Justice and Home Affairs: Pre-Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council will be held on 12 and 13 March in Brussels. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy (Lord Faulks QC) and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Interior session on 12 March will begin in mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States). The Council will discuss migration in the context of ongoing migratory pressures on member states and further deaths in the Mediterranean following the recent unseasonal increase in sea crossings. This discussion will also anticipate the Commission’s forthcoming proposals on a new ‘European Agenda on Migration’. The Government have offered their broad support for the Commission’s intention to pursue a more coherent and co-ordinated approach to work with key countries of origin and transit, and to better linking action ‘upstream’ to migration and asylum policies within the EU. Any new agenda should maintain the approach set out in the October JHA Council’s conclusions on migratory pressures, including maintaining the EU’s focus on work upstream and ensuring that all member states meet their responsibilities regarding migration, asylum and border management.

The presidency has tabled an item on Bulgarian and Romanian accession to Schengen, at the request of Romania and Bulgaria, who are seeking to finalise their accession to the borders aspects of the Schengen acquis—which does not affect the UK—and then lower border controls with their EU neighbours. However, accession remains blocked by a number of the member states concerned. The presidency may well withdraw it from the agenda (as they did in October and December). As this currently concerns only borders elements of Schengen, the UK does not have a vote.

Greece has asked for the Greek action plan on asylum and migration to be placed on the agenda. The UK has worked closely with Greece over the last five years, both bilaterally and through the EU European Asylum Support Office, to help build its asylum and border security capacity to make it harder for illegal immigrants to enter the EU; and ensure that if they do get into Greece, a viable asylum system exists so they are more likely to remain there than move on. Much progress has been made but momentum needs to be maintained, both to ensure that Greece continues building an effective asylum and border control system, and that ultimately Dublin returns may resume to that country.

During the main Interior meeting the Council will discuss counter terrorism where the presidency intends to agree a “road map” for the implementation of measures agreed at January’s informal JHA Council in Riga and at the recent European Council. The EU Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, is pressing for this to focus on the possible amendment to the Schengen borders code (to allow routine checks on EEA nationals entering the Schengen area), firearms and internet referrals. The UK will push again for progress on intra-EEA PNR and press for more effective information exchange, in order to counter the opportunities that free movement within the EU provides to terrorists.

Justice day will begin with the Latvian presidency seeking a partial general approach on chapters II, VI and VII of the proposed data protection regulation. Chapter II deals with the key principles underpinning the instrument, including the conditions for using consent as a legal basis for data processing. Chapters VI and VII provide for the so-called “One-Stop-Shop” which seeks to provide a streamlined regulatory framework where business and citizens only have to deal with one data protection authority with the greater legal certainty that provides. The presidency’s overarching ambition remains to secure a general approach at the June Justice and Home Affairs Council on this file. The Government remain committed to seeing a proportionate regulation which balances the rights of individuals and the legitimate needs of private and public sector organisations to process personal data.

There will be a discussion on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) proposal. We expect debate to centre on structural and related internal issues. While the UK plays an active role in the negotiations in order to shape and protect our position as a non-participating member state, we do not anticipate a need to intervene on these internal matters.

The presidency will present a general approach in relation to the directive on Legal Aid. This proposal aims to establish common rules to ensure that any persons suspected or accused of a crime, whose liberty is being deprived at the early stage of proceedings, have immediate access to legal aid. During negotiations, the Council has considered questions around the scope of the directive. The UK has not opted in to this proposal though it monitors negotiations.

The presidency will present a general approach in relation to the Commission’s proposal to reform Eurojust, covering the whole text of the proposal with all references to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) removed. Given that Eurojust’s relationship with the EPPO is not covered in the revised text, it is impossible to take a definitive view on items such as governance arrangements. However, the presidency’s general approach text is broadly positive from a UK perspective. One of our key concerns was to ensure that member states are not obliged to give additional powers to their National members. It should also be noted that, even if a general approach is agreed (as per the presidency’s plan), there is no guarantee that the European Parliament will be in a position to start trilogue negotiations immediately given it has been slower than the Council in dealing with the file.

The presidency will then seek a partial general approach on the proposed regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. This will cover the chapters which deal with the abolition of apostilles, use of the internal market information (IMI) online system and rationalisation of certified copies, translations and administrative co-operation between member states through an online system. It will exclude the chapter and articles on multilingual forms. A political declaration to guard against the EU being given exclusive external competence on areas covered by this regulation is also expected to be presented at the meeting.

Over lunch, the presidency proposes a discussion on tackling radicalisation in prisons, an area where the UK can offer to share best practice to other member states.

[HCWS351]

Strategic Policing Requirement Refresh

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Written Statements

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

The strategic policing requirement (SPR) sets out my view, as Home Secretary, of the national threats that the police must address and the national policing capabilities required to counter those threats. The national threats currently in the SPR are terrorism, civil emergencies, public disorder, cyber-security incidents and serious and organised crime. The SPR supports police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and chief constables in balancing local and national priorities effectively, and in driving improvements to their force’s response to serious and cross-boundary threats.

I am today issuing a revised and updated SPR which confirms the validity of the existing threats and, for the first time, makes child sexual abuse an additional national threat.

This will ensure that PCCs and chief constables prioritise an issue of growing national importance. It will encourage a collaborative approach to building the capability needed to tackle child sexual abuse, including efficient sharing of resources, intelligence and best practice, and deliver a more effective and integrated policing response.

The other changes in the revised SPR include:

Adopting the definition of a “national”—rather than “large-scale”—cyber-security incident, as set out in the Cabinet Office national cyber-security incident management policy, to achieve greater clarity and consistency in the articulation of the cyber-threat;

updating the definition of “cyber-crime” in line with the definition provided in the serious and organised crime strategy;

including references to regional and organised crime units (ROCUs) in recognition of the important role they play in tackling serious and organised crime; providing a national network of regional capabilities; and

widening the scope of the civil emergency threat to ensure that it is not limited to coastal flooding and includes all those contingencies that require an aggregated response across force boundaries.

My officials have had extensive engagement with police leaders and other partners to review and revise the SPR. PCCs and forces will be expected to have regard to the refreshed SPR when exercising their responsibilities to deliver the changes that have been introduced.

I have placed copies of the SPR in the House of Commons Library and an electronic copy can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic- policing-requirement

[HCWS329]

Child Sexual Exploitation

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Written Statements

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

Professor Alexis Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and Louise Casey’s follow up report on the performance of Rotherham council both provide a terrible account of the appalling failures by the council, the police and other agencies to protect vulnerable children. The culture of complete denial that was uncovered by Professor Jay persists today. That is why immediate action has been taken to protect the children of Rotherham through the appointment of five commissioners to take on the full range of the authority’s executive functions and begin a rapid improvement programme; and the launch of an independent two-stage investigation into child sexual exploitation and abuse in Rotherham—Operation Stovewood run by the National Crime Agency.

