this issue with the assistance of statistics and data from Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).

The justice day began with the presidency presenting its progress report on the data protection regulation. They noted that they had made significant progress, in completing a first read through of the text and proposing changes to the text on the rights of data subjects and the obligations on controllers and processors. The majority of member states welcomed the presidency paper and the risk-based approach. There was broad consensus from member states on the need for legislation that provided flexibility and respected national laws and structures.

The presidency agreed to task the expert working group to consider the risk-based approach and flexibility for the public sector in greater detail.

The Commission presented the draft directive on protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law. The Commission stressed the importance of this instrument in protecting the Union’s financial interests and the eurozone generally. Member states were broadly in agreement about the scale and impact of the problem, and supportive of the central objective, although the majority of delegations opposed a key feature of this directive, the introduction of minimum penalties. The UK argued that the proposal was in danger of breaching the principle of subsidiarity, as well as constraining judicial discretion which is a fundamental principle of the criminal law in the UK. The UK was also unconvinced by the need to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction over its own nationals. The presidency summarised that a vast majority opposed minimum penalties, and this would provide the basis for expert discussions on the matter in due course.

Political agreement was reached on the first reading deal on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. The presidency indicated that the EP plenary vote would take place in the next few weeks and it was expected the proposal would return for formal adoption at the June JHA Council. The Commission welcomed this final element of the victims’ package.

The presidency outlined the state of play on other current negotiations. They were optimistic about reaching a conclusion on the access to a lawyer directive in June. It might also be possible to conclude the European investigation order during the Irish presidency. The European Parliament vote on the confiscation directive had been delayed until the end of March; but agreement with the Parliament on the justice funding programme and the rights, equality and citizenship programme was within reach.

The Council concluded with a lunch discussion on the EU justice scoreboard. The presidency said that most had recognised there was a relationship between efficient justice systems and growth and suggested the discussion could move to senior officials for further discussion.

HMIC Review (Jimmy Savile)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Written Statements

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

On 7 November 2012 I formally commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to conduct a review to assess police knowledge of and response to the historical allegations made against Jimmy Savile and related individuals, and potentially into similar allegations against other individuals.

In particular, I asked that the review establish clearly which forces received reports or allegations in respect of Savile and related individuals prior to the launch of Operation Yewtree on 5 October 2012. For each of those forces, I asked HMIC to review the extent to which the allegations were robustly investigated and whether there were any police failings in doing so. HMIC has concluded its review and today published its report. A copy will be placed in the House Library.

HMIC conducted enquiries in all 43 police forces in England and Wales, and liaised with HMIC Scotland and the States of Jersey Police. Its review finds that, as far as police records disclose, five allegations of child sexual assault were made against Savile to the police between 1958 and 2009. In addition to these recorded allegations, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has traced two historical intelligence entries relating to Savile.

HMIC’s report makes it clear that failures by police forces, particularly in respect to the quality of investigations and the sharing of intelligence, enabled Savile to act with impunity for over five decades. It is also clear from the report that Savile could and should have been apprehended earlier and that there is more to do to ensure that the police have a fully effective and victim-centred approach to tackling child abuse. HMIC raises the possibility that such failures could be repeated. It calls for preventative action, and the report makes a number of specific recommendations which fall largely to police forces and the College of Policing.

I remain committed to taking forward the lessons learned from both this report and from the wider reviews which are ongoing in relation to historic child abuse. We need to ensure the law enforcement response to these terrible crimes is as good as it can be, to protect victims and deliver justice. As I have previously made clear in this House, the safeguarding of victims must be placed at the heart of our approach. If someone has been the victim of abuse and makes a report to the police, those in a position of authority and responsibility must not shirk in their duty to protect.

I am committed to ensuring that we also learn the lessons from this work to ensure that these mistakes could not be repeated today. HMIC will soon commence a further review into child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation which will focus on the adequacy of current processes and practices in police forces. The Director of Public Prosecutions has outlined further measures to overhaul the way our criminal justice system responds to victims of child sexual abuse. And I have asked my officials to conduct a thorough review of Home Office policies to ensure a robust and strengthened longer-term approach to delivering child protection within the Department and the police. This urgent work will ensure that the interests of victims are prioritised and the specific vulnerabilities of children are recognised and addressed.

