Biometrics Commissioner and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I am appointing Mr Alastair MacGregor QC as the new Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material (“Biometrics Commissioner”). The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) introduces a new, fairer, regime for the destruction, retention and use of biometric material, such as DNA and fingerprints. This important new role is created by the Act to provide independent oversight to the operation of the new regime and is vital to ensure that decisions by the authorities to keep biometric material are made in accordance with the law, and that there is public confidence in the exercise of such powers.

The functions of the Biometrics Commissioner are set out in sections 20 and 21 of the Act. As Commissioner, Mr MacGregor will be the sole decision maker in reviewing decisions to retain material for national security purposes and in determining applications made for the retention of material relating to individuals arrested but not charged. He will make an annual report about the carrying out of all these functions, which will be laid before Parliament.

Mr MacGregor takes up post from today and we look forward to working closely with him.

We are also making significant progress in preparation for the commencement of part 1, chapter 1 of the Act in October 2013. To date 504,000 DNA profiles have been deleted from the national DNA database and 439,000 DNA samples destroyed.

Police Integrity

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police.

We are fortunate in Britain to have the finest police officers in the world. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, they are cutting crime even as we reduce police spending, and the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty. But the good work of those thousands of officers is undermined when a minority behave inappropriately.

In the last year, we have seen the Leveson inquiry, which cleared the police of widespread corruption but called for greater transparency in policing, and the shocking report of the Hillsborough independent panel. We have seen the sacking of PC Simon Harwood and the investigation of several chief officers for misconduct, and yesterday I told the House about the investigation now being led by Chief Constable Mick Creedon into the work of undercover officers from the Metropolitan police.

I want everyone to understand that I do not believe there is endemic corruption in the police, and I know that the vast majority of police officers conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity. This was confirmed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in its report last year, but that does not mean that we should ignore the fact that when it does occur, police corruption and misconduct undermines justice, lets down the decent majority of officers and damages the public’s confidence in the police.

We need the police to become much more transparent in their business. We need clearer rules for how officers should conduct themselves. We need to open up the top ranks so policing is less of a closed shop. We need to make sure that officers who do wrong are investigated and punished, and that the organisations we ask to police the police are equipped to do the job.

Many of our existing police reforms address those challenges. The new College of Policing will improve the quality of police leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police and for the first time it is led by a non-policing figure.

These reforms will help, but we also need to take further specific measures to root out corruption and misconduct from the police. First, in line with the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson, national registers of chief officers’ pay and perks packages, gifts and hospitality, outside interests, including second jobs, and their contact with the media will be published online. Secondly, the college will publish a new code of ethics, which will be distributed to officers of all ranks. In addition, the College of Policing will work with chief officers to create a single set of professional standards on which officers will be trained and tested throughout their careers.

Thirdly, to prevent officers who lose their jobs as a result of misconduct from being recruited by other forces, we will introduce for the first time a national register of officers struck off from the police. The list will be managed and published by the College of Policing. Fourthly, to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force. Where misconduct is proven, these officers will also be struck off by the College of Policing.

Fifthly, the college will establish a stronger and more consistent system of vetting for police officers, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners will have to consider when making decisions about recruitment and promotions. Every candidate for chief officer ranks will need to be successfully vetted before being accepted by the police national assessment centre.

Sixthly, Lord Justice Leveson’s report made several recommendations in respect of policing, focused on providing greater transparency and openness. The Government accept what has been recommended, and the College of Policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others have agreed to take forward the relevant work that falls to them. I will place in the Library of the House details of the Government’s response to each of the Leveson report’s recommendations on policing.

Finally, I want to make sure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is equipped to do its important work. Over the years, its role has been evolving and the proposals I announce today develop it further. Public concern about the IPCC has been based on its powers and its resources, and I want to address both issues.

Regarding its powers, last year Parliament legislated, with welcome cross-party support, to give the IPCC the ability to investigate historic cases in exceptional circumstances. In the same legislation, we gave the IPCC the power to compel police officers and staff to attend interviews as witnesses. In addition, I have already said that we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to give the IPCC the power to investigate private sector companies working for the police, along with other powers that the IPCC has asked for to improve its effectiveness and increase public confidence. I am prepared to consider any further legislative changes that the commission says it needs.

I believe that the main difficulty for the IPCC is its capacity to investigate complaints itself. Last year, the commission investigated just 130 of the 2,100 serious or sensitive cases that were referred to it independently, while supervising or managing another 200. Individual police forces investigated the remainder, but 31% of appeals against forces’ handling of complaints were successful. That is simply not acceptable. I will therefore transfer to the IPCC responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive allegations. I also intend to transfer resources from individual forces’ professional standards departments and other relevant areas to the IPCC in order to ensure that it has the budget and the manpower that will enable it to do its work.

The Government’s police reforms are working well, and crime is falling. Corruption and misconduct are thankfully the rare exception and not the norm among our police. However, that does not mean that we should not act. I believe that this is a comprehensive plan to address public concern about the integrity of the police, and I commend my statement to the House.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for giving me a copy of her statement. This is an important issue, and many of the measures that she has outlined are sensible in principle. However, I shall press her for more detail on how they will work in practice, and there are a couple of areas where I believe that she has not gone far enough.

The whole House will wish to recognise and show support for the international reputation of British policing, which is respected globally for low levels of corruption, high standards of integrity and our tradition of policing by consent. As the Home Secretary said, the vast majority of police officers join the force to help the public and keep people safe from crime and harm, and they take great risks when they do so. We think of the two police officers who were shot down when answering a routine 999 call in Greater Manchester, but also of officers who go the extra mile every day to help the public—perhaps stepping in to rescue people and save their lives; perhaps sitting with bereaved parents whose teenager has been killed in a traffic accident.

Police officers themselves are deeply concerned about serious cases that undermine confidence in policing: hacking, the Hillsborough tragedy, the problems with undercover officers, and cases in which policing has failed to protect the public or to deliver justice. That is why the vast majority of police officers also want action to be taken against officers who let their force and the public down, as well as action to improve standards.

Many of the Home Secretary’s measures are sensible. We support the implementation of the Leveson recommendations, and also the introduction of greater transparency. We support the establishment of a code of ethics and higher professional standards, and we support stronger action when those are breached. We have also argued for stronger action in relation to retired officers when things go wrong. The Stevens commission on the future of policing has taken evidence on issues involving codes of ethics, national registers, the role of the College of Policing and proposals for striking police officers off, and is likely to make new proposals in that regard.

However, can the Home Secretary clarify what she means? Will there be a national professional register that all police officers must be on, will there be standards that they must meet, and will they be struck off from the register if they do not meet those standards? If so, by whom will they be struck off? Will it be the IPCC or the College of Policing, and will that be underpinned by legislation? Or does the Home Secretary simply propose to put together a list of officers who have already been sacked by their local forces?

I do not believe that the Home Secretary is going far enough on the IPCC. As she will know, I have argued for the last 12 months that it does not have enough powers and resources to deliver for the public. I welcomed the action that she took and the legislation, which we supported, to strengthen powers, but her reforms of the IPCC still seem to be incremental. Increased resources are welcome, but will she tell us how much there will be and where it will come from? Is she top-slicing the budgets of police forces across the country, and if so, by how much? How many extra police officers does she think those forces will lose as a result?

During the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Ministers argued that more cases should be dealt with by individual forces rather than by the IPCC. In the Act the Home Secretary downgraded the IPCC’s capacity, halving the minimum number of commissioners. Now she seems to be saying that more cases should be dealt with by the IPCC rather than by individual forces. Has she changed her view since the passage of the Act, and can she clarify her proposals?

I am also not convinced that the Home Secretary is doing enough to strengthen the powers and the culture of the IPCC to restore public confidence and ensure that lessons are learned. Nothing is being done about the confused and overlapping bodies that are supposed to act when policing goes wrong. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the IPCC, individual police and crime commissioners, police and crime panels and, now, the College of Policing all have a role, but it is still unclear who does what, and as a result, who should act when things go wrong and ensure that lessons are learned. I therefore think that the Home Secretary has not been sufficiently radical. May I urge her to look again at the possibility of replacing the IPCC altogether with a new police standards authority, along with a new, coherent framework of standards and accountability?

Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the best way to ensure rising police standards is to have well-motivated, professional police officers who are keen to do a good job and serve the public. She will know that there is a massive problem with low morale among police officers, who do not feel valued, and I am keen to hear how she intends to address that.

Police officers do a vital job every day on our behalf, and our duty in this House is to make sure that they get the support they need and to have a proper framework of accountability to keep standards high. The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome and responds to many of the concerns that we have raised, but I urge her to look at the proposals again as I remain concerned that they do not go far enough and will not be sufficient to deliver what the police and public need.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support on a number of the issues I have addressed today, most significantly the implementation of the Leveson report recommendations, the code of ethics and action on retired officers. She asked two key questions. First, on the national register, the College of Policing will look at how best to address the issue in terms of its general work with police officers and others on standards and development. I expect that there will at least be a list of those officers who have been struck off, and whom one would not expect other police forces, here in the UK or elsewhere, to take on. It is for the College of Policing to decide the form in which to publish that list, and it will consider that matter very shortly.

Secondly, the right hon. Lady said there were a lot of overlapping organisations, and she mentioned the HMIC and the IPCC. HMIC does not investigate individual complaints against individual officers; that is the job of the IPCC. HMIC has a different role. It looks at the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces; it looks across the force, not at individual complaints. Those two bodies do two different jobs.

The right hon. Lady referred to the changes and comments we made during the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We have indeed put more low-level complaints to the individual forces, but the point I am making today is that we want to ensure the IPCC can handle all the serious and sensitive allegations made against police officers. Last year, just 330 out of 2,100 such cases were independently investigated or supervised and managed by the IPCC. I think it should be able to look at all the serious and sensitive allegations against police officers, which is why we are looking to transfer resources from police standards departments in police forces to the IPCC. We will look at any manpower or funding implications and ensure that the IPCC has sufficient resources to be able to deal with all the cases we feel it should be dealing with.

The right hon. Lady asked why we do not just scrap the IPCC and set it up again with a different name. Today, I have set out the key issues of substance that will make a difference to the ability of the IPCC to do its work. The question that she has to answer is whether she is interested merely in rebranding something, or whether she is genuinely interested in agreeing with me on what the IPCC needs to be able to do its job properly.

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

The Home Secretary has probably done more to reform the police than any Home Secretary since Robert Peel. Many police officers are concerned, however, that their profession has come to be held in less respect. Does she expect the College of Policing to be the basis, through professional standards, on which the police can reclaim their self-respect?