I have been clear that the situation in Rotherham is only the tip of the iceberg. We need to confront these failures at a national level which is why in September last year I announced that I would chair a series of meetings with other responsible Secretaries of State to look at the failures highlighted in Professor Jay’s inquiry at the Prime Minister’s request.

I have chaired a number of these meetings with the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government, Education, Health, and Justice, and the Solicitor-General. Today the Government publish a report setting out the actions we are taking in response to Professor Jay’s and Louise Casey’s findings.

The actions will strengthen accountability and leadership in professions and local government; address the culture of inaction and denial that led to victims being dismissed and ignored; improve joint working and information sharing so that agencies intervene early; strengthen the protection of children who are at risk; reinforce law enforcement efforts to stop offenders; and provide greater support for victims and survivors. Among these actions are:

The establishment of a new independent taskforce, bringing together specialists in social care, law enforcement and health, which will be deployed in local authorities where child abuse is a concern. Linked to the taskforce, will be a new centre of professional expertise, which will develop better approaches to tackling sexual abuse.

The launch of a £1 million communications campaign, to promote a wider understanding of what people should do when they suspect a child is being abused. This will be accompanied with revised guidance, “What to do if you are worried a child is being abused”, for professionals, the public, and children.

The creation of a new single point of contact for child abuse related whistleblowing, which will monitor patterns of failure across the country. We will make clear that all organisations with safeguarding responsibilities should have internal whistleblowing policies.

A new system of multi-agency inspections, to examine whether local agencies are working in a co-ordinated manner, sharing information and taking joint decisions to protect children.

Failure of agencies to share information about children at risk was a critical element of what happened in Rotherham. Today, my ministerial colleagues and I have written to the leaders of every local authority, directors of children’s services, police and crime commissioners, local safeguarding children’s boards, health and wellbeing boards and GPs, making clear that there can be no justification for failing to share personal information about a child when that information could be used to protect that child’s life.

The Government are clear that child sexual exploitation must be stopped. Work is already under way to put into practice these and other proposals.

A copy of the Government’s response will be placed in the House Library.

I would also like to give an update on Home Office work in response to allegations in Professor Jay’s report that the Department had been made aware of the problems in Rotherham in 2002, but had failed to take action on this information. I gave an assurance that the Home Office would conduct an internal investigation to ascertain what happened, which Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC would then review to ensure it had been undertaken absolutely properly. My Department has been undertaking detailed searches of Home Office files and records of the time—and potentially relevant files and records across Government—to establish what information was passed to the Department about child sexual abuse in Rotherham and what action was taken as a result. Searches of the Department’s digital holdings are still ongoing and we expect to be able to provide the completed investigation to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC in the next three months, subject to their availability.

[HCWS328]

Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s counter-terrorism policy and implications for individuals travelling to the Iraq/Syria conflict zones.

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

As the Government have made clear repeatedly, the threat we face from terrorism is grave and is growing. The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on operational matters and individual cases, but the threat level in the United Kingdom, which is set by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, is at severe. This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely and could occur without warning.

The Government have consistently and emphatically advised against all travel to Syria and parts of Iraq. Anyone who travels to these areas is putting themselves in considerable danger, and the impact that such a decision can have on families and communities can be devastating.

The serious nature of the threat we face is exactly why the Government have been determined to act. We have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget up to and including 2015-16, and increased the budget for the security and intelligence agencies. In addition, we have provided an additional £130 million to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities and help address the threat from ISIL, and we have taken significant steps to ensure that the police and the security services have the powers and capabilities they need.

Last year, we acted swiftly to protect vital capabilities that allow the police and the security services to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to clarify the law in respect of interception for communications-service providers. This year we have introduced the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. This has provided the police with a power to seize a passport at the border temporarily, during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned—and I can confirm that this power has already been used. It has created a temporary exclusion order that allows for the managed return to the UK of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad. It has strengthened the existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures regime so that, among other measures, subjects can be made to relocate to another part of the country, and it has enhanced our border security for aviation, maritime and rail travel, with provisions relating to passenger data, no-fly lists, and security and screening measures.

Since its national roll-out in April 2012, more than 2,000 people have been referred to Channel, the Government’s programme for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, many of whom might have gone on to be radicalised or to fight in Syria. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 has now placed Channel on a statutory basis. It has also placed our Prevent work on a statutory basis, which will mean that schools, colleges, universities, prisons, local government and the police will have to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Already since 2012, local Prevent projects have reached more than 55,000 people and have helped young people and community groups to understand and challenge extremist narratives, including those of ISIL.

In addition to this work, alongside the checks we already conduct on a significant number of passengers who leave the UK, we have committed to reintroducing exit checks, and arrangements to do so will be in place by April 2015. These will extend our ability to identify persons of interest from a security, criminal, immigration or customs perspective. And as the Prime Minister stated last week, the Transport Secretary and I will be working with airlines to put proportionate arrangements in place to ensure that children who are at risk are properly identified and questioned.

The Government are taking robust action, but we have been clear that tackling the extremist threat that we face is not just a job for the Government, the police and the security services; it needs everyone to play their part. It requires educational institutions, social media companies, communities, religious leaders and families to help to protect people vulnerable to radicalisation and to confront this poisonous ideology. If we are to defeat this appalling threat and ideology, we must all work together.

[Yvette Cooper]

An estimated 600 British citizens have now travelled to join the conflict in Syria, from extremists with a terrorist history to 15-year-old schoolgirls. The whole House will share a revulsion at the barbarism of ISIL, a determination to tackle extremism and strong support for the vital and unsung work of the security services and the police to tackle the threat here and abroad. Members on both sides of the House have also recently supported further legislation to tackle the terrorist threat. However, there are specific areas in which we need answers about Government policies and decisions.

First, we need answers on the handling of a west London network of terror suspects. In 2011, court papers described a network including three individuals relocated on control orders, 10 other named individuals and further unnamed individuals based in west London who were

“involved in the provision of funds and equipment”

to terrorism and the

“facilitation of individuals’ travel from the UK”

to join terrorist-related activity.