Violence Against Women and Girls Action Plan 2013

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Written Statements

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

Tomorrow, on international women’s day, the Government are publishing an updated violence against women and girls action plan. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

Last year around 1.2 million women suffered domestic abuse and around 400,000 were sexually assaulted. This is wholly unacceptable. We are determined, not just to reduce, but to end violence against women and girls.

Two and a half years ago we set out our strategy to end violence against women and girls. Our key themes of prevention, provision of good-quality services, improved partnership working, better justice outcomes and risk reduction remain as relevant today as when we first agreed our approach.

This action plan updates the efforts underpinning that strategy, and sets out significant progress since the last report was published a year ago. We are also alive to new and emerging issues and the updated plan includes a renewed focus on challenging the attitudes that foster violence against women and girls.

We are proud of the progress this Government have made in protecting the lives of women and girls, but there is still much more to do. This action plan confirms our ongoing commitment to stop the violence and abuse which blights the lives of too many women and girls.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 7 and 8 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) where there is expected to be agreement on a proposed date of 9 April 2013 for the entry into operation of the European central second generation Schengen information system (SIS II). The UK supports this date and continues as scheduled for its integration into SIS II in the fourth quarter of 2014.

There will be a discussion on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen acquis. The UK will not vote on this item since the measure builds on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate.

There will be two items under Schengen governance, collectively known as the Schengen package; the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls in exceptional circumstances (the Schengen borders code (SBC) amendment) and political agreement on the Schengen evaluation mechanism (SEM). On SEM, the Council position agreed in June 2012 secures all UK negotiating objectives but it will not be agreed until a deal is reached on the SBC. The SBC file is currently in trilogue between the Council and the European Parliament. The UK will not vote on this item since the measure builds on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate. In addition we have yet to receive compromise texts that we can officially send to the parliamentary Committees.

The European Commission will present legislative proposals for a future EU entry/exit system alongside a registered traveller programme under the banner of “Smart Borders”. Each of these initiatives would apply only to third-country nationals crossing the external Schengen land, air and sea borders. The entry/exit system will register electronically the dates of entry and exit of all third-country nationals admitted for a short stay into the Schengen area. The registered traveller programme envisages that frequent third-country travellers, who have undergone successful pre-screening, would benefit from a facilitated border check into the Schengen area. The UK will not be able to take part in either component of the Smart Borders measures as they build on the part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate. However, there is value in the successful introduction of an entry/exit system that would enable better measurement and control of illegal migration.

Over lunch there will be a discussion on expected pressures arising from migratory flows over the next year, with Ministers discussing the EU’s approach to dealing with these pressures. The Government believe that any cohesive effort to deal with migratory pressures should include proper safeguards in relation to tackling illegal immigration and action to combat abuse of free movement rights.

During the main Council the EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, will present a paper on the security situation in the Sahel and the Maghreb, and the implications for EU internal security. The UK will argue that the threat needs both an international and regional response and will note that we have supported the UN Security Council Resolutions on Mali, as well as regional leadership from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union, and EU training to help rebuild the Malian army.

Finally, the Commission will debrief on January’s high-level Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) conference entitled “Empowering local actors to counter violent extremism”. The RAN is a network across different disciplines of front-line counter-radicalisation work (RAN Health, RAN Police) which brings together practitioners to share knowledge and experience. The Irish presidency has indicated that it will seek adoption of Council conclusions on radicalisation and recruitment at June’s JHA Council.

The justice day will begin with an orientation debate on the general data protection regulation. The presidency will report on discussions at the Council working group on adopting a risk-based approach towards data protection. There may also be some discussion on providing member states with flexibility as regards the public sector.

The Commission will present its new proposal on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law. There will also be an orientation debate. This proposal builds on a framework decision, which would be repealed and replaced, aimed at deterring counterfeiting by further approximation of criminal law, including enhanced penalties. The directive was published on 6 February and the UK’s JHA opt-in protocol will apply.

The presidency will also seek to gain a general approach to some remaining issues and additional recitals on the proposed regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. A partial general approach was achieved at the December Council. The Government support the overall policy aim of the proposal and have opted into it. The proposal has yet to clear scrutiny in either House.