[Mrs May]

I expect that the College of Policing will make a real difference. I believe setting up a professional standards body for the police that will set standards and take on many of the ACPO business areas in looking at those standards, as well as dealing with the ethics of policing for the area that it covers and with the training and development of officers, will give a boost to officers in terms of their professionalism and the regard in which they are held. I am pleased that Professor Shirley Pearce, former vice-chancellor of Loughborough university, is the chairman. We also have a very energetic chief executive in Chief Constable Alex Marshall, and I am pleased that members of the police force at all ranks are part of the college, including members of police staff. It is important that it covers everybody.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary who established the IPCC in the first place, may I welcome the announcements by the Home Secretary today, which seem a sensible development of those powers? I have two questions. First, the chair of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, served for seven years as an extremely effective and independent chief inspector of prisons and I have confidence in her work and ability to take forward the IPCC. Since the Home Secretary has not mentioned Dame Anne, would she like to do so?

My second point concerns the relationship between the professional standards units of individual forces and the IPCC. I understand that at a time of limited resources, money has to come from somewhere and that some transfer is sensible. However, will the Home Secretary take care to ensure that professional standards units in individual forces are not so denuded that they cannot do their crucial initial work of identifying early possible bad police officers, and of investigating complaints that may start at a low level but turn into more serious matters that need to be allocated to the IPCC?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, I see this as a development of the IPCC. Its role over the years has been changing and this is a necessary and important development. Dame Anne Owers has done an excellent job since becoming chairman of the IPCC. The role is changing slightly from the one she first came to, but she is addressing it with great distinction and commitment, as one would expect from her. Indeed, in her time overseeing prisons she built up a reputation for herself and her independence, and it is good that we have somebody with that reputation as chair of the IPCC.

On the transfer of services, the point is that work will be transferring from professional standards departments to the IPCC, so it therefore makes sense to transfer resources. We are not talking about not having professional standards departments at all, and a discussion will be had with forces about the level of that transfer and where the boundary appropriately falls.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great unanswered questions in the sorry saga of phone hacking is how although the police had evidence taken from Glenn Mulcaire in 2006 that suggested widespread lawbreaking was taking place, not only was nothing done about it, but it was denied that such evidence existed? That matter was intended to be examined by Lord Justice Leveson in part 2 of his inquiry. Will the Home Secretary confirm that an investigation will still take place to answer those questions?

[Mrs May]

My understanding is that that will indeed be part of the second part that will take place, but as my hon. Friend knows, there has always been a question about what can be done. A great deal was done by Lord Justice Leveson on issues that he needed to consider at the time of other police investigations. Of course, those police investigations are still continuing.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the excellent statement from the Home Secretary not just because it implements Leveson, but because it accepts many of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee over a number of years. I share her ambitions for the College of Policing, and as she knows, Alex Marshall will be appearing before the Committee this afternoon.

Will the Home Secretary say whether police officers will still need to seek the permission of their individual chief constable before taking up a second job, and therefore before they are put on the register? Will she consider looking at police and crime commissioners? We still have no central register on which they can declare their outside interests, and since she is full of reforming zeal, in that same mode will she please ensure that that issue is also considered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my statement. On his first point, yes, I would still expect individual officers to seek that permission before taking a second job, but a public document would make it clear which officers had second jobs, alongside other things. He and I have a slight disagreement on police and crime commissioners. Each individual PCC is required to publish information on their interests so that the electorate in their area know where they stand and what their interests are—just as we require others who are elected to register their interests appropriately. It is appropriate for that to be done at local level, rather than maintaining a central register.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I, too, welcome this statement, which implements not only the recent Home Affairs Committee report, but the Liberal Democrat policy motion on empowering the IPCC, which was passed last year. I especially welcome the commitment that the IPCC will cover private providers. As Nick Hardwick, the former chair of the IPCC, said,

“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”

Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has spoken to Dame Anne Owers and the IPCC about resources, and that it be well-resourced enough to deal with serious cases and also look at private contractors?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that in that very full question he has covered all elements of the relevant Liberal Democrat motion and brought it to the full attention of the House, just in case we had not previously noticed.

[Mrs May]

In other circumstances, I might say that I was now worried, Mr Speaker, but we are in coalition, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is important that private companies working for the police are included, but that will require changes to legislation for which parliamentary time would have to be made available. I am sorry, but with all the banter I have forgotten the second point.

[Dr Huppert]

Resources.

[Mrs May]

Yes, I have sat down with Dame Anne Owers and talked about this issue. We must do more detailed work on exactly what resources will be required to enable the IPCC to do what we are asking, but we have started those discussions.

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

These reforms are welcome; they could go further, but let us give praise for what is to be done.

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the IPCC? One factor in that is undoubtedly the number of former police officers, some of whom have held senior ranks, investigating the police. That gives the impression that the complaints body is not as genuine as it should be. Should that be looked into?

[Mrs May]

It will be for the IPCC, in discussion with the Department, to decide on the sort of people it wishes to employ in increasing its investigative capacity. In a sense, there is a slight Catch-22 situation because the very people in this country who are used to investigation, and have the skills and experience in that regard, are police officers.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she clarify how being struck off will affect an individual police officer’s eligibility to claim their pension? There has been concern over officers retiring early when facing disciplinary procedures in order to claim their pension.

[Mrs May]

My statement today does not cover anything related to pensions, but the importance of a police officer being struck off once found guilty of misconduct is that any other police force to which that officer applies will see that they have been struck off and are therefore not suitable for employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will recall PC Simon Harwood. Issues were raised about his behaviour during his employment by one force, but he then left that force and was re-employed by another. The register of struck-off officers will exist to stop that sort of issue happening.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Home Secretary referred to the quality of police officers, and in that context I want to acknowledge the service of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who was killed in the line of duty in my constituency at the weekend.

How will the Home Secretary ensure that the standards and safeguards she has referred to today will also apply to the National Crime Agency with its constabulary powers and special constables? Can she assure the House that the NCA’s engagement with the press will be to the Leveson standard?

[Mrs May]

May I join the hon. Gentleman in sending sympathy and condolences to the family of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who sadly died in that traffic incident at the weekend? May I also commend the officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work they do, day in, day out, to keep people safe in Northern Ireland?

On the Leveson requirements, we will be discussing with either ACPO or the College of Policing, where relevant, how each of those can best be implemented. Lord Justice Leveson reflected in his report that the police landscape had changed over the time during which the evidence was taken, so we need to consider how best to ensure that the requirements can be implemented properly in the new policing landscape.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we are all aware that there have been some unacceptable relationships between certain police officers and journalists, the press often provides invaluable assistance in helping to solve crime? Post-Leveson, many police forces are seriously restricting contact between police officers and journalists. Is there a danger that that could become too heavy-handed and counter-productive?

[Mrs May]

Of course we all accept that there will be occasions when the police wish to talk to the press to enlist its help in a particular investigation that is taking place. We accept that such occasions do occur, but it is right that we say to the police that they have to be more considerate of the implications of their talking to the press in other circumstances. That is why ACPO had, prior to the Leveson report—this is picked up in the report—been looking at what appropriate relations are between the police and the press. Having transparency is a great way of ensuring that people can see that these discussions are being held where they are appropriate. It is the transparency element that Lord Justice Leveson was keen on and that we will be taking forward.

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

There is much to commend in this statement. In other countries where wages and conditions are poor, the result is often that police tax rather than arrest criminals. Is the Home Secretary absolutely certain that her cut in wages for new police constables, meaning that they now earn less than a trainee manager at McDonald’s, will not have an impact on police standards in this country?

[Mrs May]

I have absolute faith in the standards and integrity of our police officers, and I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman’s question almost did not deserve a reply.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has already declared that she intends to invite talented outsiders to step forward to be considered for senior positions in the police. What sort of person is she considering? May they have no police experience whatsoever?

[Mrs May]

We have picked from, and are putting into place, different proposals as a result of the Winsor review recommendations. One is to have direct entry at superintendent level, where it would not be necessary for the individual to have police experience, but it would be necessary for them to go through an appropriate training period before they were able to take on their tasks as superintendent. Another is to open up the opportunities for chief constables to those with relevant policing experience—such experience would be necessary in those cases, but in a common law country. My hon. Friend asked what sort of people we might see coming in on this direct entry, and I say to him that perhaps ex-military people might be interested; I do not know, but he may very well want to forge a path.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) yesterday raised the tragic and appalling case of Frances Andrade, and the Home Secretary said she would reflect on it. To give victims and witnesses reassurance about the integrity of the police and the advice they get from the police service, will she reassure the House that she will urgently write to police forces to ensure that, in line with existing guidance, victims and witnesses can have the counselling and care they need and deserve?

[Mrs May]

Obviously, this issue was raised yesterday and I addressed it yesterday. It is important, and one thing that the College of Policing will be examining across the board of policing, in due course, is how police officers deal with, and how it is appropriate to deal with, certain types of crime and certain types of victim. A huge amount has been done in recent years to improve the way in which police forces deal with allegations of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and rape, but of course, as I said yesterday, we will be looking at the lessons that can be learned from that particular case.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about the quality and standards of our officers? There are organisations, both public and private, that are benefiting from the new ideas brought in by key people with fresh experience and additional areas of expertise. Does she agree that there are no reasons why policing should not benefit in the same way?

[Mrs May]

I very much agree. There has been the concept over the years that someone had to come in at the bottom and work their way up. We need to change that, both by enabling the fast-tracking of individuals who are obviously talented when they enter the police force and by opening up, as he says, to new ideas, cultures and experiences, which can only benefit policing. I am very much of that view.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Constable Reynolds, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) a moment ago, was a constituent of mine, and I extend to her parents and the family circle my sympathy at this time of their bereavement.

I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that police officers are like the community they serve, in that they are not without failure or mistake, and that it is vital that the police work to the highest standard of integrity. However, does she not also agree that we must be careful that we do not tie their hands with regulation so that they are not able to do the duty they are supposed to be doing—protecting the community?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we ensure that we have the appropriate structures, frameworks and codes for the police to work with, but their job requires them to do extraordinary things and we do not want to tie them up in regulation such that they are not able to do that job in cutting crime and protecting the public.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

When we are looking at police integrity, can we also look at the integrity of those people who suggested that the Government could not make difficult financial decisions and carry out reforms without crime going up? The reforms the Government have made have ensured that the level of crime has fallen.

[Mrs May]

Yes, our police reforms are working. As my hon. Friend says, we were told by the official Opposition that the only thing that would happen when the reforms and the cuts in police budgets took place was that crime would go up, but of course exactly the opposite has happened and we have seen that crime continues to fall.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Although we all welcome a system that will ensure and uphold the integrity of our police, will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that the already overstretched local police budgets will not endure any further cost pressures as a result of today’s statement?