The Home Secretary’s decision, against advice, to abolish control orders and cancel relocations was implemented in 2012, meaning that no one could then be relocated, despite the continued police view that relocation was one of the best ways to disrupt terrorist networks. One of those who had been relocated absconded in a London black cab; another associate absconded wearing a burqa. Other men from that west London network have been reported in the media as subsequently leaving for Syria and becoming involved in brutal violence. The Home Secretary has finally restored the relocation powers within the past few weeks. Does she believe that her decision to remove those relocation powers made it easier for that west London network to operate, recruit and send people to Syria? Will she now ask the independent terrorism reviewer or the Intelligence and Security Committee to consider the details of that west London network and to assess whether Government policy made it easier for it to operate and harder for the police and the Security Service to disrupt it?

Secondly, we need to know about the Government’s policy to prevent young people and children from travelling to Syria, in the light of the distressing story of three schoolgirls from east London travelling there. I have not had a reply to my letter to the Home Secretary of last Wednesday, so will she tell us now whether the Government had an agreement in place with the airlines to raise alerts over unaccompanied minors travelling on known Syrian routes? If not, why not? And will she put such an agreement in place now? The girls flew out on Tuesday, but they did not leave Istanbul bus station until late Wednesday. It is reported that the police contacted the London embassy on Wednesday, but when were the Istanbul authorities alerted, and when were checks made at the main airports and train and bus stations in that city?

One pupil from Bethnal Green academy is reported to have left for Syria before Christmas, and it is widely known that recruitment is taking place through friendship groups and social media. What training and support was given to the teachers and parents of other children at Bethnal Green academy to prevent further recruitment, grooming and radicalisation? What community-led Prevent programmes is the Home Office currently supporting in Bethnal Green?

When the Home Secretary came to office and changed policy to end relocation orders and to remove community work from Prevent, she claimed that previous policies had failed to tackle extremism and she promised:

“We will not make the same mistakes”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 52.]

We need answers from her now about the mistakes that have been made under this Government, so that we can all work together to strengthen counter-terrorism policy in the face of these serious threats.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of serious issues. She asked about Prevent and on that I have to say to her that she needs to stop using the numbers she likes to quote. She tries to compare Prevent before the election with Prevent after the election, but in 2011 we took the very important decision to split work on integration, which is now the sole responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and Prevent. That was done for very good reasons, and if the right hon. Lady wants to securitise integration work again, I suggest to her that she has not learned from the mistakes made by her Government. I would like her to say, at some stage: whether she supports the changes we have made to Prevent; whether she supports the fact that Prevent now looks at non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism; and whether she supports the changes we have made to make sure that no public money finds its way to extremists, as it did under her Government.

The right hon. Lady made various comments about TPIMs, and has done so outside this Chamber, asking why I did not put certain individuals on TPIMs. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I think she should understand how TPIMs work and how control orders worked. I do not decide to put somebody on a TPIM; the Security Service makes an application to me for permission to put somebody on a TPIM and if it has made a strong enough case, I approve the application. If she thinks that the Home Secretary should be taking operational decisions, I suggest that she should study the history of our constitution.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of control orders, but, as I have said at this Dispatch Box many times, control orders were being whittled away by the courts—they were not a sustainable system. TPIMs have, in contrast, consistently been upheld by the courts. She mentioned relocation, and, of course, the House has just passed the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which adds relocation to the TPIM regime. I understand that she told the BBC on Sunday:

“I think effectively—

that TPIMs and control orders are—

“the same thing if you bring the relocation powers back”.

That is precisely what we have done.

The right hon. Lady says the power to relocate has not always been there, but what she fails to say is that the cases that have been raised in the media date from the time when control orders and the power of relocation were in place. At no point has anybody from the police or Security Service said to me that if we had the power of relocation we would be able to prevent people from travelling to Syria. Indeed, at the weekend, Helen Ball, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said—and they have said consistently—

“short of locking someone up for 24 hours a day, you can’t eliminate the risk they pose.”

The shadow Home Secretary herself said yesterday about control orders:

“We can’t pretend it’s going to solve all of the problems.”

I agree with her, which is why we consistently look at the powers available to the police and the security services in dealing with this issue. But, as I made absolutely clear in the answer to her question, this is not just a question of government and the powers we give to the police and to the security services; this is about families and communities as well, and we all need to work together to ensure that we can defeat this poisonous ideology.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The Home Secretary should be wary of taking advice from Labour Members on control orders, because under the last four years of their regime seven of the so-called “control order” subjects absconded, in some cases, as we know, to commit jihad abroad. However, will she revisit the issue of using intercept evidence in court, as the best protection of the British public is provided by being able to prosecute, convict and lock up the people who are a threat to the British public?

[Mrs May]

I agree that the best way of dealing with these people who pose a threat is to prosecute them and lock them up. That view has been shared with the assistant commissioner with responsibility for counter-terrorism. Indeed the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, also made that point. On the question about intercept as evidence, that issue has been looked at on a number of occasions over the years. Most recently, it was considered by a cross-party Privy Council group, which reported some months ago and made it absolutely clear that, in the current situation, it was not appropriate to change the arrangements such that intercept should be used as evidence.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Ind)]

No one is suggesting that there is any range of measures that would completely eliminate the risk of people travelling to Syria and Iraq. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has certainly not done so. But since the Home Secretary has now reintroduced the power of relocation, does she not accept that removing that power in 2011 was a mistake?

[Mrs May]

We took the decision that we did in 2011 based on the situation at the time. We have now reviewed the measures that are available and put other measures in place. I repeat what I said earlier, which is that some of the cases that have been quoted in the press go back to a date when control orders with relocation were in place.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is quite right that when the identity of some brainwashed, narcissistic psychopathic killer is exposed there should be wide media coverage of it? But does she also agree that a degree of self-restraint at some point should be necessary if we are not to build up these bogey men in precisely the way that they intend us to do?

[Mrs May]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Indeed, as others have said, including Helen Ball in her interview yesterday, there are other reasons why restraint should be applied, and they include when there are ongoing investigations and when there may be a risk to life involved.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Home Secretary has heard the anguished pleas of the parents of Shamina, Kadiza and Amira, the three London schoolgirls who have left this country. They left on the Tuesday, but the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey says that the Turkish authorities in Istanbul were not informed until three days later. I accept that the embassy in London may have been alerted, but this is something that should have gone straight to Istanbul. Will she look again at the circumstances so that we know exactly what the facts are, and will she look at a recommendation made by the Home Affairs Committee, which is that police spotters need to be placed in Istanbul, a destination of concern, so that immediate action can be taken if young girls disappear in this way?