[Mrs May]

As I have explained in response to another hon. Member who was questioning me on that issue, what I have announced today is that we will be transferring certain pieces of work from police forces to the IPCC, so there will be less work in that area for professional standards departments and others to do in police forces. We will be talking about how resources should appropriately transfer to the IPCC to ensure that it covers the work that it, rather than police forces, will now do.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments, and I support the move to transfer serious and sensitive cases to the IPCC. Will she ensure that the definition of “serious and sensitive” is as crystal clear as possible, so that the work of the IPCC can be enhanced and we can avoid potential ambiguities in determining what is serious and what is less serious?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is, of course, currently a working definition of “serious and sensitive”, but we need to ensure that in the new arrangements the definition is as clear as possible, so that there is no confusion between forces and the IPCC.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary’s statement says that, “to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion, notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force.” Will she confirm that any pension payment or severance payment due will be frozen until those proceedings end? If that does not happen, there is no point in introducing the first sanction.

[Mrs May]

As I said earlier, my statement does not cover any arrangements in relation to pensions. The issue of police officers subject to misconduct proceedings being able to resign or retire from a force and then those proceedings not being taken through because there was no sanction is one of the things that annoys the public considerably. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman makes a gesture; I am not quite sure how Hansard will interpret that, but I think that he is indicating, “Money.” Of course the sanction we propose potentially will have an impact on officers, because misconduct proceedings will be taken through to their conclusion. If they are found guilty of misconduct, they will be placed on the list of officers who have been struck off, and that will impede their ability, for example, to get a job in policing or a similar field abroad or in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a serving special constable with the British Transport police.

Some of the best, most common-sense policing in our country is done by ordinary community beat bobbies at police constable rank, by police sergeants and by police inspectors—people who are not seeking promotion but who love their job and have been doing that job for many years, perhaps decades. Although it is right that scrutiny of the police improves all the time, I do not feel that these individuals get the pat on the back that they should get often enough. What can we do to recognise and reward those long-serving officers for the skills they bring to their job?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend may not be aware that one of the matters that has been referred back to the Police Negotiating Board and that will be considered by the College of Policing is rewarding individual officers’ skills and development. The first and second parts of the Winsor review proposed an interim arrangement that did indeed suggest that recognition for neighbourhood officers be looked into. The Police Arbitration Tribunal did not feel it was appropriate to take forward those proposals and I accepted the PAT’s recommendation, but further work will be done on ensuring that there is appropriate payment for skills that are developed.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of my local police officers, Inspector Hillary, regularly tweets as he goes about his business in the area. Although the Home Secretary’s statement is at the hard end of accountability and particularly redress, does she agree that that everyday form of engagement and accountability is important to giving the public confidence in their local police officers, and does she welcome that initiative? She has avoided the question three times, but will she say specifically how much these changes will cost local constabularies? She is going to swipe money away—she says it is work, but that is people’s jobs. How much money is she going to swipe from Northamptonshire constabulary to pay for this?

[Mrs May]

The use of social media by police officers is one of the matters that HMIC considered when it was looking at integrity. Social media can be used extremely positively, and a number of forces are making active use of Twitter to get messages across to members of the public and interact with them. If Inspector Hillary is doing it in that way, I commend that officer. HMIC picked up some evidence of inappropriate use of Twitter, so it is important that forces make clear to officers what is and is not acceptable.

I have answered the question about resources several times: we will be discussing with forces and the IPCC what the appropriate level of resources is and what it is therefore right to transfer from individual police forces. I have to say to the Opposition that the concept is a simple one: work is being done in police forces that in future will be done in the IPCC, so it is appropriate to transfer resources.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As the third north Northamptonshire MP in a row to be called, may I associate myself with the kind comments about our local force made by the previous two Members? I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, not least because she made it first to the House and not to the media.

I have found in my constituency surgeries that the thing that annoys people when they have a serious complaint about the police is not actually the investigation, but the fact that it is conducted by the home force—by Northamptonshire police. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, in future, all serious cases will be investigated by people from outside the local force?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has homed in precisely on the crucial change we are making. I too have looked at cases where people within a force investigated serious complaints against that force, and I think that that is not appropriate. The IPCC has not had the resources to do that job, but we will give it the resources it needs so that serious and sensitive allegations will be investigated by people from outside the force concerned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House and welcome the announcement that the national register will be made available to police forces in other regions, in particular the PSNI. Will she confirm that the register will be made available in relation to other security positions, in particular civilian policing of Ministry of Defence installations in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point. I will reflect on that, if I may, but we will certainly discuss with the College of Policing the availability of the register of those who have been struck off and how that is most appropriately dealt with, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s point into account during those discussions.

Points of Order

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The response the right hon. Gentleman received has clearly provoked his curiosity and, in a notably mild-mannered Member of the House, a degree of consternation. I will happily offer a statement on the matter, but as the Home Secretary has courteously remained in the Chamber during the point of order relating to her Department, she is very welcome to offer a remark, if she so wishes.

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

She does not wish to do so. In that case, I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that the content of ministerial answers, notwithstanding the practice in previous Parliaments, is not a matter for the Chair. If he is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, or what he regards as the lack of an answer, he may wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee.

I note in passing that, on the back of his nearly 26 consecutive years of service in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is as canny as most in the deployment of opportunities open to Members to eke out of Government information that is important to him. Moreover, as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, he may be aware of other means by which Ministers may be held to account, and is perhaps in a position himself to apply those means. We will leave it there for now.

London 2012 Games Security

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Written Statements

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

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and G4S have today announced that they have reached a settlement following G4S’s failure to deliver in full the Olympic and Paralympic venue security contract.

LOCOG’s negotiating parameters were set out before the Home Affairs Committee in September by my Noble Friend, Lord Deighton, then LOCOG chief executive:

The public purse should not be adversely impacted by G4S’s failure to deliver on its contractual obligation;

The step in costs of using the military and police in place of G4S should be met by G4S;

LOCOG will not pay for any services not delivered.

All these objectives have been achieved.

The settlement, which has full Government approval, imposes a total reduction of £85 million in the payment due to G4S. This is to meet the step-in costs and to reflect their very serious failure to deliver. The settlement also recognises that G4S did provide around 80% of its contracted workforce hours over the course of the pre-games, games-time and post-games periods.

The Government contribution to the LOCOG venue security budget was set at £553 million in December 2011. The settlement today brings the total savings on that budget to £102 million, £39 million of which was announced in October 2012.

DCMS will provide a further update on the overall public sector funding package position (including venue security) at the end of June 2013.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

1. What recent steps she has taken to tackle female genital mutilation.

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

Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent form of child abuse which this Government are committed to eradicating. Across Government we have taken a number of actions, including piloting the declaration against female genital mutilation, issuing guidelines to front-line practitioners and providing funding to support communities to tackle FGM themselves. These actions help raise awareness of the issue, change attitudes, strengthen the legal response and support victims.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. As she knows, most of the data we use in the UK are based on a 2007 study. The Dutch Government recently issued an up-to-date prevalence study, based on methodology developed at a workshop sponsored by the Home Office. When might we look to doing an up-to-date prevalence study here in the UK?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I would like to pay tribute to the work she has done on this issue, which is respected in all parts of the House. We are assessing a funding application for a prevalence study. The Home Office and the NSPCC co-hosted a recent round-table at which prevalence was discussed, and we are considering various ways in which we can collect the data to inform a more targeted approach to ending this practice. Indeed, the Department of Health is exploring the collection of FGM data in the NHS, including in the maternity and children’s dataset.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

One of the best actions we can take to tackle the attitudes that lead to FGM and gender-based violence is to ensure that all our children and young people receive age-appropriate and good-quality sex and relationship education. Has the Home Secretary discussed that with her colleagues in the Department for Education, and will the Government now support compulsory sex and relationship education?

[Mrs May]

The issue of education is discussed in the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I chair. It meets regularly and brings Government Departments across the board, including the Department for Education, around the table. It is correct that education and information are very important aspects of dealing with FGM, which is why I am pleased to say that we have delivered 40,000 leaflets and posters to schools, health services, charities and community groups around the country, raising awareness of this issue.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about the work that the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) has done on raising awareness of female genital mutilation in the UK? The Home Secretary will be aware of the calls for action to improve awareness of FGM, and to support young people who are facing this threat in coming forward. Given this and her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), may I press her on the question of the level of violence against women and girls in Britain, and ask whether she will give her direct personal support to the One Billion Rising campaign and the vote in this place on Thursday to make sex and relationship education statutory for both boys and girls—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. As I said, the Government take this issue extremely seriously and we look across the board at what Government can do to deal with it. It is about helping communities themselves to eradicate this problem. Everyone in this Chamber will be concerned about the lack of prosecutions, and I am pleased that the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued a new action plan on FGM to the prosecutors, with the hope of getting prosecutions. We must recognise that education of a variety of sorts is important, which is why alerting people at various levels in the public services and in schools, and others, and helping girls to understand the threat themselves, is so important.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

2. What steps she has taken to control immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the recent performance of the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force.

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

The performance of both organisations is improving. Border Force efforts mean waiting times at airports are now considerably better. I am pleased to say that, between July and September last year—an important time for the UK—99% of passengers were cleared within service standards. UKBA is working to ensure that more illegal immigrants leave the UK this year than last, but we recognise that there are some deep-seated problems that need sustained effort. We are driving that effort forward.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. I think the message is, “Still could do much better.” My constituent, Lynn Wyllie, has been waiting two and a half years for confirmation of her immigration status. Her children stay in Scotland and both have British passports. Despite her full co-operation, and that of my office team and her lawyer, she has had no response whatever with regard to her status. Her current application ran out on Friday. Will the Secretary of State arrange an urgent review—I am happy to give details—because Lynn is intensely stressed and worried about her situation and her family?

[Mrs May]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first comment, as I indicated in my answer, there are some issues that still need to be addressed in relation to the operation of the UK Border Agency. I am happy to look into the case that he has raised. If he provides the details, my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will look into that with care.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary will be well aware of many of the long delays, and I, like many Members, have a number of constituents waiting for responses from the UK Border Agency. This is causing great concern for businesses and the universities in Cambridge, as are some of the over-bureaucratic controls that they feel they are being forced to apply on academics and students. Will she come to Cambridge to meet university and business representatives in order to discuss the details of how that is working?

[Mrs May]

I understand that the Immigration Minister has already agreed to come to Cambridge to meet representatives of the university on the issue. I met representatives of the Russell group and Universities UK when we were developing our policy on ensuring that we can drive out abuse of the student visa system. We have a student visa system that ensures that the brightest and the best students—those who are coming to an institution that is genuinely providing education, to study a genuine degree course or educational course, and are intending to be students and not to use the visa to work—can come to the UK, while we are driving out abuse. I am pleased to say that tens of thousands of people who were coming here or would have come here to work rather than to be students will not do so, as a result of the action that this Government have taken.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary was kind enough to write to me after the last Home Office questions to say that she is working on the group of lost cases, but I have a number of current cases of constituents who are losing their jobs because the Home Office has not replied to in-time applications, so they have no papers that they can show their employer and there is no way they can prove their right to work, as a result of which they are being sacked. Will she stand up in this Chamber and say that nobody who has an in-time application and who had permission to work should be sacked because of the Home Office’s inefficiency?

[Mrs May]

What I say to the hon. Lady is that we are working through and with UKBA to ensure that we can improve the processes that it operates in relation to applications. If she has particular cases that she wishes to raise with Ministers, she is free to do that. It is important that we ensure that, through the work that is developing to deal with the problems that still exist, UKBA is able to provide the efficient service that we all want to see.

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

Too many UKBA decisions are still wrong and the process is taking far too long, in which case does the Home Secretary not think it extraordinary that, notwithstanding the clear ruling of a judge on 29 November and previous tribunal decisions, UKBA is still seeking to prevent Roseline Akhalu from staying in this country, despite the fact that if she is deported she will die?

[Mrs May]

I will respond to my hon. Friend in relation to the individual case that he has raised, but he starts off by saying that too many decisions by the UK Border Agency are wrong. One of the problems for UKBA is that very often entry clearance officers take decision on the basis of the information in front of them, which may perfectly well be the right decision on the basis of that information, then further information is provided before an appeal is heard. That is an issue that we need to look at.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I have many constituents who have submitted an in-time application and have not even received an acknowledgement from the UK Border Agency. When my office chases up some months later, it turns out that they have not even been input into the UKBA computer system. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us whether this is an attempt by the Home Office to massage figures about the number of applicants and the speed with which it is dealing with them.

[Mrs May]

No such attempt is being made in relation to what the hon. Lady says. She will have heard the answer that I gave. I acknowledged that there are problems in some areas of the operation of the UK Border Agency. That is why we are looking at the UK Border Agency, and why work is being done to improve the processes within it to ensure that we have a system that provides an efficient and effective response to those who are applying.

--- Later in debate ---

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

19. What assessment she has made of the operational readiness of the National Crime Agency.

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

Excellent progress is being made in establishing the new National Crime Agency which will be an effective operational crime fighting agency, under the leadership of Director General Keith Bristow.

Operational activity is already taking place under the NCA’s four commands, building on the previous work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I am pleased to say in particular that the shadow border policing command is doing work to improve collaboration at ports.

[Nicola Blackwood]

My constituents are daily hearing truly shocking evidence of child sexual exploitation emerging in the ongoing trial of nine Oxford men at the Old Bailey. I know that the Home Secretary is unable to comment on the case, but can she tell me how she intends to work with Keith Bristow, Peter Davies and others at the NCA to strengthen our national policing response to child sexual exploitation in our communities?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this difficult issue, which I know will be a concern to Members on both sides of the House. We all agree that child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent form of abuse, and I know that the police are committed to tackling that crime in all its forms. An increasing number of cases are being brought before the courts, which reflects the increasing attention that the police are paying to this issue.

Work is being carried out to co-ordinate a response under the organised crime strategy and the child sexual exploitation action plan, which of course includes the vital work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. I referred to the shadow border policing command in my previous response: it has been working with CEOP so that, for the first time, the team has been able to target high-risk outbound flights to identify and interdict sex offenders.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

Several news reports have recently alleged improper practices and conduct by the Metropolitan police’s former special demonstration squad. The activities of that squad are being investigated by the Metropolitan police’s professional standards department, under the supervision of the independent police complaints commissioner. The investigation is called Operation Herne.

Given the seriousness of the latest allegations, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and the chairman of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, have agreed that it would be appropriate for a senior figure from outside the Metropolitan police to take over the leadership of the investigation. Chief Constable Mick Creedon of Derbyshire police has agreed to take on the role, and he brings to the case many years’ experience as a detective. He has also led several major investigations, including police corruption cases and reviews of investigations by other forces, such as the Rhys Jones murder on Merseyside in 2007. The investigation will be under the direction and control of Chief Constable Creedon, but it will remain under the supervision of the IPCC, which will provide further external and independent scrutiny.

[Stuart Andrew]

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps her Department is taking to reform the UK’s extradition arrangements?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is obviously in the overwhelming public interest that we have sound extradition arrangements that function properly. The public need to have confidence in those arrangements, and it is vital that decisions are not only fair, but are seen to be fair. As I indicated to the House earlier, the Government have recently tabled amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill to introduce a forum bar to extradition, which will make decisions in concurrent jurisdiction cases clear and more transparent.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on undercover policing, which we have also called for.

I know the whole House will send its sympathy to the family of Frances Andrade, who took her own life after giving evidence against her abusers in court. She was let down by the criminal justice system, whose job it was to help and protect her. It has emerged that Greater Manchester police supported Mrs Andrade getting counselling, but that Surrey police did not. The Surrey police and crime commissioner has said in the last couple of days that

“it’s the responsibility of the police to present evidence to the court with the victim in a way which is untainted. That means they will not and should not refer a victim for counselling until after they have given their evidence.”

Does the Home Secretary agree that this approach by Surrey police is completely unacceptable, and that victims of sexual abuse should never be denied the support and counselling they need? Will she tell all police forces that they need to make sure that counselling is available, and will she ensure that a proper review takes place of the handling of this entire case, so that lessons can be learned from this dreadful tragedy?

[Mrs May]

I am indeed sure that everybody across the House sends their sympathy and condolences to the family of the lady concerned. This was a terrible case and we all have sympathy with the family for what they have gone through. Improving the way in which the police deal with rape cases has been looked at by Governments over a number of years, because we all recognise the difficulty victims feel in coming forward. Sadly, when we see such incidents I fear that others may be put off, rather than encouraged, from coming forward. We need to look very carefully at what has happened in this case, and very carefully at how we can further improve the system to ensure that victims feel that they will be believed when they come forward and have the confidence to take their case through the courts.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s concern, but I press her to do two specific things in response to this case, the first of which is to tell forces that they need to make sure that counselling is available in these cases. Guidance drawn up in 2002 by the Home Office, Department of Health and Attorney-General states very clearly that

“vulnerable or intimidated witnesses should not be denied the emotional support and counselling they may need both before and after the trial.”

The 2010 guidance from Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service is similarly clear, yet did not apply in this case and the Surrey police and crime commissioner is saying the opposite. Will she give very clear instruction to forces across the country that they must ensure counselling is available in line with national guidance? Will she also ensure that a proper review takes place of all aspects of this case, so that we learn lessons from this terrible tragedy and ensure that vulnerable victims get the help and support that was denied to Frances Andrade?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated to the right hon. Lady, we will of course look to see what lessons should be learned from this case. She will be aware that the Home Secretary does not instruct police forces to take particular routes. They have operational independence on decisions about how they deal with particular cases. It is important for the guidance to be there, for police forces to be aware of the guidance, and for police forces to operate within the guidance. I will reflect on the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the attention being given to that guidance. I am sure that all of us across the House want a system in which rape victims feel able to come forward and that we are able to see more prosecutions taking place.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no contradiction between having a robust immigration system with an efficient visa system and an economy that is open for business?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. There is absolutely no contradiction between having an efficient visa system that enables us to protect our borders and operate appropriate immigration policy, and having a United Kingdom that is open for business and which encourages the brightest and best and those who will be of benefit to the economy to come here. There is no contradiction in doing that and it is possible to do that—indeed, it is what the Government are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

T7. We have seen some great co-operation between the UK and the EU on crime and justice through the European arrest warrant, as has been seen in the investigation into the sale of illegal horsemeat. May I therefore encourage the Government not to oppose the arrest warrant, to drop the work they are doing and to take a “mare” responsible attitude to this issue?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at all the measures that fall under the so-called 2014 opt-out. It is the Government’s current intention to opt out of those measures and then negotiate to opt back into those we believe to be in the British national interest. He cites an example of where the European arrest warrant has been used successfully, but hon. Members will know of cases where people have been held for lengthy periods in pre-trial detention, while the proportionality issue worries not only the UK, but other member states. That is why we are discussing the future of the European arrest warrant with other member states.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced into undercover agents. Would it not be appropriate, at this stage at least, for the Home Secretary herself to give an apology to the parents of the dead children whose names were taken for undercover policing? What happened was absolutely disgraceful; such an apology is absolutely appropriate.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that if it is indeed the case that this has happened, it is absolutely disgraceful. The investigation to establish the facts in relation to this is still ongoing. It is important that we say anything we wish to say about the facts of what has taken place following that investigation.

Public Order Powers

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government have today published a summary of the responses to this consultation and a copy has been placed in the House Library. The summary is also available on the Home Office website.

The Home Office published a consultation paper on 13 October 2011 to seek views on aspects of public order powers, one of which was the effect of the word “insulting” in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The summary published today relates to responses on that issue.

Having considered the views of respondents and both Houses of Parliament, the Government intend to remove the word “insulting” in section 5.

The Government believe that behaviour such as swearing at police officers and burning poppy wreaths on Remembrance day are completely unacceptable and the police must have the powers they need to deal with them. However, in the light of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ view that the word “insulting” could safely be removed without undermining future prosecutions, the Government have decided not to reverse the amendment to this effect made on 12 December 2012 in the House of Lords to the Crime and Courts Bill.

The Government will ensure that the police have clear guidance on the range of powers that remain available to them for dealing with the sort of behaviour covered by section 5.

The Government are considering the consultation responses on proposals to strengthen existing police powers to demand removal of face coverings and the introduction of new powers to impose a general curfew. A response will be published by the end of March 2013.

College of Policing (Update)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Written Statements

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

In October I set out further information about the establishment of a professional body for policing, the College of Policing.

I can now update the House with progress on its establishment.

I am very pleased to announce my intention to appoint Professor Shirley Pearce as non-executive chair of the college. Professor Pearce recently concluded seven successful years as vice-chancellor at Loughborough university and brings with her a wealth of experience in developing the health professions, in higher education, in research and development, and in working in partnership across sectors to further joint interests.

Earlier in her career Professor Pearce qualified and practised as a clinical psychologist before taking on a range of lecturing and senior executive roles, primarily at University College London and the University of East Anglia. Professor Pearce will bring extensive experience in the education and professionalisation arenas, and significant senior leadership experience to her role at the college.

The college became operational on 1 December 2012 and it will be established on a statutory basis as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Alex Marshall takes up his full-time role as the chief executive of the college from Monday 4 February.

Police Officers and Staff (Remuneration and Conditions of Service)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Written Statements

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

This statement is about police pay and conditions. It provides the Government’s response to the police arbitration tribunal’s findings on the recommendations in the final report of Tom Winsor’s independent review of police officer and staff remuneration and conditions.

On 27 March last year I laid a statement to respond to Tom Winsor’s final report of the review of remuneration and conditions police officers and staff, in which I announced that I was directing the Police Negotiating Board to consider proposals relating to pay for police officers in England and Wales as a matter of urgency.