[Mrs May]

I always look with great care at the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. The Metropolitan police have been absolutely clear about the date and time at which they alerted the Turkish authorities to the girls going missing. There is concern over this matter. Sadly, we have seen, over time, an increasing number of women and girls going to Syria, alongside the men and the younger boys. This is an ongoing matter, which is why Home Office officials have been talking to Turkish airlines about these issues. I will meet the Transport Secretary to see whether further arrangements can be put in place to ensure that we do not see other families facing the same trauma and stress.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We are of course all concerned about radicalisation in the UK and people going to join ISIS, but I urge the Home Secretary not to give way to the authoritarian views of the Labour party as it was wrong on identity cards, wrong on 90-day detention without charge and is wrong now. Will she update the House on what progress she has made on implementing the Anderson recommendations, which are a far more sensible way to resolve this matter?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend will know that we did in fact take on board a number of Anderson’s recommendations in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. David Anderson is carrying out a fuller review for the Government on the question of the threat, the capabilities that are needed and the regulatory framework that needs to be in place to ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the necessary powers, and I look forward to his report.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

If I knew at 7 o’clock on Wednesday evening that three girls had gone to Turkey, why did not the authorities in Istanbul?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is basing her comments on statements that have been made in Turkey. The Metropolitan police have made it very clear what the position is and when they alerted the Turkish authorities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)? I find it abhorrent that the media continue to use a photograph of a man who is a murderer, to name him and to give him an identity by giving him a nickname. That will probably reinforce the ideas of those who think that what he is doing is good and that he is some sort of modern Jesse James. I just find it abhorrent that our media continue to use this man’s name.

[Mrs May]

I will not comment on any individual case when ongoing investigations are taking place, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to do so. What I will say is that we are all appalled and shocked at the horrific barbarism that is being shown by ISIL, and we expect that to be reflected in any reporting.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary spends a great deal of time trying to persuade us that there needs to be more surveillance of everyone and that more data need to be collected. Does she not agree that recent cases suggest that the biggest problem is the incapacity of the security services—although it is not their fault—to deal adequately with the data and information that they already possess?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that I am saying that the agencies should have different capabilities. It is right that as people communicate less by telephone and more across the internet, we should update the legislation on access to communications data. This capability is not about looking at the content of any messages that people are exchanging. It is an important capability that has been there for some time and that has proved valuable not just in counter-terrorism cases, but in serious crime cases. I believe that it should be updated and a Conservative Government would certainly do that.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

It has been reported in the newspapers that one of the three poor girls was travelling on a false passport. Does that not indicate that there are severe shortcomings in the entry and exit checks by our immigration and nationality department and in the airline checks? Will my right hon. Friend commit a future Conservative Government to a root and branch re-examination of those systems?

[Mrs May]

Of course, we are reintroducing exit checks. A certain amount of advance passenger information is available from airlines. We are looking at other ports of departure and the information that can be available. As I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, exit checks will be in place in April of this year.

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

I am not aware that the media have made a hero of the individual who has been mentioned today, but is it not important to make it absolutely clear from this Parliament, not just from the Government, that the person who is responsible for the beheading of kidnapped British citizens should be brought to justice in whatever form is necessary and however long it takes?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we wish to bring to justice the individual who is responsible for the beheading of British hostages. There is an ongoing police investigation into that case and that is why I am not commenting any further on it. However, he is absolutely right that that individual should be brought to justice.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ignore any opportunistic criticism and continue to meet the difficult challenge of balancing the defence of our values and our security? Will she continue to ensure that our intelligence services and her Department learn from our experiences in this area, so that we continue to be among the best in the world at getting that balance right?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right, and of course that is what this Government have done. We have looked at the balance between people’s privacy and liberty and the need for our services to have the appropriate powers and capabilities to keep people safe. I believe that we have struck the right balance, but of course we must continue to consider the issue as matters develop and as the terrorists find new ways of communicating and of carrying out their terrible and horrific attacks. We must be ever vigilant on this matter and that is exactly what the Government have been.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about airlines and airline checks. A number of Members from all parties have been raising this concern for some months; I raised it in relation to constituents of mine who had travelled to Syria, tragically, to fight. Will the Home Secretary explain whether specific arrangements are in place with commercial airlines flying to Turkey and Cyprus, specifically with Turkish airlines?

[Mrs May]

A number of measures are put in place at our ports for people leaving the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, we are considering what further steps can be taken and, specifically, are having discussions with Turkish airlines.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the comments made by activists from Cage, an organisation that receives charitable funds? What does she make of those comments, and will she take the opportunity to thank and congratulate in this House the security and intelligence services in this country for their excellent and brave work?

[Mrs May]

To take the latter point first, the shadow Home Secretary made that point and I am happy to do that again, as I have on many occasions in the past and as I did at the weekend. The men and women working for our security services do an excellent job for us. It is challenging work that they are doing unseen and unknown and without general praise precisely because they have to be unseen and unknown. They do an excellent job for us. As for the comments made by Cage, I must say to my hon. Friend in this House that there can be no excuse for the barbarism shown by those operating in the name of ISIL. I condemn anybody who attempts to excuse that barbarism away in the way that has been done by Cage.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

May I ask the Home Secretary not to set her face completely against the potential the control orders might still offer? Will she give further thought to helping families to be more resilient, particularly when young members are susceptible to violent extremism? Will she give more support and encouragement to projects such as the JAN Trust, which are very helpful to people in that situation and certainly need to be encouraged?

[Mrs May]

The comment that has consistently been made about control orders concerns the power of relocation, but as the shadow Home Secretary said yesterday, TPIMs are effectively the same as control orders if we bring the relocation powers back, which we have done. The right hon. Gentleman is right that many good groups up and down the country are providing support for families. I launched a project by Families Against Stress and Trauma—FAST—last summer, which works with those families whose sons and daughters might have tried or might want to travel to Syria. I also commend the work of Inspire and Sara Khan, standing up with Muslim women throughout the UK against the radicalisation of young people.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

“World at One” this lunchtime carried a discussion about the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and its effect on radicalisation. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to send a clear message to universities about how they can play their part in addressing that?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to do so. It is absolutely right that we have included universities in the Prevent duty in the Act. Universities should have a duty of care for the welfare of their students. If radicalisation is taking place on their campus, they should be aware of that and willing to deal with it.

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

I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about what training and support has been provided to teachers and parents from the Bethnal Green academy since the teenager absconded at Christmastime. When does the Home Secretary expect to release the funds to schools and universities to take part in the Prevent programme?

[Mrs May]

We are finalising the Prevent guidance that is going out to universities and the other public sector bodies that are involved, and I understand that the police did have discussions with the school that the hon. Lady mentions.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the diligence she has shown in introducing various Prevent programmes to Crawley. Gatwick airport is also in my constituency, so can she say a little more about passenger name record checks for intra-EU flights, not just for those coming from outside the EU?

[Mrs May]

The whole question of exchanging passenger name records for intra-EU flights is one that I and others have been putting forward in the debate in the European Union arena for some time now. I am pleased to say that other member states have recognised the need for an EU PNR directive. It was one of the issues referred to at the recent European Council meeting. I am clear that any such directive should include the exchange of PNR for intra-EU flights. Failing that, it is open to member states to undertake bilateral agreements to that effect.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Scotland Yard’s budget for monitoring extremism on social media has been cut this year—by how much and why?

[Mrs May]

Decisions about individual aspects of Scotland Yard’s budget are a matter for the Metropolitan police. Let me be clear that the Government have protected counter-terrorism policing budgets over our period in office, and we have extended that to 2015-16.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Given that many of these terrorists represent a clear and present danger to our country, our national security and the security of individuals, is it not important that we offer our intelligence services more powers, particularly through human rights reform and a communications data Bill, to ensure that we can secure our nation properly?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact that human rights legislation has sometimes had, for example on our ability to deport certain individuals who pose a threat to us here in the UK. I am clear that we need to reform our human rights legislation and introduce a communications data Bill, and a Conservative Government after 7 May will do just that.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Why should members of the public trust for one second Ministers whose judgment was so utterly flawed that they thought terrorist suspects should be able to live wherever they want, mix with whoever they like and have access to computers and mobile phones? Is it not a fact that when we introduced relocation powers not a single terrorist suspect absconded, but when the Home Secretary got rid of them, lots of them did? [Interruption.] She can laugh all she likes, but the people out there do not think it is a laughing matter. Last week Lord Carlile said that if one of those people had been subject to a control order, they would not have been able to leave the country.

[Mrs May]

I am afraid that some of the facts that the hon. Gentleman suggests in his question are inaccurate. Control orders were being whittled away by the courts, as he knows, so we decided to introduce TPIMs. We have now enhanced TPIMs through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, and the ability to introduce a TPIM has remained available to the security services upon request to the Secretary of State.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Yesterday I attended an event in Pendle at which counter-terrorism and security were discussed. It involved the former Pakistani high commissioner, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the MEP for North West England, Sajjad Karim, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and many more, all of whom reject the idea that the so-called Islamic State has any connection with the true faith of Islam. Does my right hon. Friend agree that dialogue with the vast majority of the law-abiding Muslim community in this country is the best way to avoid radicalisation, rather than stigmatising communities, as Labour’s failed Prevent strategy did?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree. We should make it very clear that the so-called Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state. One of the best ways to prevent radicalisation is for communities themselves to stand up and say that what is being done by terrorists is not being done in their name. I commend those imams and others from Muslim communities across the country who have responded to events such as the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, the beheading of hostages and recent terrorist incidents in Europe and elsewhere precisely by saying that it is not in their name and that it is not about Islam; it is about a poisonous ideology.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It should not have to be said that the people who were subject to control orders and those who are now subject to TPIMs are very dangerous people indeed. Does the Home Secretary not recognise that the changes that she instigated in 2011 to counter-terrorism laws, particularly the decision to remove the powers of relocation, did not help? I think she does recognise that, from the fact that she had to reintroduce them three years later. Will she say sorry?

[Mrs May]

I can only repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said in answer to a number of questions on this matter from his right hon. and hon. Friends. Of course the background against which we are operating has changed over the past few years. We have taken the decisions that we believe were necessary and appropriate at the time.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It is right that we show compassion and sympathy for the families. It is every parent’s worst nightmare that their children should do as those young girls have done, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the approach of some in the media leaves something to be desired? I am thinking also of the Government’s YouTube videos, which could make more apparent the full horrors of what those young ladies have got themselves into, to try to deter young people like them from going to Iraq and Syria in the future.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we make very clear the dangers and the horrors of what can happen when people go to such countries. Even if people are going to Syria with the best of humanitarian intentions, they can find themselves caught up in horrific situations, including with terrorist groups. That message is important. We have consistently been saying to people that they should not be travelling to Syria and Iraq. If they wish to help and support the people of Syria who have been displaced by the actions of the regime in Syria, there are better ways of doing it. That is a message that we will continue to put out.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Returning to the point first made by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that some of these sick individuals revel in and feel rewarded by high-profile media, does the Home Secretary agree that when young girls like those choose to travel, apart from instances where their identity is needed, perhaps for the public to apprehend them on their route, it would be far better if the media were to report the facts in a more anonymised form, rather than naming those individuals and showing pictures of them time and again?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. A free press is obviously part of what underpins our democracy, but I would expect the media to be responsible in the way in which they deal with such issues in a number of ways. She mentioned the young girls travelling and whether their names should have been revealed. I say to the media that these are important issues. The families in that case are under considerable stress and trauma, suffering as a result of their daughters having gone to Syria, and I expect the media to respect that.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

With Heathrow airport in my own patch, exit checks are very important to me. The whole House, including the shadow Home Secretary, has welcomed the improvements made to TPIMs and to other Prevent measures. On relocation, exit checks and the data and communications changes that we need, the Conservative elements of the Government have been pushing hard to put these in place sooner rather than later. To what extent has the Home Secretary been held back by the Liberal Democrats in coalition?

[Mrs May]

The reintroduction of exit checks was a coalition Government agreement; it was in the coalition Government agreement that we published at the beginning of this Government as one of the measures that we were going to introduce. The draft Communications Data Bill is a different matter. It is a matter of public record that our Liberal Democrat colleagues did not want the introduction of that Bill. That is why we have not been able to do it.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Speaking on the BBC yesterday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball said that the Metropolitan police have always thought that relocation powers were a valuable tool in disrupting terrorist networks. Is the Home Secretary saying that when she relaxed the control order regime, the Metropolitan police never made this clear to her?

[Mrs May]

When we changed the control orders regime we discussed the matter with the agencies and the police, and they were absolutely clear that the changes we were making did not significantly increase the risk.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hollobone]

With regard to the London schoolgirls going to Syria, is there not a mechanism in place whereby parents can apply for a parental watch on a young person’s passport so that if they undertake an airline ticket purchase or present themselves at the airport, an alarm goes off that the parents need to be contacted because the passport is being used without parental consent?