The Police Negotiating Board did not reach agreement on some important proposals in the final report, and these were referred to the police arbitration tribunal. The tribunal has now provided its recommendation and reasons, which I received on 6 December. The tribunal considered eight recommendations from the Winsor final report. The tribunal accepted one recommendation in its entirety, accepted three proposals with modifications and did not approve one other. The tribunal recommended that three related recommendations around compulsory severance should be the subject of further discussions in the Police Negotiating Board. I have today placed a copy of the police arbitration tribunal report in the House of Commons Library.

I am grateful to the tribunal for its careful consideration of these important issues. I have now considered the tribunal’s report thoroughly and I have decided to accept its recommendation and I am minded to implement the package of reforms it has put forward.

These reforms build on the changes we implemented following part 1 of the review, which I announced in a statement on 30 January last year. They continue our programme to modernise police pay and conditions so that they are fair to both officers and the taxpayer. They include measures to retarget pay to reward contribution, increase local flexibility and make important structural changes to enable further reform.

The tribunal deferred proposals around compulsory severance for further negotiations. These will be considered alongside other longer-term proposals I have asked the Police Negotiating Board to consider by July 2013.

We remain committed to the review’s principles and objectives, in particular to modernising management practices and to developing the vital link between pay and professional skills. The development of the skills agenda is an essential part of both modernising pay and conditions and of our wider programme of police reform and developing professionalism. This is something that the College of Policing will take forward in the context of the time scales recommended in the Winsor review.

Existing police pay and conditions were designed more than 30 years ago which is why we asked Tom Winsor to carry out his independent review. Police officers and staff deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the vital role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, and enable them to deliver effectively for the public and these reforms support the objectives I set out in the review’s terms of reference to:

use remuneration and conditions of service to maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles where their powers and skills are required;

provide remuneration and conditions of service that are fair to and reasonable for both the public taxpayer and police officers and staff;

enable modern management practices in line with practices elsewhere in the public sector and the wider economy.

In reaching this decision, I have had regard to a number of vital considerations, including:

the review’s three key objectives as set out above;

the tough economic conditions and the Government’s wider economic objectives, which include reduction of the deficit and the challenging but manageable reduction in Government funding to the police over the spending review period;

the need to maintain and improve the service provided to the public, taking account of a strong desire from the public to see more police officers and operational staff out on the front line of local policing and also recognising that there are less visible front-line roles that require policing powers and skills in order to protect the public;

the particular front-line role and nature of the Office of Constable, including the lack of a right to strike;

the Government’s wider objectives for police reform, including developing professionalism in the police and the creation of the College of Policing, the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction of police bureaucracy and collaboration between police forces and with other public services;

the Government’s wider policy of pay and pensions in the pubic sector, and its proposals on long-term pensions and reform of the police;

the review’s analysis of the value of officer’s remuneration and conditions, as compared to other workforces;

parallel work by the police to improve value for money, including collaboration with the private sector;

the impact of the recommendations on equality and diversity.

The Government’s reform programme is working: crime is falling and public confidence is high. It is imperative that the police are able to benefit from these further reforms as soon as possible, and I will therefore immediately begin the process of amending the police regulations and determinations to implement the tribunal’s recommendation, including making any necessary consequential and ancillary changes.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Our laws need to keep pace with our changing society, and our law enforcement response needs to stay ahead of the changing threat. We have achieved a lot in the past two years. Our police reforms are working—crime is down 10%, and the front-line service is being protected. However, we need to do more to ensure that there is an effective, national response to the threat from serious, organised and complex crime. At the same time, the civil and criminal justice system that we inherited is just not equipped to deal with the challenges of today. Our courts need to be tough on wrongdoing, our non-custodial sentences need to command public confidence and our judiciary needs to reflect contemporary society. The Bill will address all those issues.

Together, the Bill’s provisions will bring our justice system into the 21st century, ensure a focused, effective crime-fighting response to the threats that we face today and better prepare us to fight crime and secure our borders. Over the past two years, the Government have already implemented the most radical reforms that law enforcement has seen in a generation, but there remains a fundamental paradox in policing that we need to correct. While Governments over the years have focused on local policing, they have consistently neglected the threat from serious, organised and complex crime. That threat is far-reaching. It involves about 30,000 individuals across the country and 7,500 organised crime groups, at an estimated annual cost to the economy of up to £40 billion.

However, the real cost of organised crime can be seen in the communities that it terrorises and the lives that it wrecks—the young people whose lives are cut short by drug addiction; the women who are trafficked and forced into prostitution; the children who are denied a childhood through sexual abuse and exploitation; and the elderly and vulnerable who are robbed of their savings through fraud.

In 2011, we set out the first truly comprehensive strategy to combat the threat from organised crime, “Local to Global”. The Bill will establish the agency that will spearhead our operational response by cutting crime and protecting the public. Whereas the law enforcement effort is currently patchy and fragmented, the National Crime Agency will bring a decisive, intelligence-led response to organised crime.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has a network of offices around the world where it does an excellent job in combating narcotics and serious crime. Can she confirm that under the new arrangements those excellent networks and offices will be kept open, even though they may be more streamlined and even more cost-effective?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting on the valuable and important work that SOCA does around the world. The international network will continue to be maintained. There may obviously be changes over time, depending on requirements and where the intelligence leads us, but it is intended that the international network, which is widely respected because it does such good work, will continue under the National Crime Agency.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I support the restructuring of the landscape of policing but I am a bit concerned about the budgets. When the head of the National Crime Agency gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee he said that the agency would have a budget of £400 million. As the Secretary of State knows, SOCA’s last budget was £400 million, and that of the National Policing Improvement Agency £392 million. The difference is £400 million. Where will the additional money from the merging of those two organisations end up?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that not all parts that were under the NPIA are going into the NCA. Other sections of the NPIA are effectively going into parts of other organisations—some will come to the Home Office; the College of Policing that we have set up will look at standards and training. It is not possible simply to take the two budgets, add them together and say, “Where is the money going?” The money for the National Crime Agency will come from the precursor agencies, but as for other bodies, we will obviously have to look carefully at its budget at a time when forces and others are having to take cuts.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I want to say again how well regarded SOCA is. When the Home Affairs Committee looked at drugs policy around the world it was clear wherever we went that there was huge respect for SOCA, its brand and the work it does to counter narco-trafficking. One recommendation in the Committee’s report on drugs was that we should try to preserve the badge of SOCA—perhaps as a serious overseas crime arm or something—so that we would not have to explain to lots of countries why we had changed its name. Will the Home Secretary look at that idea?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the good work that SOCA does, and I recognise that there is a brand issue. SOCA is being brought into the National Crime Agency and there will be a serious organised crime command within that agency. What the international parts of the NCA are called, and how they are configured with other commands in the NCA, are currently under discussion.

The National Crime Agency will be a visible, operational crime-fighting agency. It will have four commands—I have just referred to that issue—that will allow it to lead the national response on organised crime, border policing, economic crime and child exploitation. It will fulfil the coalition commitment to create a dedicated border policing command, ensuring a joined-up response to those who seek to enter the UK illegally or in order to do harm. It will be home to the national cybercrime unit, bringing together existing capabilities to keep the public safe from online threats.

The NCA will hold the single authoritative intelligence picture of organised crime affecting the United Kingdom, underpinned by strong powers and duties to ensure it can share relevant information across law enforcement bodies. Part 1 of the Bill will give the National Crime Agency the ability to task and co-ordinate the law enforcement response to organised crime. Individual police forces will continue to play an important role in tackling criminal gangs, but the NCA will ensure its resources are used in the most effective way.

To ensure the right operational response at the right level, the Bill also provides for co-operation and tasking between the NCA and police forces. I would expect agreement to be reached locally about which agency is best placed to take action against a given criminal group. Where—exceptionally—agreement cannot be reached, the Bill provides the necessary backstop powers for the NCA to direct the provision of assistance or that a particular task be undertaken.

The NCA will be operationally focused with an experienced crime fighter at its head. The Bill provides for clear governance arrangements, with an operationally independent director general answering directly to the Home Secretary for delivering the agency’s strategic priorities. Keith Bristow, the NCA’s first director general, has made it clear that to undertake his role effectively he will need an open and responsive relationship with police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Bill will ensure this by requiring that the devolved Administrations and key figures in law enforcement are consulted on the NCA’s annual plan and its strategic priorities. From the director general downwards, NCA officers will need to be equipped with the necessary powers to do their job, so the Bill provides for NCA officers to be designated with the powers of a constable, customs officer and immigration officer.

Given the vital crime-fighting role that NCA officers will have, it is inconceivable to me that their work should be disrupted through industrial action. Although my preference is to reach a no-strike agreement with the relevant unions, the Bill includes a back-stop statutory prohibition on industrial action. Few would wish to contemplate the police being able to strike, and I am pleased that in the other place no one argued against applying the same restrictions to operational NCA officers.

Before moving on to other aspects of the Bill, I want to touch on a possible future role for the NCA in respect of counter-terrorism policing. The House will be aware that the other place voted to remove what was clause 2 of the Bill, which enabled counter-terrorism policing functions to be conferred on the NCA by order. The debate in the other place was about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should be given to such a decision, not whether the NCA should take on counter-terrorism policing in the future.

I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing. I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.

I also recognise the points raised in the other place about possible future decisions on counter-terrorism policing and sensitivities in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the original clause, as drafted, provided strong protection for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to counter-terrorism policing in Northern Ireland. I will continue to reflect on the debate in the other place before deciding how best to proceed, and I am sure that the House will want to come back to this issue during the later stages of the Bill’s consideration.

As well as establishing the NCA, we need to ensure that both the NCA and its law enforcement partners have the powers they need to fight organised crime in all its manifestations. In combating fraud and other economic crimes, the Bill confers on the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service the ability to enter into deferred prosecution agreements with organisations alleged to have committed economic wrongdoing. These agreements will enable prosecutors to impose tough financial penalties and other sanctions on organisations for wrongdoing as an alternative to protracted court proceedings with uncertain outcomes.

To support the fight against immigration crime, part 3 of the Bill extends to the UK Border Agency’s financial investigation teams certain surveillance and property interference powers available under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Police Act 1997, as well as asset seizure powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under the law as it stands, there is an artificial distinction whereby these powers are available to Border Agency staff investigating customs offences, but not to those investigating immigration offences.

On the Proceeds of Crime Act, we need to ensure that our ability to seize money and assets derived from criminal conduct is not undermined by legal loopholes. I can therefore announce that we will table amendments to the Bill that will restore the civil recovery scheme to the position it was commonly understood to be in prior to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the case of Perry. In its judgment, the Court held that the scheme only applied to property within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This judgment significantly weakened the reach of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it is right that we should take action to prevent those who engage in criminal conduct here from being able to put their ill-gotten gains beyond the reach of the UK courts.

As well as strengthening enforcement at the border through the NCA and UKBA, the Bill will ensure that we can make the most effective use of resources by closing a long-standing loophole in the immigration system. Part 3 of the Bill removes the full right of appeal against refusal of an application for a visa as a family visitor. I know this provision has caused a number of hon. Members some disquiet.