[Mrs May]

I know that parents up and down the country who are concerned about the possibility of their children travelling have removed their passports from them so that they are unable to access them in order to travel. In some cases, that has been effective in ensuring that young people do not travel.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jason McCartney]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; nobody has made the point that I am about to make. Many legitimate people are travelling from these troubled parts of the world, including students from the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq, many of whom study at Huddersfield university. Will the Secretary of State assure me that these security measures will ensure that they are still able to travel to our country and enjoy a world-class education at our universities?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The assumption that has appeared to lie behind some of the points that have been made is that there should be security because any young person travelling is a matter of concern, but of course that is not right—there will be people travelling for perfectly legitimate reasons. In relation to travel to Turkey, I think that about 2 million British tourists go to Turkey each summer, so there is significant movement between the United Kingdom and Turkey, and that is an important part of the Turkish economy.

R v. “Mouncher and Others' Trial” (Investigation)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Written Statements

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

I have decided to call for an independent, QC-led investigation into the collapse of the R v. “Mouncher and others” 2011 trial.

Stephen Miller, John and Ronald Actie, Yusef Abdullahi and Anthony Paris were wrongfully prosecuted and stood trial in 1990 for the murder of Lynette White in 1988. Stephen Miller, Yusef Abdullahi and Anthony Paris were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, while John and Ronald Actie were acquitted. Ronald Actie and Yusef Abdullahi are deceased. The three surviving victims of the miscarriage of justice, Stephen Miller, John Actie and Anthony Paris, are the claimants in this case.

The 2011 trial (R v. “Mouncher and others”) of police officers for offences connected with the 1990 trial, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury, collapsed.

I have asked Richard Horwell QC to carry out this investigation and he has agreed. Mr Horwell is an excellent QC with experience of both prosecution and defence work. He is currently counsel for the Metropolitan Police Service in the Litvinenko inquiry.

He will be supported by a junior barrister, Patrick Hill, from the same chambers, to assist with the groundwork involved.

The investigation team has agreed the terms of reference with the three surviving victims of the miscarriage of justice and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. The investigation will begin on 2 March 2015 and will aim to complete its findings by summer 2015. The team will report to me and I intend to publish the investigation’s report.

The purpose of the investigation is to understand how the collapse of the 2011 trial came about, covering all questions of resources, performance and conduct which were not addressed by the previous investigations. In particular, it will explore:

The reasons why leading counsel for the Crown lost confidence in the disclosure process and the prosecution was therefore abandoned.

Whether 227 boxes of documents were overlooked and the contents not considered for the purposes of disclosure in the prosecution.

The investigation team is calling for evidence to be submitted to the investigation for consideration alongside the significant amount of material to be made available by South Wales police. Evidence should be sent to [e-mail]

I am grateful to the chief constable of South Wales police for the support he has offered to the investigation.

[HCWS312]

Home Office 2014-15 Funding

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Written Statements

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

The Home Office is seeking an advance of £275 million in 2014-15 from the Contingencies Fund under category D of the supply estimates guidance manual to meet its cash funding obligations. The cash advance from the Contingencies Fund is the only mechanism through which the Home Office can meet its financial obligations in March ahead of the conclusion of the supplementary process.

The Home Office has come under significant and sustained cash funding pressure towards the end of the 2014-15 financial year. A number of core and policing pressures have contributed to this. The Department pays out a large proportion of its monthly cash requirement—predominantly police related—within the first week of the month. This leads to a funding shortfall at the start of March, until the additional funds secured through the supplementary become available towards the end of the month. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £66,400,000 and additional cash of £208,600,000 is being sought within a supplementary estimate for the Home Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £275 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS315]

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Written Statements

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

Clause 17 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish factors that she considers are appropriate to take into account when deciding whether to impose restrictions under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 of the TPIM Act (travel restrictions).

The following factors are appropriate to take into account when deciding whether to impose restrictions under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 of the TPIM Act (travel restrictions):

the need to prevent or restrict a TPIM subject’s involvement in terrorism-related activity;

the personal circumstances of the individual;

proximity to travel links including public transport, airports, ports and international rail terminals;

the availability of services and amenities, including access to employment, education, places of worship and medical facilities;

proximity to prohibited associates;

proximity to positive personal influences;

location of UK resident family members;

community demographics.

Decisions about whether to impose travel restrictions on a TPIM subject will be taken on a case-by-case basis and will reflect the need to minimise the risk that the individual poses to the public while taking into account the personal circumstances of the individual in question.

[HCWS287]

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, that this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 39.

[Mrs May]

On the day the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was last considered by this House, news of the appalling events in Paris and the brutal murders at the office of Charlie Hebdo were still unfolding. What followed was a two-day manhunt for those responsible, a horrific attack on a Jewish supermarket and further murders of innocent people. Those attacks were yet another reminder of the very grave threat we face from terrorism, a threat that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. I am certain that everyone in this House is committed to ensuring that the police, MI5 and others have the powers and capabilities they need to keep the public safe. That is why we brought forward the Bill and sought its swift progress through Parliament.

Since the Bill was sent to another place, it has been the subject of robust scrutiny. A number of substantial amendments have been made to ensure that these new powers will deliver the optimum capability for our agencies, and to reassure the public that they will be used appropriately and proportionately. They were all Government amendments, which were broadly welcomed by their lordships, and I hope and expect that they will find similar favour in this House. I will now turn to the amendments themselves.

Two amendments were tabled by the Government to part 1 chapter 1 of the Bill, which concerns the temporary seizure of travel documents from individuals reasonably suspected of wishing to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activity. Amendments 1 and 2 make provision for civil legal aid to be made available where appropriate at the hearings of applications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to extend the 14-day time period in which an individual’s travel documents may be retained. This is an issue in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights took considerable interest. Legal aid is already available for judicial review proceedings in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, subject to individuals’ meeting the statutory means and merits tests.

Turning to temporary exclusion, as I have made clear to this House at earlier stages, the Government are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of this power. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration indicated on Report, we carefully considered the constructive suggestions from David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the matter of judicial oversight, and following that consideration, we tabled amendments to introduce oversight of the power in line with his recommendations. Specifically, the amendments propose the creation of a permission stage, before the imposition of a temporary exclusion order, and a statutory judicial review mechanism to consider the imposition of the order and any specific in-country requirements.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so early, but is not consideration of these issues the job of elected Members—those who bothered to go to the electorate—not that affront to democracy down the corridor whose Members have taken it upon themselves to form Government business?

[Mrs May]

The very reason we are debating the amendments is that the House has an opportunity to consider them, so the hon. Gentleman’s argument is completely false.

During the permission stage, the court would have the power to refuse permission for the order where prior permission was being sought, and in retrospective review cases, it would have the power to quash the order. During the statutory judicial review, the court would have the power not only to consider in detail and quash the specific in-country requirements placed on an individual, but to consider whether the relevant conditions for imposing the temporary exclusion order were and continued to be met. It could quash the whole order or direct that the Secretary of State revoke it. The amendments will ensure effective judicial scrutiny of the power, and I trust they provide sufficient reassurance to the House on this important issue.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

That does provide me with the reassurance I sought at an earlier stage, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having listened carefully to the representations made here and in another place. They are most welcome and I believe will add considerably to the Bill’s legitimacy.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments and recognise that he raised these issues and questioned the original proposals when they were debated in this place.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Alas, I am not quite at the same stage of happy reassurance as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the additional judicial step will not mean that, in the time we understand it will take for a return to be made, people can get back into the country while legal proceedings are ongoing? The purpose was to say to those with a family member subject to terrorist infiltration that if they went abroad it would be a one-way ticket. My concern is that this additional legal step might stop that in some cases.

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend will recall, we have retained the initial decision by the Secretary of State, but, as with the legal process for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, it would then be for the court to consider whether it was right for the Secretary of State to have taken that decision. That process would be followed and then the order would be served, so I do not think that the timing issue, which he is concerned about, would arise.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

If the person against whom the order is sought is outside UK jurisdiction, how would they appeal and what recompense would there be if the appeal is successful and the conviction quashed?

[Mrs May]

The whole point is that such people will be outside the country. The aim of a temporary exclusion order is to ensure that when they return to the UK, they do so on our terms, which is why their passport would not be available to them and they would have to be issued with temporary travel documents. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), the process of judicial oversight would have to be followed before the order is placed on the individual. As I said, these are important additions to the Bill reflecting the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members at an earlier stage.

I now come to amendments 10 and 11, the aviation, shipping and rail security amendments, which provide for direct parliamentary scrutiny of an authority-to-carry or no-fly scheme made or revised by the Secretary of State. Any such scheme would be subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments act on a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Amendments 28 and 29 bring the aviation security powers in the relevant schedule into force on Royal Assent rather than at a later date by order. This includes strengthened powers to request information from the aviation industry and issue security directions, with a penalty regime to enforce them. The threat to aviation from terrorist groups is well documented and continues to evolve. We already work closely with foreign Governments and airlines, as well as UK operators, to make sure that the necessary security measures are in place and are being implemented effectively. These measures will enhance our ability to do so. I therefore hope the House will agree that it is right for these strengthened powers to be available at the earliest opportunity.

There was an extensive debate in the other place on the Prevent duty set out in chapter 1 of part 5. Most notably, debate took place on the potential impact on freedom of speech and academic freedom in universities. The Government listened to those concerns, and amendment 16 ensures that further and higher education institutions must, when carrying out the Prevent duty, have particular regard to the duty contained in section 43(1) of Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to secure freedom of speech.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I hope to say a few words on this subject later if I get the opportunity to do so, but will the Home Secretary tell me whether subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by amendment 16, which applies the duty to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom to the Secretary of State herself in drawing up the guidance, will have a material effect on the draft guidance she has already issued?

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend knows, the draft guidance has been subject to consultation. We received a significant number of responses to the draft guidance, and we are going through those responses in order to make changes as appropriate. The point of building this directly into the Bill is that it makes it very clear to those exercising this duty that we are introducing for universities under Prevent that they must have “particular regard”, as it says, to the issues of freedom of speech and academic freedom. This makes it absolutely clear that the Prevent duty is not overriding, to put it that way, the academic freedom that we all accept our universities should have.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary assure me that when she considers the responses to the consultation, the final document will be so cast that it does not, albeit inadvertently, impede the work of genuine, benign and well-intentioned student bodies such as Christian unions and other groups that are active within our universities?

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no intention to make any impact on the sort of benign organisation to which he refers.

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

The Home Secretary is generous in giving way on this point. I am sure she can understand the concerns raised locally with me, a university MP, and I welcome the renewed emphasis on freedom of speech and on the stronger scrutiny for Parliament in amendment 16. Can she assure me that the guidance will be sufficiently clear for universities to have no uncertainty about their responsibilities under the new legislation?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we intend the guidance to be clear. We have produced the guidance for consultation; as I said, we are considering the responses to it; and we are looking at areas where we need to clarify the guidance. It is important for universities, notwithstanding academic freedom and the need to secure freedom of speech, also to recognise the duty of care they have to students. That is why I believe it absolutely right for universities to be within this legislation and within the Prevent duty that is being put into statute. We will, of course, make the guidance clear, so that universities can operate appropriately.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend’s view on the issue of freedom of speech. Vice-chancellors and others who are in control of our universities are worried about their ongoing duties, so can we ensure that the guidance will not fall into place and further duties will not be placed on our universities until such time as the clarity of the guidance is manifest, even if that means waiting for a further academic year?

[Mrs May]

There is a reason why we are putting the Prevent duty on a statutory basis, and there is a reason why the Bill has gone through Parliament slightly more quickly than would normally be the case. We have made it clear that we have issued guidance for consultation, and that we will respond to the consultation and revise the guidance. We have also made it clear, in the amendments, the particular regard that universities must have to freedom of speech and academic freedom. However, as I have said, I think that universities must also recognise their duty of care to students. I hope that, if students are being radicalised on their campuses, universities will get to know about it and take some action.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have been very generous in giving way, and I should now like to make a little more progress. Let me simply say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the duty is that which is in the legislation, and that the guidance will be revised in accordance with our response to the consultation. The Secretary of State will also be required to have particular regard to freedom of speech and academic freedom when issuing guidance, or when giving a direction to an educational body that has failed to discharge the duty.

Lords amendment 17 allows the Secretary of State to nominate suitable monitoring authorities for further and higher education institutions, and obliges relevant bodies to provide them with such information as they require, including information about the steps being taken to improve performance. We fully expect institutions to co-operate with the authorities, but there may be rare cases in which institutions do not co-operate. Lords amendment 18 provides for the Secretary of State to give directions to relevant further and higher education bodies when they have failed to supply information, and the Secretary of State can, if necessary, seek a mandatory order from the court to enforce any such directions. Lords amendments 14 and 15 provide that the guidance underpinning the duty will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure further scrutiny of it before it takes effect.

There are a number of more minor amendments to this part of the Bill and the corresponding schedules. Lords amendments 12 and 13 would ensure that, if further bodies are made subject to the Prevent duty in the future, there will be greater flexibility to make it possible to focus on particular functions of the authorities, while Lords amendment 19 makes it clear that functions exercised outside Great Britain are not subject to the duty. Lords amendments 34 to 39 tidy up entries in the schedules listing the Prevent specified authorities and the Channel panel partners. Lords amendments 26 and 30 allow the Government to amend those schedules by order at any time after Royal Assent, subject to Parliament’s approval of the changes.