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

It has indeed caused a great deal of disquiet and is a repeat of what happened when the Conservatives were last in office. Is it right and proper that someone refused permission to come here for a family visit is denied the right of appeal? In effect, that means that the immigration officer would decide on the application and be the jury. As I understand the position, at least 50% of such appeals are successful. Is that why they are being abolished?

[Mrs May]

No. What I say to the hon. Gentleman and others who have concerns is that this is the only visitor category that retains a full right of appeal. As a result, I think we see some abuse in this system. It is better to focus the resources available for the immigration appeals systems on those appeals, such as on the refusal of asylum, that could have a far greater impact on the lives of the individuals concerned.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I ask the Home Secretary to expand on two things? First, will she expand on her suggestion that initially the right of appeal in visitor cases extended beyond families, because that is simply not true? I introduced it as Home Secretary, and it was only ever applied in respect of family visitors and not more widely, as I remember. Secondly, can she explain what she means by the word “abuse”? Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have plenty of appeal cases, and the purpose of the appeal is to filter out those appeals that are genuine from those that may be an abuse. Since at least a third of appeals are successful, however, there is no possible argument for abandoning this right of appeal.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the family visit route is the only visit route that has this right of appeal. Of course, it is not being abused in all cases. I mention the word “abuse”, because what often happens in the system at the moment with these appeals is that a decision is taken by immigration officers on the basis of the evidence available to them at the application stage. When the appeal goes forward, further evidence is introduced, and it often does not have the same degree of attention and consideration given to it as is given by immigration officers to the evidence given to them in the application process. What we see is not an appeal against the decision of the immigration officer. In many cases—I would say in most cases—an appeal is heard on the basis of different evidence.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and there are one or two others.

[Mr Straw]

Our constituencies differ. Over the past 30 years, I have dealt with hundreds of visitor appeals, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady that what she is being told by her officials is very different from my experience. In the vast majority of cases that go to appeal, the initial evidence has been made available by the applicant, here and abroad, to the entry clearance officers. It is the fact that that evidence has not been properly treated by the immigration officers that then leads to appeals. I ask her to look at the evidence base on which she is relying.

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in many cases the appeal process for family visit visas is being used just as a means to present fresh evidence into the appeals system in support of the application, and that is not the point of an appeals process. There is another point for individuals who go through the appeals process: if fresh evidence is available, they should make a fresh application. It takes less time for a fresh application to be considered than for an appeal to be considered. With a fresh application, people will on average be able to have a decision within 15 days, rather than eight months with the appeals process.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In all fairness to the applicants, the Home Secretary should withdraw the word “abuse”. Is it not true that the independent commissioner for the UK Border Agency continues to show concern about applicants being turned down for not sending in documents that they were never told in the first instance were required? If she continues to say the applicants are abusing the system, then in all fairness she must say that UKBA entry clearance officers are abusing the system. Does she not agree that the system does not need to be abolished, but to be made to work more sensibly?

[Mrs May]

Let me say to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have raised this issue that analysis of a sample of 363 allowed family visit visa appeal determinations in April 2011 showed that new evidence produced at appeal was the only reason for the tribunal’s decision in 63% of those cases. In only 8% of cases was new evidence not at least a factor in the allowed appeal. If people have new evidence, they can make a fresh application. It will be heard and considered, and a decision will be given to them in far less time than it takes to go to appeal. A system of appeal is about appealing against the original decision, not appealing against the original decision plus bringing forward extra evidence.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I really think I have answered questions about this issue, which I am sure will continue to be a matter for debate during the Bill’s progress.

Just as we are bringing the law enforcement response into the 21st century, so this Bill will ensure that our courts and our laws can meet the challenges of today’s society. Part 2 will enable the courts to deal robustly with wrongdoing and will ensure confidence in the system of non-custodial sentencing. For serious offenders —particularly those who use violence—a prison sentence will usually be the appropriate punishment, but where a custodial sentence might not be appropriate, the public must have confidence in the alternatives. A community order that is not perceived as a credible sanction or a fine that is not paid simply brings the criminal justice system into disrepute.

The provisions in part 2 will change that. For the first time, the courts will be required to include a punitive element in every community order. They will also be able to impose a new electronic monitoring requirement, which makes use of global positioning system technology to monitor an offender’s whereabouts. This will protect the public by deterring crime and assisting with detection. Alongside that, the Bill provides for courts to defer sentencing after conviction to allow time for restorative justice. We know that around 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice conferences are satisfied.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the provisions relating to restorative justice. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that restorative justice will work properly only if the victim is involved and consents to it? In many serious cases, restorative justice will not be the right option.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is essential that the victims are comfortable with going through the restorative justice process. The figures show that around 85% of victims who participate are satisfied with the response, but it is important that no victim should feel that restorative justice is being in any sense imposed on them. It must be something that they are willing to go through—he is indeed right about that. Restorative justice can also support rehabilitation by helping offenders to realise the consequences of their wrongdoing. This provision will help to put victims at the heart of justice.

At the same time, we are strengthening the ability of the Courts Service to exchange information with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, so that the courts have the income and benefits data they need to set fines at a level that properly reflects the means of the offender and supports the enforcement of those fines. We are also making it clear that the courts can take account of an offender’s assets when determining the level of a fine, which will ensure that criminals who seek to disguise their wealth are made to pay their dues.

Finally, the provisions in part 2 will bring the judiciary into this century by ensuring that it reflects the communities it serves. Progress has been made in recent years, but it has been slow. Just over one in five judges in our courts are female, and the proportion of black and ethnic minority judges hovers at around just 5%. We need to do better, particularly at the upper echelons of the judiciary. The Bill therefore includes a number of provisions to encourage progress in this area, including provision for part-time and flexible working in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. At the same time, we are providing that where there are two candidates of equal merit, preference may be given to a candidate from an under-represented group.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. I warmly support what she is proposing. Some of us have been campaigning on the issue for a number of years. I think this will have an effect and will change the nature of the judiciary in this country. I hope, however, that one other issue will also be followed up. I see the Lord Chancellor sitting next to the Home Secretary, and I want to raise the issue of feedback. When in the past ethnic minority and women candidates have applied and been turned down, they have not received effective feedback on how to develop their career in the judiciary. It is not just about changing the law; it is about changing the practices of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that people have this information.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises what I think is an important point, and I can assure him that the Lord Chancellor has heard what he said, and will reflect on those comments and look into that particular issue.

As we bring our courts into the 21st century, our laws must follow suit. Part 3 provides—

[Mr Bellingham]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on from part 2, may I ask her for a quick bit of advice? Does she agree that the single family court idea is a very good one? Does she agree that one crucial part of family law is the need for more mediation? Can she assure us that mediation will be built into the system in as many places as possible?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. The introduction of the single family court is an important measure. I believe that it will get over previous problems with variations in approach and application, which is significant. It has long been my view that, as far as possible, we should encourage mediation—I know it is being looked at by the Ministry of Justice—and it could be a way of reducing the antagonism and bitterness that, sadly, happen all too often when matters get into the courts rather than being dealt with beforehand through mediation.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on from part 2, does she agree that it is bizarre that in 2013 we have this Victorian situation whereby each county court represents its own individual personality? I welcome the changes in the Bill, but will she lean over and ask her right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary whether we will move quickly on this issue to improve justice in the county courts and to cut costs?

[Mrs May]

Yes, we will do everything we can to improve efficiency in the system and we will look at the whole issue of individual county courts versus a national county court system, as it were. This is part of the Bill. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about the personalities of county courts.

Part 3 provides for a new drug-driving offence. Over the past 40 years, the drink-driving laws have played an important role in making our roads safer. There is already an offence of driving while impaired through drugs, but it is difficult to secure a conviction, given the need to prove impairment. Drugs were a contributory factor in about 3% of fatal road incidents in Great Britain in 2011, resulting in 54 deaths. This compares to 9% or 166 deaths from drink-driving. We need to adopt the same robust approach to drug-driving as we do to drink-driving.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whom I was about to commend.

[Gavin Barwell]

In that case, I should have waited before intervening. I first raised the issue of drug-driving at Prime Minister’s Questions on behalf of my constituent Lillian Groves, who was killed outside her home property by a driver under the influence of drugs. The Prime Minister met Lillian’s family, and on their behalf, I would like to thank him, as well as Home Office, Justice and Transport Ministers, for the speed with which they have enacted the change in law that the family was looking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I commend him for the campaign he has led on this issue, following the death of his constituent Lillian Groves. He has been resolute on this issue, and I am pleased that we have been able to find a vehicle through which to bring forward this new offence so quickly. The Bill introduces an offence of driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug in the body in excess of the specified limit for that drug.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. Much depends on what the aim is and how the specified limit should be set. Will she confirm that the aim is to set a level for drugs that is equivalent to the current legal alcohol limit in the blood of 0.08%, and to measure the drug concentration that would indicate the same level of impairment? Is my understanding correct?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and I are currently considering the controlled drugs to be covered by the offence and the limits that should be set for such drugs for driving purposes. As a Government, we have taken a robust, zero-tolerance approach on illicit drugs through the drugs strategy. As we consider the detail of this policy, we will want to send an equally strong message that people simply cannot take illegal drugs and drive.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I particularly commend the provisions on drug-driving. Given the problems I have seen as a practitioner, I am aware of the difficulty of proving the offence. Has consideration been given to further extending provisions beyond controlled drugs to include the impact of psychoactive substances, not least legal highs? We know of the impact they can have in terms of impaired driving, so has consideration been given to broadening the nature of the offence in this provision?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the Secretary of State for Transport and I are looking at what should be covered by this offence, taking into account the drugs that can be identified and the levels that should be set for them. The Department for Transport is taking expert advice on what it is possible to identify within the bloodstream and within people’s bodies at the time that tests are taken.

I know that legitimate concerns have been expressed about the impact of this offence on those who take controlled drugs on prescription—for long-term pain relief, for example—but we have no intention of preventing people from driving where they are taking medication in accordance with medical advice, so the Bill includes provision for a medical defence. We will also want to take into account views expressed in response to the required consultation on the draft regulations, but I believe we must take a strong stand against those who would put other lives at risk by driving under the influence of drugs.

The Bill also delivers on our coalition commitment to ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home. Few situations can be more frightening than when someone’s own home is violated. Faced with that scenario, a person will do what it takes to protect themselves and their loved ones. They cannot be expected dispassionately to weigh up the niceties of whether the level of force they are using is proportionate in the circumstances. If the intruder is injured, perhaps seriously, in such an encounter, the householder should not automatically be treated as the perpetrator where, with hindsight, the force used is considered to have been disproportionate. Clause 30 will ensure that, in such a context, the use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable, while continuing to rule out the use of grossly disproportionate force.

I know this change in the law will be particularly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years. I congratulate them on having successfully brought this issue to the attention of Parliament and the public.

Let me now deal with clause 38, which would remove the word “insulting” from the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was added to the Bill in the other place. I respect the view taken by their lordships, who had concerns that I know are shared by some in this House about section 5 encroaching upon freedom of expression. On the other hand, the view expressed by many in the police is that section 5, including the word “insulting”, is a valuable tool in helping them to keep the peace and maintain public order.

There is always a careful balance to be struck between protecting our proud tradition of free speech and taking action against those who cause widespread offence with their actions. The Government support the retention of section 5 as it currently stands, because we believe that the police should be able to take action when they are sworn at, when protesters burn poppies on Armistice day and in similar scenarios. We have always recognised that there are strong views in both Houses. Looking at past cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions could not identify any where the behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as “abusive” as well as “insulting”. He has stated that

“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

On that basis, the Government are not minded to challenge the amendment made in the other place. We will issue guidance to the police on the range of powers that remain available to them to deploy in the kind of situation I described, but the word “insulting” should be removed from section 5.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. Many of us have been campaigning on this issue for years, and the Government have listened—well done.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Finally, let me give the House notice of another set of amendments that we will table in Committee. Members will recall that on 16 October, when I made a statement on our extradition arrangements, I indicated that I would present legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed to make two key changes to the Extradition Act 2003. The first would introduce a new forum bar to extradition, and the second would transfer to the High Court the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for considering representations on human rights grounds. I have decided that we should seize the opportunity provided by the Bill so that we can give effect to the changes as soon as possible.

I am grateful to the House for allowing me to explain those key provisions. The Bill will build on our reforms of the policing landscape by delivering an effective national response to serious and organised crime and securing our borders, while also strengthening public confidence in the justice system. Its provisions are timely and important, and I commend it to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that the reforms of family courts will have a great many benefits. They are the result of independent reviews, and a considerable amount of work over some time, to establish how those courts can be improved, particularly from the point of view of the children involved. We certainly support measures in the family courts that can improve support for children, including child protection.

There are clearly problems on the international front in regard to the work that the NCA will do. Let me now deal with some of the issues on the domestic front. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to strengthen national action against serious crimes, but, as was pointed out by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the new National Crime Agency faces increased responsibilities with a budget 20% lower than that of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It will supposedly do everything that SOCA did while picking up new responsibilities from the National Policing Improvement Agency, doing extra work at Britain’s borders, and expanding work on tackling cybercrime and on tackling economic and financial crime. It is going to do this with, by my assessment, a cut in the budget of at least £80 million—as the Home Affairs Committee Chair has suggested, the budget cut could be considerably more.

The detail of how the NCA will work remains confused. We still do not know how it will relate to the new police and crime commissioners, who will not be consulted on the NCA’s strategic priorities but whose forces will have to respond and do what the NCA says. Legally, the Bill provides for the NCA to direct chief constables over resources and priorities in their areas, but can a police and crime commissioner who disagrees sack the chief constable? How will this be resolved? What will the relationship be between the NCA, the UK Border Force and the UK Border Agency? Will the NCA be able to task border officials in the way that it will be able to task chief constables, or is the border command to be simply a co-ordinating committee? Questions are also unanswered in relation to the economic command. What will the relationship be with the Serious Fraud Office and with the City of London police on economic crime? Will the NCA be able to set tasks for the SFO, or is the economic command just another co-ordinating committee?

None of those things is clear. The Home Office has promised that many of the questions would be answered by the framework document, yet it still has not been published. Under pressure from their lordships, the Home Secretary has finally published an outline framework document, but it is hardly illuminating; all it gives is a list of bullet points. For example, it contains the heading:

“Accountability to the Home Secretary”.

Under that heading the bullet point simply reads:

“How that accountability relationship will be supported by Home Office officials”.

That is all it says, so this is not a framework document; it is simply a Home Secretary to-do list.

Again, we are being given a lack of detail, even though we know that detail matters. The Home Office’s failure to provide the detail in debates in this House on previous legislation has caused considerable problems; one such example was the failure on detail that meant that £350,000 had to be spent reprinting the ballots for the Welsh police and crime commissioner elections.

Big policy areas are also not being addressed here. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is being absorbed into the NCA, despite the reservations of many experts. More importantly, the Home Secretary is missing the opportunity to strengthen the work on child protection and tackling sexual exploitation at a vital time, and to set up an overarching review, led by child protection experts, into how Jimmy Savile was able to get away with terrible abuse of children over many years.

The Home Secretary also referred to the counter-terror measures raised in the House of Lords, where her proposal to transfer counter-terror from the Met to the NCA has raised considerable alarm. I welcome her saying that she will consider the points raised on whether that should be done in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. The former Met commissioner Lord Blair said:

“in my lifetime no change more significant than this in the policing arrangements to protect our nation has ever been contemplated…Such a decision deserves primary legislation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 115.]

Former Met commissioner Lord Condon has said:

“This is a hugely important matter that deserves primary legislation rather than an affirmative order…History tells us that more than 80% of terrorist incidents in this country happen in London.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 116.]

Of course, even more of the counter-terror problems will lie with the Met now that the Home Secretary has removed relocation from control orders.

[Mrs May]

May I just correct the right hon. Lady on one point she made? She said that this Bill dealt with my “proposal” to move national responsibility for counter-terrorism policing from the Met to the NCA. I made it clear in my speech that I have no preconceived idea on this matter, but as we set up a national crime agency to deal with serious, organised and complex crime it is right that the question be asked, when that agency is up and running, about where it is appropriate for counter-terrorism policing to lie. That will take place after a proper review. As I say, I have no preconceived idea about this, so it is not the case that this Bill deals with a specific proposal.

[Yvette Cooper]

I must then say to the Home Secretary that she does not need to legislate for it now. If she has genuinely not made a decision, why take pre-emptive legislative powers for a decision she has not yet taken and a review she has not yet done? She will know that the nature of the Home Office means that Home Office legislation is always being introduced, and there will be plenty of opportunity for primary legislation and a proper debate in this House and in the other place. How are Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords, where, as she knows, there is considerable expertise on counter-terror and on policing, supposed to debate a hypothetical proposition—she now says she has not yet made it—and a decision she has not yet reached? It would be far better to respect the expertise in the other place and the views of this House by not legislating now on this matter, by holding a proper review, and by having that genuine debate on it and then coming back to the House with proper proposals in primary legislation, if she so concludes that it is the right thing to do.

We will also wish to discuss other areas of the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will also now accept the Lords amendments on the regulation of bailiffs, adding safeguards to prevent abuse. We also hope that she will support our proposals to go even further with stronger powers for immigration officers to tackle illegal immigration. She has raised the issue of the forum bar, on which she wishes to introduce amendments, and we hope that extensive discussion can take place on that. We have discussed it briefly when she has made statements to the House before and we are keen to work with her on how to make that bar effective. As she knows, some legislation is already on the statute book on this issue, but all sides have found it difficult to work out how to make the detail work. We therefore look forward to those discussions.

We also wish to discuss stronger checks and balances for the NCA through the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The safeguards in respect of the IPCC looking at the NCA are astonishingly weak in the Bill, and we hope the Home Secretary will strengthen them. She will also know from the points that hon. Members have made that there is concern about visa appeals. The point she needs to consider is that in a third of cases looked at by the inspector the entry clearance officer had not considered the evidence properly. That was not about new evidence; the entry clearance officer had not considered the existing evidence properly. So there is a serious concern about the quality of the initial decision making.

We also want to deal with the issue of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that before that comes up in Committee the Home Secretary and her Ministers will be able to provide the House with an assessment of the impact of section 5 on different groups, particularly vulnerable and minority ones. Many people have said that the existing section 5 has formed some kind of protection for them, so it would be helpful to know that before we reach that point in Committee.

Ibrahim Magag

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the disappearance of Ibrahim Magag.

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

On 26 December 2012, Ibrahim Magag, a Somali-born British national who is subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, failed to report for his overnight residence requirement. As I told the House yesterday, the police believe that he has absconded, and his whereabouts are currently unknown.

On 31 December, at the request of the police, I asked the High Court to revoke the anonymity order that was in force in relation to Magag. The police subsequently issued a public appeal for information that might lead to his location and apprehension. The Government took steps to inform Parliament of this incident as soon as it was lawful and operationally possible to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), spoke to the Chairmen of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on 31 December. This was followed by letters to both Committee Chairmen, to the shadow Home Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker. Copies of the letters were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.

The statements that the police issued on 31 December and 2 January confirm that, at this time, Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public. The TPIM notice in this case was intended primarily to prevent fundraising and overseas travel. The Government do not believe that Magag’s disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK. Nevertheless, we are of course taking this matter very seriously.

The police are doing everything in their power to apprehend Magag as quickly as possible. Although I cannot give operational details, I can confirm that the police, the Security Service and other agencies are devoting significant resources to the search for Magag. Members of the public with any information relating to the search should contact the confidential police anti-terrorist hotline.

Before the shadow Home Secretary stands up again, I would like to remind the House that this is not the first abscond of a terror suspect. In six years of control orders, there were seven absconds, of which six were never apprehended. Magag’s abscond is serious, and the authorities are doing everything they can to locate him. I will update the House when there are further developments as soon as it is possible to do so.

[Yvette Cooper]

Ibrahim Magag is still missing after 13 days, and the Home Secretary clearly has no idea where he is. The first priority must be to find him, and she should tell us more about the additional resources being put into the search. Will she also tell us what the threat assessment really is? She said that the risk simply related to “fundraising and overseas travel”, yet the courts have said that Magag has attended terrorist training camps in Somalia, that he was fundraising for known terrorists and that

“the operational tempo and capability of the group of extremists based in London will be degraded by removing his operational role from London”.

Does the Home Secretary think that that threat assessment still holds?

How was Magag able to abscond in the first place? Was he even under surveillance at the time? Cabwise, a trade news service for London cabbies, reported yesterday that Magag

“used a London taxi in the vicinity of Triton Street at around 17:20 on 26 December.”

Is that true? Is the Home Secretary worried that surveillance can be shaken off simply by jumping into a black cab?

The Home Secretary allowed Ibrahim Magag to return to London. She has not answered the question from the independent reviewer, David Anderson, about whether it would have been harder to abscond in the west country, where Magag was made to live under a control order and where it would have been harder for him to get help from his associates, harder to hide and harder to get forged papers. She knows that relocation makes it harder to abscond, because she has included it in her draft emergency terror legislation.

The Home Secretary referred to the early years of control orders, but David Anderson, the independent reviewer has said:

“The absence of absconds since mid-2007 has coincided with the trend away from light touch control orders, and/or the more extensive use of relocation.”

The right hon. Lady chose to ditch relocations, and she has personally made it easier for people to abscond. Other people previously relocated under control orders are also now back in London on terrorism prevention and investigation measures. Could any one of them simply jump into a black cab tomorrow and be off?