The amendments to part 7 relate to the remit of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and his relationship with the proposed privacy and civil liberties board. They reflect the extensive debate that has taken place in both Houses, and the views that have been expressed by David Anderson QC. Lords amendments 21, 22, 25 and 27 make changes to the statutory remit of the independent reviewer to include areas of counter-terrorism legislation that are currently not subject to independent oversight. They also allow for a greater degree of flexibility in the reporting arrangements relating to the Acts that are within his purview. Lords amendments 23 and 24 make it clear that the independent reviewer will chair the privacy and civil liberties board, which in turn will operate under his direction and control.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I have received several e-mails from constituents who are worried about the speed with which the Bill will be implemented. The Home Secretary has allayed some of my fears, which will enable me to support the Bill, but will she tell us more about the policy and civil liberties board, and about when it will come into effect?

[Mrs May]

I will say a little more about the board later in my speech, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, as certain matters will have to be dealt with, it will not come into effect in the immediate future. As for the amount of time that has been given to the Bill, it has indeed had a faster track through Parliament than a normal Bill, with the agreement of the Opposition. There has, however, been considerable debate both in the House of Commons—and the Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House—and in another place. Yesterday, during the final debate in another place, a number of their lordships expressed their gratitude for the amount of time that had been made available and the amount of scrutiny that had taken place. So I think there has been sufficient scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

On the point of people’s concerns about privacy, we now have a Select Committee, which has done a detailed report on Lee Rigby and has shown it is scrutinising Parliament and the intelligence services, and we now have the civil liberties board. We have tremendous oversight in this country, and is it not now time that we say we have got good control of our intelligence services and we need to let them get on and do the job?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our country has one of the strictest legal structures for dealing with these kinds of matters. We also have significant oversight through the role of the various commissioners and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and through the enhanced capabilities of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which has, through its Woolwich report, shown how it can use those powers to scrutinise in detail what has taken place and report to the public. Our intelligence agencies do a very good job for us every day of the week, and we need to ensure they can carry on doing that job with appropriate oversight, which I think we have in place.

On the privacy and civil liberties board, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), there is further work to be done because we have to consider the responses to the recent consultation on it before bringing forward regulations to establish the board, but I trust the amendments we have made will reassure the House about the Government’s approach to these important issues.

The range and significant nature of these amendments demonstrates the approach that the Government have taken on this Bill. With the support of the official Opposition, we have agreed a timetable to ensure that it will be enacted at the earliest opportunity, but we have also ensured that our proposals have been subjected to robust analysis, and we have listened to the full range of views from all sides of both Houses. The Bill has certainly benefited from that scrutiny.

I welcome the fact that these measures have broad cross-party support, and I am grateful to all hon. Members, and particularly the Opposition Front Bench, for the constructive approach that they have taken throughout our consideration of this Bill.

As I have made clear previously, we are in the middle of a generational struggle against a deadly terrorist ideology. The first duty of Government is to keep the people of Britain safe and this Bill will help us to do so. The amendments made in the Lords will improve the provisions, and strike the right balance between our rights to privacy and security. I invite the House to agree them, so that we can enact this legislation without any further delay.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We, too, welcome the Lords amendments. The Home Secretary was right to commence her remarks by reminding the House of the events in Paris and the ever-present threat of terrorist activity on these shores. It is for that reason that we took a constructive approach to the Bill; we believe there is a threat, and it needs to be effectively managed, and we in Her Majesty’s Opposition give the Home Secretary the support she needs for the work of the police, MI5 and others, which she has sought to give extra powers to in this Bill.

We are also keen to respond to the positive comments made last year by David Anderson, the reviewer of terrorism of legislation. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has listened to the comments made by Mr Anderson, and indeed by the other place.

The Bill was introduced into this House at the end of November. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny or public consultation on most of its provisions and it finished its Commons stages on 7 January. I understand why the Home Secretary has moved quickly on these matters, but the fact that 39 amendments were made in another place and have come to this Chamber shows that some serious issues have had to be reflected on during the passage of the Bill.

We welcome the thrust of the amendments made by the Government, because they are a series of concessions to points made not only in another place—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about that—but in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Indeed. I really do hope that we have something that is workable, that addresses specifically, and on a risk basis, the issues that the Home Secretary seeks to address, and that does not introduce a duty that is inaccessible.

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend a little further reassurance. My noble Friend Lord Bates made it clear in the other place that we would be amending the guidance, and I have made that clear, too. This issue of speakers providing two weeks’ notice of what they are going to say is precisely something that we will clarify as not necessary.

[Mr Heath]

That is a very helpful reassurance from the Home Secretary. I am grateful to her for what she has said. On that basis, I shall now sit down.

Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce Mr David Bolt’s appointment as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. The appointment has been made in accordance with the UK Borders Act 2007 following a fair and open competition. The appointment will be for a fixed term of two years. Mr Bolt will take up post as soon as possible.

David Bolt is currently chief executive of the International Federation of Spirits Producers, an organisation whose purpose is to combat the counterfeiting of its members’ distilled spirits. Between 2006 and 2010 he was executive director of intelligence at the Serious Organised Crime Agency with responsibility for knowledge management, tasking and co-ordination and covert collection. He was deputy director-general at the National Criminal Intelligence Service between 2001 and 2006 with responsibility for the corporate governance division.

[HCWS274]

National Crime Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

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

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, was laid before Parliament on 29 January 2015. The Order extends relevant ‘NCA provisions’, ‘relevant civil recovery provisions’ and ‘relevant investigation provisions’ to enable the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland with full operational powers, including the ability to recover criminal assets, including the ability to request the recovery of assets overseas. The Order reflects a package of proposals that will create clear, transparent and significant local accountability that the Northern Ireland political parties have sought. They are the result of extensive work between the Home Office, the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office, the National Crime Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Following negotiations, led by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, I am extremely pleased to inform the House that on 3 February 2015, the Northern Ireland Assembly gave its consent to the making of that Order.

The Order reflects a package of measures to ensure police primacy, accountability and additional oversight of the NCA’s use of covert techniques in Northern Ireland. The consent given by the Assembly reflects its support for the Government’s aim that the people of Northern Ireland should benefit from a fully operational National Crime Agency, supporting the efforts of PSNI. I would like to put on record my thanks to Assembly members for their support.

[HCWS264]