Will the Home Secretary ask the independent reviewer urgently to investigate the failures of this case and to review the issue of relocation? She has ignored security advice before and someone involved in terrorism is now out on our streets. She must not ignore the evidence on relocations. She should put the national interest ahead of her political interests and stop ducking the issue. Is it not time that she took some responsibility and sorted this mess out?

[Mrs May]

I am very sorry that the shadow Home Secretary chose to pursue that line in relation to this case. Let me repeat the key fact that she does not seem to want to accept—that this is not the first time that somebody has absconded. She seems to think that it is all down to the difference between control orders and TPIMs, but in six years of control orders there were seven absconds and six of the individuals involved were never apprehended.

The right hon. Lady keeps saying that it is all down to whether we have the power to relocate, but relocation powers were available throughout the history of control orders and they did not prevent seven absconds by control order subjects. If she will not listen to me, perhaps she will listen to the police and the Security Service, which made it absolutely clear at the time TPIMs were introduced that there should be no substantial increase in overall risk and that appropriate arrangements were in place for the transition from control orders to TPIMs—and that remains their position.

The right hon. Lady asked about the current level of risk. I repeat what I said in response to her question—that the statements the police issued on 31 December and on 2 January confirm that at this time Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public, and that the Government do not believe that his disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK.

The right hon. Lady made a number of references to David Anderson, the independent reviewer. He has said:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”

I agree, which is why we provided extra funding to the Security Service and the police when we introduced TPIMs to maximise the opportunities to prosecute terrorists in open court and to minimise the risk they pose to national security. The alternatives—whether we are talking about TPIMs or control orders—are highly useful disruptive tools, but because they do not involve locking people up, as the history of control orders shows, there will always be a risk of abscond.

Currently, the police and other agencies are, as I have said, working very hard to apprehend Ibrahim Magag. They have taken the operational decisions that needed to be taken and the way in which they pursue their inquiries is an operational matter for them. When the dust has settled, we will look again to see whether any lessons need to be learned. The independent reviewer produces an annual report that covers TPIMs, and I fully expect him to cover them in his review. I say to the shadow Home Secretary, however, that all she has done in highlighting this matter is to demonstrate the weakness of her argument, as what she says about TPIMs was also true of control orders. I hope that the whole House will join me in supporting the police, the Security Service and other agencies in continuing their work and in keeping our country safe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Since the previous Government introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, it has been more difficult, has it not, to strike the right balance between the rights of terrorists and the proportionate protection of society from the threat they present? Should we not be thinking about the long- term future of the Human Rights Act, notwithstanding the support it has from Opposition Members?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend tempts me down a road that, if I were to travel down it, would probably necessitate a rather longer response than the pithy answer you have requested of me, Mr. Speaker. I can tell him, however, that the Government are looking at the Human Rights Act, and that the Commission on a Bill of Rights is considering what legislative support we should have in relation to human rights.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the security Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—for contacting me about this matter on new year’s eve. May I briefly express two concerns? First, it has been alleged that Magag was forging passports while he was in the camp in Somalia. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the police have his passport so that he is not able to travel abroad? Secondly, will she personally review the arrangements for the other nine people who are subject to TPIMs, in order to be satisfied that they are all in place and are secure?

[Mrs May]

The issue of the passport has not been discussed openly in public, but given the right hon. Gentleman’s position I shall be happy to talk to him about it on Privy Council terms. As for his second question, when one TPIM subject absconds, the agencies take appropriate steps to look at other TPIM subjects.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the whole concept of internal exile without trial is abhorrent? Labour should never have introduced such a Stalinist, authoritarian approach, and she was right to get rid of it. Someone who has committed a terrorist offence should be tried, convicted and jailed, not exiled indefinitely without trial.

[Mrs May]

As I explained in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, one of the purposes of the extra resources that we provided for the Security Service and the police following the introduction of TPIMs was to improve their ability to identify opportunities for prosecution. As was pointed out by the independent reviewer, the best place for a terrorist suspect is behind bars.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary decided to rebalance in favour of civil liberties rather than security, and that cost £50 million. Will she answer this question? Did the absence of relocation affect the ability of this individual to abscond?

[Mrs May]

When the Government took office they decided to review counter-terrorism legislation. There was a public consultation, and a number of changes were made as a result. It is possible for people to abscond from wherever they are; indeed, three of the control order subjects who absconded did so from outside London.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Is not one of the root causes of the current problem the fact that members of the Labour Government allowed so many of these people to have visas and passports, letting them stay in the United Kingdom? Is it not time that we rounded up as many of them as possible, and established grounds on which to strip them of their visas and passports and deport them to whichever hellhole they came from and wish to emulate?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his normal forthright manner. I can tell him that the Government view national security as an absolute priority and take every possible step to keep the public safe, through deportations when they are possible, through the application of TPIMs, or through other measures.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

On many occasions the Home Secretary has been at pains to reassure the House that the extra measures are sufficient to mitigate any increased risk caused by the absence of a relocation power and the move from control orders to TPIMs. Why were those additional resources not effective in this case?

[Mrs May]

It is true that when we introduced TPIMs we made extra resources available to the Security Service and the police. However, as I said in my original response in relation to whatever powers actually exist, the best place for a terrorist or a terrorist suspect is behind bars, because without that there is a risk of absconding.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crude political posturing of Labour Members is all the more ironic given that they did not even vote against TPIMs when the Government proposed their introduction, and given that they lost seven people under control orders, six of whom have never been seen again?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The point that the shadow Home Secretary seems incapable of accepting is that under control orders with relocation powers, seven people absconded.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is at pains to say that it is not all about relocation, and she reminds the House that she chose to legislate to give these suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, and for a sunset clause that would kill this regime off after two years even if the threat level from the individual had not changed. Given the disappearance of Mr Magag, does she not regret regarding increased risk to the public and unnecessary extra pressure on the police and the security services as an acceptable price to pay and as, in the end, a civil liberties pose rather than a move to increase national security?

[Mrs May]

I am confident in the TPIM package that was available—the TPIM measures plus the extra resources that were made available to the Security Service and the police. We of course consulted on them at the time this was done. As I said in response to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), they were clear that there was no substantial increase in risk, and that remains their position.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to avoid such dangerous individuals being loose in our society is to improve our ability to intercept their communications? Will she therefore agree to carry on supporting the telecommunications Bill—which I hope will come before the House—so that our agencies can do the best job they can?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to improve and develop the ability of the agencies to have access to communications data. That, if I might gently remind my hon. Friend, is not about intercepting data. Intercept of data is a separate issue under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but it is true that we need access to those communications data. As terrorists and others—organised criminals, paedophiles and others—use new means to communicate, it is important that the Government have access to the communications data from those new means of communications.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has repeated several times this afternoon that the Security Service and the police advised that there would be no substantial increase in risk as a result of the introduction of TPIMs, but the question that she is singularly failing to answer is how she can justify any increase in risk to the safety of this nation. Or is she saying that the absconding of Mr Magag and the more relaxed conditions that allowed it to happen are now part of an additional but acceptable risk that she is prepared to take?

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said to him on a number of occasions, because he has asked a number of questions in relation to TPIMs—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he will continue to do so, and I will continue to answer them in the same way. When we looked at the legislation, we did introduce the TPIMs. One of the purposes of the TPIMs was to ensure that people were better able to find evidence that would lead to prosecutions. Extra resources were given to the Security Service and the police at the time, and the Security Service and the police at the time and now are clear that there was no substantial increase in risk.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my experience, the very best way of stopping potential terrorists in action, in thought or in any deed is to relocate them. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the measure? I was always uneasy about changing from control orders.

[Mrs May]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that my view, as I have stated this afternoon, is clearly that the best way to deal with terrorists and terrorist suspects is to be able to prosecute them and put them behind bars.

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

Apparently, during the period that he was supposedly subject to a TPIM, this man was allowed to meet regularly with other known extremists. Why did the Home Secretary think that was a good idea?

[Mrs May]

For every individual who is placed on a TPIM, there is a particular package of measures that is part of that. The details of that are operational matters. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the package of measures is carefully considered for each individual and is reviewed regularly.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that more people absconded under the previous Government than under this Government? While she is at it, will she remind the House that under the previous Government and under the control order regime there were more absconds that were not based in London?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has put it well and put it on the record. It is the singular fact that the shadow Home Secretary is reluctant to accept—indeed, will not accept—that there were seven absconds under control orders, and six of those individuals were never apprehended.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Even if Magag does not pose a direct, imminent terror threat, as the Home Secretary claims, does she not accept that his presence in a city such as London is of great concern and risks radicalising young vulnerable people such as some in my constituency? What assurances can she give that that will not happen?

[Mrs May]

We take that individual’s abscond extremely seriously, as I have said. The police, the Security Service and other agencies are working and putting resources into trying to apprehend him. That is entirely right and, as I said earlier, I hope the whole House will support the police and the other agencies in doing that.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does not the fact that six people absconded under the control orders and were never found show the major flaws in the control order system? Can my right hon. Friend set out how the TPIM system, with the extra resources thrown at it, is much more advantageous?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: the Opposition fail to accept that under the control order regime there were seven absconds, six of whom were not apprehended. That was under a regime that had the relocation power. What we did with TPIMs and in giving extra resources to the police and the Security Service was to put in place the regime that was appropriate for national security, but which also should allow greater opportunities for prosecution.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The background to this is clear. Under control orders, people absconded, so the extra power to enforce their relocation was used and as a result, during the next four years, no one absconded. The Home Secretary made a political decision to get rid of that power and allowed this man to come back, live where he wants, mix with whoever he likes and as a result, within 12 months he has absconded. That is what happened. It is clear. Is it true—yes or no—did he just ring a cab?

[Mrs May]

The situation that the hon. Gentleman portrays in the whole of his question is not the situation that pertains. I made it clear in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) that for any individual on TPIMs a range of measures can be applied, including, for example, listing those with whom they may not associate. Those measures are put in place for each individual. They are carefully considered and regularly reassessed.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue is not about relocation orders but about the extra resources that were given to the police and security services when TPIMs were introduced? Can she reassure me that those extra resources are being used with specific reference to this person so that he can be apprehended as soon as possible?

[Mrs May]

The extra resources that were available were to be used on the introduction of the TPIMs and for a period of time in terms of the individuals who were on TPIMs and the TPIM regime that had been introduced. In relation to resources for the potential apprehension of Ibrahim Magag, I am assured by the police and others that they have the resources that they consider necessary to be able to conduct the inquiries and the search they are conducting.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, why cannot we all be told whether the authorities have Magag’s passport? Do not the public have a right to know?

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I can answer the question in this way. There are certain facts in relation to an individual that are not publicly known because they are subject to an anonymity order, and there are various legal issues relating to that. If I may go away and check those issues, and if it is possible to make a public reference in the House in relation to the passport issue, I will place a letter in the Library of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Home Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation.